The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988/12/07 - Agenda PacketJAS i a� :e 1 ;. CITY COUNCIL 1 AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS Ist and 3rd Wednesdays — 7:30 p.m. December 7, 1988 Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga +rr City Courolimcmbers Dennis L. Stout, Pamela J Wright. eran•P -n* Deborah N. Brown, eo— v -1-6r. Charles J Buquet, c-- dr...ma,. William J. Alexander, caw¢imrmur +r• Lauren M. Wasserman, cry .vanyr. James Markman. cayea..a,, Beverly A. Authetet, COY cu.a City 001ce: 989.1851 Uon, Park 980.3141 s PAGE city City Council Agenda }i °,�� December 7, 1988 1 1 All item submitted for the City Couaci .gender mat be in writing. The deadline Yoe submitting is items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wedneaday prior to the wetiag. The City Clark's Office receive: all such items. i A. C&M TO O!9-k 1. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. 2. Roll Ca113 Brown , Buquot , Stout Alexander _, sad Wright B AXMDOgCKIIgNfS/PUSRVWX0YS 1. Presentation by R.C. CASA to Mayor Stout recogniuing his psrticipatiou in the West End Red Ribbon sun Against Drugs Program. ' C. CORSRPf CAUNDaa 1 Tfhe folloving Consent Calendar items are "parted to be routine and non- contraveraLl. They will be acted upon by the Council at ..as time without discussion. Any item may be reroved by a Councilmembor or metier of the audlenca for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutest November 2, 1988 (Ring absent). t. Approval Of Warrants, Register He's. 11 /161 11/23, and 1 11/30/88 and Payroll ending 11/24188 for the total amount of 81,312,464.33. 3. Approval to receive and file current lnvestmear 15 Schedule as of 11/30/88. 4 Alcoholic Beverage Application for On -Sale Beer 6 Wine 23 Eating place for Angelina's Pizza, Robert D. and Base L. Barbon, 9792 19th Street, 5. Alcoholte Beverage Application for On -Sale General 25 gating Place for Kenji's Japanese Restauran., Jim Kenji Deco and Ming -Yueh Deno, 10006 Foothill Boulevard. 6. Alcoholic Beverage Applicatioe far On -Sale Beer 6 Wine 27 Eating Place for Vahlk D. and Vanik D. Sarkinsian, 9610 Center Avenue, Suite 180. UCJ J .,q City Council Agenda December 7, 1988 PAGE 2 7. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On -Sale General P9 Eating Place for Sian Restaurant, Fred A.. Jr. and Ural S. Nelson, 9950 Went Foothill Boulevard, Unit S. 8. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Oa -Sale Beer 6 Wine 31 Eating Place for Jerry's Deli, Jerold R. Harney, 9047 Arrow Route, Space 190. 9. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On -Sala Beer 6 Wine 33 Eating Place for Samurai Sushi, Mutsuko and Yonhinori Iwanogs, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Unit 0. 10. Approval to Lease /Purchase an AquaTech B -10 Catch Basin 35 Cleaner with option "B" free Lew Par Sales and Service of M(ssioa Viejo, California, 92691 authorizing 5 year Lease /Purchase of $30,200.00 /yaar for first year from account aumbcr 01 -4647 -7045. 11. Approval to open escrow with Albert D. and Eileen Wooten 38 for purchase of 2 houses and land at 9807 Arrow Route to remove the houses from the path of the Arrow Route Widening Project between Archibald Avenue and Homes& Avenue and use the remainder for the Arrow Route Neighborhood Center plus relocation costs and escrow costs at a total of $129,000 to be paid fror System, Pats Account No. 22- 4637 -8735 and Neighborhood Park Acquisition Account No. 20 -4532 -8806. 12. App -oval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice 42 Inviting Bids for 19th Street and Haven Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, to be funded from Systems Development Account No. 22- 4637 - 8746). RESOLUTION NO. 88-688 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUE CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFCRHIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "13TH STREET AND HAVEN AVENUE INTERSECTION", IN SAID C17Y AND AUTHORIZING AND DTRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS i 13. Approval to award the Landscape Maintenance Contract for 47 Haven Avenue Median Islands and San Bernardino County Flood Control Wash Ends to Mariposa Landscape, Inc. of South El Monte, California for the amount of $99,000.00 to be funded by Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districts 4 (Terra Vista) and 3B (Haven Median) and General Fund, Account Nos. 43 -4130 -6028, 46 -4130 -6028, M f�`. • es . ?�In .. + 1 -n v 1 .iL �7w•!`,`�".Tt 43" :'YV')ni:}t'i:id Yq Irk _ PACE City Council Agenda s December 7, 1988 3 ,y. i kn and 01 -4647 -6028 respectively for the Haven Median - 1 *s` Islands, and San Bernardino County Flood Control Waeb L;• Eada to be funded by General Fund, Account Number Ol- I 4647 -6028. 3 rq. 14. Approval to award the Amethyst Street Reconstruction, 43 Storm Drain and Traffic signal Improvement Project at ;.' 19th Street and Amethyst Strut to Ifobassaly Engineering Incorporated for the amount of 025,258.00 to be funatu from System Development land 22 -4637 -8729 and SB325 /TDA Fund 12- 4637 -8606. ` 15. Approval to exenuta Plan Checking Contracts with J.F. 51 � Davidson, Associates (CO 88 -211) and B.S.I. Incorporated (CO 88 -212) for Y.Y. 1988 -89. { 16. Approval to execute the Citywide Concrete Repair Annual 52 maintenance Contract (CO 88 -213) to Raynor Electric Company of Su Gabriel to be funded with Maintenance Contract Sorvire - Account No. 01 -4647 -6020. L' ;. 17. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security 53 and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District He. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 88 -18, located oc the vast side of Santa Anita Avenue, 2000 feet north of 4tb Street submitted by Colavic Group. RE80LUr7ON NO. 88 -689 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 88 -18 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -690 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIM CITY UP RANCHO COCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE AIM. RATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINIEMANC6 DISTTICr NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 88- I 18 City Council Agenda y.Or 3 December 7, 1988 PAGE 4 18. Approval of Map, 1"rovement Agreement, Improvomnt 58 Security and Ordering the Annexation to Laadseapa Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13642, located at the east side of Beryl Strout between 19th Street and Base Line Road submitted by His Develop"nt Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 88-691 59 A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY '.F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPSOVIHC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEHINT SECURITY, AND FINAL MLP OF TRACT NO. 13642 RESOLUTIOd 0. 88-692 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION Of CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE I MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AWL) STREET LIGHTING HAINTERANCS DISTRICT NOS. ! AND 2 FOR TRACT NO. 13642 19. Approval to release bonds for Tract 12870 Etivanda 63 Store Drain and Victoria Basin located on the north side of Highland Avenue between Etivao +a and East Avenue Faithful Performance Bond (Sturm Drain) $821,000 Labor and Material Bond (Storm Drain) $&119000 20. Approval to accept Improvements and release Maintenance Guarantee Bonds fort Tract 13131, located an the northeast corner of Arrow 64 Hiahwy and Vineyard Avenue Maintenance Cuarantat Bond (Street) 9 7,250 Tract 11781, located on the northwest corner of 19th 65 Street and Hermosa Avenue Matatenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 9,200 I Tract 12091, located at the northeast corner of 6th 66 Street and Grove Aveaua Maintenance Guatantne Bond (Street) $ 10,200 Ss°'As a iA w 'r 1 .� ra City Council Agenda December 7, 1988 PACE l to scoeyt Inprovev.ents, Release Bonds, and otice of Cosplation fort 8680 located on the east aide of Ramona rIPUBLIC 67 outh of eaee Line Road thful Par£ormarre Bond (Street) $ 31,000 RESOLUTION N0. 88-693 68 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Or TOE CITY RANCHO CUCA)MCA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE INPROVRmmr$ FOR FARM NAP 8680 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOIICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WOP.K DR 86 -13 located on the east aide of Vine and Avenue 69 batveen 9th Stra et sad Arrov Route and on the orth a de oC 9tt dCrest eret of Vineyard Avemie Faithful Performance Bond $ 16,000 Storm Drain 165,400 Street ImprovnaenLS 40,800 RESOLUTION N0. 88 -694 70 A RESOLUTION OF �U CITY COUNCIL OF TIM CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC INPROVBME NIB FOR DR 86 -13 AND AUTHORIZING THE TILING OF A NOTICE OP COMPLETION FOR TUB WORK Tract 13192 located on the north side of Terra Vista 71 Parlcvey east of Spruce Avenun Releseet Faithful Performance Pond (Street) $158,000 kcccptt Naintonance Cuaranree Eond (Street) $ 15,800 Egg- gg ON er F- YL«� pace d City Council Agenda December 7' 1988 6 k. a{ai .,fir 72 �• gggOLUTION H0. 88 -695 A FESOLIRIOR OF THE CITY CALIFORNIA. lCCEP LHCCTTYIIE OF RANCHO CUCANORG&, CALIFORNIA' AND PUMIC INPEOVENENTS FOR TRACT 13192 FILING OF NOTICE OF AUTUORIZIHC THE COMPLETION FOR THE NORR Q i 22. Approval of Parcel Map 10230' and Crdering the Maintenance District Mo. 3 and 73 t° Annaraticn to Landsunps Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 For „ Street Parcel N p 10238, located At the northve +t corner of by Foothill Poulavard and San Diego Avenua, submitted y, Cucamonga County Natur District 74 •• ( RESOLVTION NO. 88 -696 Rgg,)LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY A APPROVING OF RANCHO CUCAMONCAr PARCEL MAP PARCEL MAP M@0ER 10238 (TZHTATIVE �• N0. 10238) 75 RESOLUTION NO. 86 -697 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tag CITY A NC O T OF RANCHO CUCAMO N GA' LANDSCAPE ANNEgAT::OH O' CERTAIN TERRITORY TO 3 AND LIGHTING FOR PAR CEL HAIMAHCE DISTRICT NOS AND 6 F P NAP 10239 23. Approval to tmthorire the City Managar or desiguee to State Department of Criminal Justice' 78 aeceas through: the information rngardiug arrase records of Prospective amp'loyees or for licensing purposes. 79 RESC'UTION NO. 88-698 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CRAMING OF RANCH) CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCHORIZA7IOg TO 7'dE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO ACCESh• STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL HIVORY OF EHPLOYMEHT, INYORHATION FOR PURPOSES LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION I i1 D. CONSIST 'EDINAHCRD PAGE.'ty City Council Agenda , December 1, 1988 7 1. The following Ordinances horse Lad pah2ic hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to he mutim bd nom-edutrovmrsial. They will be acted spot by t1w Coamcl.l at one timid without discussios. The City Clark will read the title. Auy it" one be revved for discusaiom. I. ENVIRONMENTAL "SESSMSMT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88 -07 - AHMANSON DEVELOPID NTS, 21Ci - A request to pre-gone spprorimetely 53 mores of vacant lend located at the scuthvast corner of Etivands Avonuo and 25th Street to Low Density Residential (2-4 duelling units per acre) - APR 225 - 082 -01. ORDINANCR NO. 378 (second reading) t AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 07 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECONKENDINO APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88 -07 (AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, INC.) A PRE -ZONE L,P APPROXIMATELY 53 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST COL49R OF ETINANDA AVENUE AND I 25TU STREET TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FI1fDINC9 i IN SUPPORT TUER_LSOF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CO 88 -194) 88 -03 - AHNkXSON DEVELOPMENTS. INC. - A request to approve a Developmeat Agreement. ORDINANCE NO. 377 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE 07 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 80 -03 (AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, INC.) VZa APPROXIMATELY 53 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 25TH bTREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TUEREOP 80 82 L 1 PAOH tI• City Council Agenda Decerber 7. 1988 I 8 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT_ AND DEPBLOPMMNr DISTRICT AMENDMENT 88-04 CPRE -20N8) - CARTH COMPANY—CMWANDA HICNWICp3 - A request, to pre -zono appros tely 54 dvolling units on about 282 acres of vacant land located at the northeast cornar of 24th Street (8umit Avenue) and Mardaan Bullock Road to the Etiwnda Highlands Planned Coouunity - APE 226 -082 -16 and 24 -27. ORDINANCE 110. 386 (second reading) ,ti I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY a OF RANGED CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DDA "2 08 -04 CALYX COMPANY, A PRE -EONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 282 ACRES Of LAND LOCATED AT TPA �f NORTHEAST CORNER OF 24TH STREET (SUMMIT P' AVENUE) AND WARM(AN BUVLOCK ROAD TO PANED 91 COMMUNITY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ACREBMBMr (CO t, I 8P -199 84 -02 - CARYN CUMPAW - A request to approve a Development Agreement for Lb& Etivanda Highlands Planned Co ®unity. ORDINANCE NO. 379 (second reading) I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT 1GREBMENT 86 -02 (CARYN COMPANY) FOR THE ETIWANDA HIGID"ANDS PLANNED COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 546 DWELLING (N7:T8 ON APPROKIMLATELY 262 ACRES OF VACANT LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORKER Of 24TH STREET (SUMMIT AVENUE) AND 10RDMAN BULLDCK ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 3. PROHIBITION OF CULOROFLOOROCARBON PROCESS8D PACKAGING Prohibiting ehlorofluorou�rbone (CFCs) in proceued foo packaging. ORDINANCE NO. 371 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF TIM CITT CCUNCI: OF THE CITY OF RANCUO CUCAMONGA. 'ALIFORNIA. AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE RAHCLC CAMONGA MWN:CIPAL CODE BY ADDINO A NEW PTHR 8.22 ENTITLED "PROHIBITION OF MB. FLVOROCAREON PROCESSED PAr, sr:flV 95 97 r, I PAGE City Council Agenda December 7, 1988 9 4. C7rY -WIDE SMO1aNG OP.DIKAA�* - Aa Ordinance permitting evoking in car tarn Paeilitia. and areas in the City. ORDINIACE 110. 334 (second reading) AN ORDINARCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY OF RANCIO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ADDING CHAPTER -1.21 TO TITLE 8 OF THE "SCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SMOKING WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNCA E_ -JiD79VISND PUBLIC HEARINGS Tne following items here been advertised and /or posted as public hearings as raluired by law. The chair will cpsn the meeting to receive public tootirony. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSt9SY.3NT ABD VARIANCE 88 -16 - PUL9AR- Appeal of Plann ng Coale• on 's decision approv ng a request to reduce fie minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 94 Peet and 95 fact for two lots in conjunction with a residential subdivision of 154 single family lots on 71.33 acres of lanj located vast of Etivanda Avenue between Summit and highland Avenues - APN 225 - 161••35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55, 61 and 225- 171 -01, 09, 30, 17. Continued from Novester 16, 1988 agenda. RHVIRONID;NTAL ASSES.INENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR - AppAal of t.,e Planning Co®iesion a decision approving a residentia subdivision of 154 single family lots on 71.33 acre: of land in the Very Low Residential District (102 dwelling units per acre) of the Etivanda Specific Plan and the Low Residential k;enoral Plan Designation (2-4 duelling units per acre). Continued frost November 16, 1988 agenda. REUOLUTIO11 NO. 88-699 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NAP N0. 13812, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 154 S NGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 71.33 ACRES OF LAND IN TIE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1 -2 CWELLI110 UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PL/N AND THE LOW RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIG&%rION 12-4 D ;.LUNG UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED IRIS: OF ETIWANPI AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HICNh AND AVENUES, AND 131 138 138 169 M L64 _i6♦ 1 — PAOE City Council Atenda Detester 7, 1988 10 MArINC FINDINC9 IN SUPPORT TFIEW'SOB — AP-11 t 225-161 -35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55 AND 61, Ah'D , 225- 171 -01, 09, 10, AND 17 2, HNVIRONls3NTAL ASSRbONBNI AND COND=IONAL USE PERMIT 88- 190 " AND {D16LLBA ARCNIT6CTS - appeal of the ?. FlaminII�on n decision approvAng the dovalopsent of a retail center and service station totaling 41416 .,, square feet on 0.69 acres of land in the Community the Foothill Commercial District (Subarea 2) of Boulevard Specific Plao, located at the touthwat corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avems - APB 208 -192- 06. Continued free November 2, 1988 agenda. ( I ENVLRONWHrAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 98 -09 - WNEELHR Planning I90 (; AND WHEELER AkCUIT8 CI6 - AppeaL u! the dec approving i request to reduce the b I Comm ssioa s aim required parking setback aloe& Foothill Boulevard frmm line from ,1 50 feet to 40 fast and along the rear property 15 feet to 5 feet for a retail center and service station in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the %r southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Continued from November 2, 1988 Avenue - APN 208 - 192 -06. agenda. 3. EMVUiOMNENr A87+ISSgENT AND CONDITIONAL U6S PERMIT 89 -28 191 - Apireal o£ Plannia6 Comiam ion a decis on =PBNRY donyiag the davalopment of a 5,915 mqunre foot retal An existing building on .52 acres of land within shopping center in the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Spc� if:.c Plan, located on the southeast - APN cornet of Foothill 8eulavard and Malachite Avenue 208 - 261 -20. Coat .aed from November 16, 1988 agenda- 4. 'R ENVIR11NM8NT(!M) ANAl. ASSESSMENT D ENVlkOMIENIAL 209 IMPACT FEPORT EI0. POR TUS RANCHO CUCAMONU G:NERAL PLAN TECllNiCAL UPDAYB - A tompreheneive sb,dy to identify the cnvironmental characteristics and constraints of the General Plan area. As an WA, the i document will provide a central source of current information to assist in identifying long environmental area wide, and cumulative impacts of individual 1 range, projects proposed in the General Plan area. a3 ,1101 pAdCH ` r City Council Agnmda December 7, 1088 11 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -700 222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CLYY OF RANCHO CUCAKOMGA, CALIFORNIA, APPFDVL40 TEE CERTIFICATION OF THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSHCHr AND EMVTRONMM%L IMPACT TEPORT FOR TEE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND }APING FrHDINC3 IN SUPPORT THEREOF 5. GENE1AL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONCA 226 - The project is the preparation, revinp and adoption of a technical update of the General Plan consisting of statistical information and implemiatation measures, and revisions to the Comaunity Design section of the Land Use and Davelopmeut Element. RESOLUTION NO. Pe -701 234 A RESOLUTION OF THE Cm COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, JALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OP THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 6. ENVIRON)ENTAL ASSSSSMENr AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMERL4MYr 235 8888_07 - An amendment to Title 17, Chapter 17.04, of tbi Rancho Cucaoonga Municipal Code permitting the use o' on- street parking for model home sales offices meeting certain criteria. ORDINANCE NO. 385 (first reading) 255 AN ORDINANCE Of THII CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONCA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17, CRAPTBR 17.04, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITTING THE USE OF 011- STREET PARE:NO FOR MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICES MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA i 7 PROPOSED INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT TIM JERSRY BOULEVARD 257 STORM DRAIN - Stom drain 11cated between Utica Street and led Oat. Avenue within assessment district 82.1 and ' I award of said contract. II RESOLUTION NO. 88 -702 260 A RESOLUTION 07 THE CITY CQ"WCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING CERTAIN CHANGES AMID MODIFICATIONS IN THE WORE Ih A SPECIAL AS6ESSIENT DISTRICT — ,1101 PAGE City Council Agenda December 7, 1988 12 a_ 38SOLUr!OH NO. 08 -703 1 262 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OY TES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGI, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR TUB CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS OP IMPROVEMENT IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT F. PUBLIC NLEINCS The following items have so legal publication or posting requi•emmmts. The Chair will open the watiog to race'" public testimony. MINOR DEVELOPMENT VEVIEW 87 -71 - CONMERCLAL CARRIERS. 263 INC. - An oppeal of the conditions of approval for the grading and paving of approximately 12 acres of Ind for outdoor storage within the Minimum Impact /Heavy Ioduatrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the youth side of Joraey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenues. RP.BOl.UYION 110. 88 -704 304 A RESOLUTION OF TIZ CITY COUNCIL OY THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM%CA, GILIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPKZMT REVIEW NO. 87 -71 LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT /HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DIBTVTCT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC FLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 2. GNAFFITI ORDINAMCE - Contimued from November 16, 1988 I 307 meeting ORDINANCE NO. 383 (first reeding) 1 309 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE BANr,NO COCAMON ' I'TMICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NE4 CHAPTER t 24 PROVIDING A PROCRAM FOR THE "kMVAL OF GRAFFITT AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIALS FROM WALLS A?k STRUCTURES ON BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PhOPBRTY i N i risjul PAGE` - Cit1,aceober17, 1988 13 J ♦ 4 t !A ✓,�Y C. CM )AXACKR'S STAN 0?ORTS Yhs following itnas do not legally ragaire any public 1 . •tiswny, altbouph the Chair my open tha meting for p•.hlic input. 1. CONSIDERAT 1100 or NRNEERSRIP APPLICATtON VOR GU.TYORNIA r' 312 ' CONTRACT CITI68 ASSOCIATION. :e 2. CONSIDERATIOY 07 PARTNERSHIP IN LITIGATION WTTN 313 ' CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITI3S ASSOCIATION TO ZORSECT INEpULT1E8 IN PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATIONS POLLONINU THE PASSAGE OP FROPOSIIION 13. 3. CONSIDERATION TO DELAY APPROVAL OF NEW LIEUTENANT'S 320 POSITION. 4. CONSIDERATION OF APFOINTN6N'T OF A SUE- CONNITTEE TO 321 RHVIEW CITY ENTRY M(N(ISffih ?ATION I. COUNCIL RU87NRSL The following item have been requested by the City Council for diseuuion. They are not public hearing item, although thu Chair my open the meting for public input. 1. REPORT nN CITY STRUT SWEEPING PROCILIN. (Wright) 322 2. REPORT ON TTR DISPLAY OP I_- MT VIDEO COITRL Ceattonad 326 frca November 16, 1968 retina 3. CITY COUNCIL COXHITTEE APPOIN "lBN1'S 327 I. IDMUICATION OF MM, FOR NEXT )BITING This is the tine for City Council to ideotif7 the itea: they wish to discuss at the next meting. These item will not be discussed at this, moetiog, only identified for the next me[iog. risjul i a- Ci 7 ' r , city council At ode December 7# 1988 0 14 J.' CatpMCAVOM FRW Tit PUBLIC Ibis is the time end place for the genecal public to address the City Council. state law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue mot piaviooaly imcludad oe the Ageads. The City Council my receive teatimmuy +md set the utter for a subsequent msat£rS. Cemaants are to be limited to five minutes ptr lsdividual- r; L AD.70UenS" h Beverly A. Authelets City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucasongat hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on December 2. 1988, seventy -tvu (72) hours prior to the meeting per Coverement code 54953 at 9320 -C Due Line Road. s s +as .. ;. "• .. =�. {'.• _ (y y. ...s l;� �._ a � }fl,�; ��`y ^'�-�T .I�f.X*��_Y-J,`l• I�� - fit. a � _. 3nFq`�s�c. y `YJ °m.i AiyJ lr � NIYiNJU Y N <N 11 �Y �a ��OUYMmN+YlNYOONNrNO±ONiJ Ni JlV +OYJNV Jrm +PPp p +°VJp MlrMPOi virP IY' P ;�'•± wOOyDO r Ir P ••Y Y.A., y,,,� YJI:T YnnOJO rmY 000m CM >D/°wnAT.f} n'IaTr �m � � r 1}111 � >w ^r pCCn YAY >NN.(NnnyNy<fmnnTn >�` '-lJrl rMn r I y �. ��6: '. i 1 w wvnriaiaOpmm Sr0 -fnw own a�w yOy QQy00'��Nf[OfDZII1nNnmYwT ^ YO > }YOSO >T r�(�� >n 1 Z, I �{ 1 , �+1 Z�1�Y _YINi >0111m_O10Jy TO N IISNZ �^ ` } � r-ml ra�D icrr >S Ny Nw mSJNllplC T m mm >Z� A > I L D al nO��w3 CTrYL owPC inNmyyr^�oK> •t<o A� SO <T T i N A t ; w ° i r � ----------- --- Or9mtiml9_ CjyJ 9 294 S jy y cam <ammYNy i'n�yyNprr^yrNGi ry f'mFarNm2 Vr AO ^r r- T >OT Y a 13 �f(=. I�HmN2 µ9N'11 Mn^ImJN a'�n�IPY C OO �Oify y p 1 O T >oiNT}mm <N_N ywaO waaNST N T4 =S �„T r� � 1 N O�V° TJyT a >p�vDr'� a r< 3m n OO >} b ID %'1 DrCy OmiS< y cyNOrsNC < MT ^yi nnP n d Y I!^ NJn � �sul°.aHii w Ybaa TN JtDN�NCIrYIia 2 v ni i 9yNw ny ZP '+CN `Op TyTYI NaD3i CT TNT ON � Nn^ T mnTJ N OS °C n� ivrmo ^ D NT 1 nn vw n nY N 1 >n o e °Usia � ° �vry `wvo. ° e o i 3 °° zaa-la a ya oP � rsi i 1 riri wi� °a ° r nT T+ Pv c SN m E NNNNOS00� �€ 1. a'..o°00000°ooaei- il�:aOU °'i' °• Mv�+fl I � N +NU.N -oao +o aiwulrYroieJm Nl YVr v iF o N u OOVV • rOr VP O n O NNOy POm OrN VUOJ +OMO ONrdp -' uSOSPN M INY o J' r ly OJOd YOV NMOrV+�dti000mP001O NONJOOOOONrJ +P000On0 NOOVM o�. -000J +000ON -I P°OOOd+ O O O ° 1 I uNO�vovoobydovYYOOO C� lr � r �.P It•, P+ . .i G 6 i .,.N ,�._�� a} -, it er -..• ✓, � "', ✓�t7 •- �ur �i.�rr�i ivira o�i a osN N,�a WNa Pa P: ra w.a•.`/r i •` Prr aYw N- >rur+NOaw NN:rJrw WN NYewur:ua�ru s v 1 . }yyN aYe �/V JOr JNPMONP Pyr NNO SJ. P` }INOJM ✓O aaa{Y�� ; � P OOOS ...... y NSV or rrr Trt (•�•r ENO PSSL I m O LSr > zw cz <T ^S >N> CMn no a >A <- •raT<eoNT>y otim >z r>^osTrTmm 1 inzAmrr >mTOS e�'�> i s�i�� t,t a`N+T j >T^'Daera Arzmnz•+•�> ;rz�r��r�mr i /i _ zz N Tr Nr22 iMT iNf __ ^ • �4T^ >�p .• rr0�.1'(Yr^• rPO rTi T O) 92•Tr >N r00 / y °STi ()�Y•�Mn Or�A ^^^�'�T�ON< °YLSIE •r2P N° ° .A..°•��TFn• 5T ^$m <i'nz.�Fzp N8'"Tr y.`oF m� a$o Qmim � w ^n � z=/T ^ .. ./ �wi a .nm m� '�mni y�.N•• i ns N_p < C y X209 w 1-^>• ON N2_ "•OPA N / N N p • (f A i T ^n r P ::. �° ACniom •Ang�ymil: °.ono'i`v ° ^•n•`m is °co °oeccse ^ter � r{`n°. ^'.sizs° n > ^i eNz.s -z.°•� °•>•.vy ^zm c3.'• °°° °��'A�nK• 1 c NON mr°-z rg irp1rr� ar D•n �n N3 o: °ms•^.r.r.•A r» im y or >nra�mr zo <yON On•n �pN zi�zyY�.^.•'^..N.Pao.N..'..^r a.^i °D V(.i��^n v�.^i .r+»s <zr oN oexoZ�`•r °> oN ' °T ymTa m mmY �^Orr'yma Dm2 ArN rNi�/r >VN SnaFi .ymT mpNAT' iN pN<Ni T/`/ry P°G ^G^ VGTCr STr >M S`i N<Y «OSO ;D rNmiT SOr >flP ^C NT L T O yTyYrm TO ^Y•Z+nvo STMO "Ym wa9^•i>i3N-°A•NQ N N<yS�F FNY ZMF NN^P•Nn 1 ' CT O(/f TNP 4 T Am•NiT S > •°i D 1 O Ny r••'i0 N } NpiN2w 3 OT n• O ° G O T mwn � � �Si• m rP mP In .S• r(lnm / y }� T r -• n i z a •iii N•" r w Zt � r N M w e � � MNNNMNNNNNNNNN mn !! NNNNNNN .:i�oP'eeo�ae�u��s�P � °>.•°o °u •PI °•°. •°. i°.••°.•r @•°.0 P.'.a «•°.°•e i Yz °O >us•`�.•:: » °o anti- °.aai�i•aw`a- /�i °anw.ow.°. i•°•r°.•� °o aeriaai•r.•w.Y -ocw Pi i /'i i i iz / > v .. •, r W W N r i s > NOao Ny }.VU NNOVr AaN OVe . -.at! -.at! r vN NNr�•.Nr•Mrwl u (1P^VYMJV YUO VOMIVVNrNWOP4o SwO rrV PMUJPaN ly .N,o2 +�aasoiow��oo asyp°•.°�oa��u2••MOa °uva. aO °� +�oi�vio / ■ M, N NNU Oy1.• IOn O NNNN n000p0 O 023232 mar- a+aa4rliwN U.ri ro rower y.lo arrlu: I r �N:rudfu.+r yuod d m rvraNfyf NVSPpNP 1 Di � VPdNfrPNrVyPmNdJNq Y..I I.O pda 1> V yy 1y P iNYn if (�aawm) »��ai�DpID'ISTTIMIY> I T s �sr_zwzy•2 <wyz (z1a�IZOy3 �IDDynnnn 1 r ;m sYNN eiSp Dmu2mT zimTr i Ir. +� >T �Y ov i i(� »Np gmarrm 1 yC N/.. _I _DD rn• O .•1T N"1>t[ >yNNp�nr 1 N itDO 4mnm >y�3.IrSY ^V }SON 1ja j ^ ^OZnr n >YNN DrmN m >mD ON ��b 10"M Zp TIia iTO Tn NI•� N Rm�NO '�r OC 1 > 3nozLDZ �e ^in A T Izn z w-^i i a 9 N S mN p Z 1 N ^ r D I y 2 N{Z'1� sail 2 n C•mnn N(1N it rOSmO OSNtlO TY O N azaTT ......... y aoMNrrpve••.�A� 'nn�T z mP' i3 <v'm�ewmiv v <'N a >T aO Trr Nw•N ONOm O Op p f p m TT nT rTN ^ am � mT�TDA� I^ D N AN y2• d Hers ^nDRp•FTNN�NY ANT � r ,. n� inn nrWn n n y nn n Nn n` nnn nn i on zvancyry o 0 ov p o oP ovv vv i Ty m�T�T Na•T Izn m Tz s i To zii ii � o m a .'�aA a1a� a D a •� as a s ass an 4N NNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN O�Of iiii lw JP•Im•w10•imti�im.. m.j�000+�00��mOJ O �+•Mj.y NrOYmrO MI.y NNOdm�IP NNNNN N�r�rr��r r.f+00 1 PVNrOdO _1P Ni.VNrOdO 1 1 rN ddPU�Vdr r••4mJPOVWrr Orr r00 rw rf,�NJ I PyOPPPN..nl yl m ON i.J dO OfNOrN+�•y NON J. I o OUVNpNOI•d papfpf�IdppWpfdm Odry rNmPfNf PV Of OdfrOOdV OPONmOOVOOm0 ..1NN wV• }OOI.O I C Nf ONO. .UPf400VfOJdd000NOOmVPNPONfpy4P I T A a z n A O 3 > 9 0 n 3 J 2 N ddPiW•1WP0 J.PVJi..p WWPVPJ• � H a 4y YNYOp.IN iurifWW"y.1"NJNWVl� y iYff iyf JNrPrOPUJPNNP 1Y rr •n P (ATM MTTTi.<.r "<S.. nyN PyPN 1 Fr P • /I O SArny > P «fps NNNAwzrr.D.z �ii��ss'g 1 ° ' :,".2 N N.a %TTT" >r "nD "A.y D� 1 r .,r < DT <r.zzcKv u •.�� xznejv ass >.'� ar."..> � .°r P °s -R-P-2 .0 a aye <w >�r a n «c ( > z$yrDrrn „na PD a ao Ti z • i oa�n z wNs nz° ° n '« n � c Y Sr n O n 1 n a i i Pnr�RDNNwNaznv Ynazr v r i-s .. apTCieb. <i >P2mm aka °a wi�� i y•'r ^P N50 aS .•2900...T prrY .ry >im`nY nr N<D "aaADPA rNfl iriy9Y OYpr�N� > 1 2N.r.rzN N�iNin «P . a ..NN,v^a oR DNy�N n �NVne «g Fi i °m 2<ir2" ;m.7 9D � NNN9 ns° T YTN P N PaTem a z �r".$�i • �Orrr i n °c on •`•o'•nz YT 9 w2 T •°. u� ° ° Sr0 a ° r n n M > N e « N N NNNN NN 0 NNN NNNNNNNNN /aNNNN °°OpOb= 00000.+0±±000�0 rOdOMPP ° °PPPNUUgNMrliruNN1 PMlWN�OiOrPNSUNrOd 0 P d V ! uN � r • d OrOWMdP ruONNrI.rP MOOOy�OUV 0 OPOP ipO adr00 °OpOd000JNMW6 OVOON000f NyP0 n n z^: _C P 2 > O A > M _. .w �Y�x � \. �,65; �..�f' ..� .. is p:G �• - \YA°\.,�.�y .. Wt�Yy "YM_~ •� ��1�..\'�f. �,i ��'S�.'"i'Y,y.�,•• . Ya *1y -I l.�.i �'_�'�{ ytl '� may, r. OVNLJJ pN NNN.>J OtiMJUy ru°oPU NO WyN w yrpu � N � 1 .P:r •.� r . uHU WNyfrN JyP V.p uOPe VJ°LfV NNNJO°r VV�Nµµ NNI P O 004'1PPPNH 19111.1 � �M��' 4�� p' na Ommeap as0 >syoT Ny>tT >y p �. l Lnr° w �n i�T "� \y +!I';"T cn....lmt>� ae x>r rr..Mn �� .. � i, 1'm. •� tQ� n•nmrr ai-�m ralmrr >T�o sYC�mawTra..°n ro ocrm +T rN>A"'ov i n >i,f. i ^r ar >.. > .� •\ n TniLo >•o xzmco nn'rrcziv oN °v �nwz m O { Ku a°c' >mO KmrV «Ag! n.. aN rT Y>•i•^1"di i r x !xl N��a r�12n zc S n KKT 1 a r. zaom N�NZi o za 'n S '\• Him _ �.{ .�v �\o....s. n � Lr i or' 'v' nn� n i n i \} >cpvcxanvTt apace p ._ ony^ .�vrKV m..v tCy yyT O:o> 1°On9PR VnrO .°. 1 yv< 29TH Nxii:prOr >Nr >mr Gl nN�rOmr S.til .x4K.aj<� ° O O OOmD aNt Y \Ip N�1N NrNLrN N»m M >y (� A >r y OO Tw Om> OMOt=t xE�x� g «r« A 9 a ncn�zz. T N my nn ama it �'mz T.om ; a zKe.w .°. > TMT y•+• n Om u m P 1'1 1 .•1 D T b � rs n r m NS S N N y > 9 N M M w N N •� yj.� O 1 0°OP.Y +i Npm { f .fnMn.pi.ypj.mj.ib6pn =w 01>OOpp Opp pN it wO ji M J000 GJ.p JaO LJiJ Dp 11 POp is P.>Irfjfiy.IYVJNMb �M Nr Oep VPNf VNr�CO VP NJUN�0e0: ID O :: iV:r :NOe� S p 1 � r oP or o!N r$a aPf Y�$'r 1 afp.. NoPOWCNOro 000i rs a` c 4 r woo%+e ,m'aNi v NoroWfeor ory «vn. rNO O:.o ��. > oo•.o NO v W < 1 ! I I _'_� �Jyz.�'x��j�t. �, 1 ,..._ ., e:rt S, -x•nv: +t i.��i� —JC' L s 1 o� ^M.i u•`J)asro `or.ouuor ruaNmo.`.•u.iva mr iu u.. ` ouPO1°+aov- w.°..o}.P -iwa u +�io.°,Iwsu �.o.INn- u.- ml >vNi m�-`I +o. °u.P.:ii°+oiJ.°e :i, 414 }r }TT }rn0 NxYL000yO T'n SP Ym111m0> Oln2nl�^Nnnn '�� OI, SSSmG � ppp _ O pYrmn >nm2� pA 00 O^ ' 1m:• tn000f }n O TN"�� T ^'1�SSI'Sn N..ly 2L� >O if\ 34 1 N % % %i9 )F. T i-.•1r 02'+nm2r 2 Si•t2T 1 _! )L OIKp..Ti \p�Y�\\'r 2KmKYYOp O"'Yn p2YwnOPP 1 OC �GmNf)\n tl- MmrY yY 02Y392OL�e�NOCTmn 222y2 1 y aC nTY.1mx Tmrf12 N2.+nC }I-O .•C1r KKyn'yrym 1 T n Y19'S NT yYn P.. »r)nLnSr mmwYm O. CY 1 L Z` STp nr(f >�SM pmw zLn pp.i+M a 1 QN K9Caa2Y o -•yS f �� c >�"nnnS2((\\ �y r 1 Y tl {a�nVCy N� .+C N \N On�L Vm ~ N� Cm N[102a i21C rwi OmVNN O� 'r un' N 1 f 9w < y Z f tiS0 (Si _a )ioi <m:' 1f' y <Yln••tlni• �"' N~ m : N S 1 n�Si• S m .• N n w 1 2 I y � 9 N 1 T 1 1<NnanNON9ONymsONVN.w9y1;vNN'N /enNOO +P00..} 1 p.+wCmmOC mCf DmA22YCAC1•.'r 4YCQA^)<OC >mCfnANm I nezAmapo ��ir »oas) a -sKO ianaoa._•pwK 1 ^C�Tm }r�CAI`n� Sr+.9C ',nnrr +yJ 9.w \ly> > SI-l)} SmyYV ^r PN PY p9��Ny »Tw1 m ;.• wi wN9LrOTf1 nTm Tn On OLT� ArrNNm% M MNO n -+N MN NN.Nn`r • -rlmi. N�.-.» .-FY r` -i�iNi _e )vg yni :� Nom p' :Omy M n' >m'or I:E '222N:.�:;`,o_ Y'2 G1n• A6� CCP Ov T1 In O m NT .n..2 An 1 n n n n nnn ynn nn n ynn m no nn w 000 p O X00 20P 00 O_ i�1 O 00 mi Txz T T x2ni z Tun SZ vn _L z pTx PO x zz ei i aan a n a I a aAn u A is vy arw er - n Yr v? .in f w MSN rNN 1N N n ✓N Y1i rN O 1 p n NYNNNUN NN4NUVNN .JYYUN4N4 NN4YN YNNNNN ;� "'SOSOmmmOm� umiu�N �.mnMMN U'>.mj•nMmNMM NmiNN.mi.mmm �°• °N .°n JU°, »v�N��PP�� », z )N)u4�oao +avu•�uuJ.`.o ao 4ia ui Y..um. 'd"AO `la ii.`+:•:- .00 °a °.°. a° °s : ♦ Y uPOr �vOs � UJ.c eNOU:nNV .Yi °o : 0 CdeueO yN aPw+ Po o a ou u _s u �r'[�-•• ' i9" r"_ w`'"'; y. i�g.` r�`., y4 }, "i'�h-�C�.tY�,�:A= +�r'a,i.: is " ✓ 'y'�:y `.4it.ir -sue , y.'i 1- 7S...: � iw;.' �= MY =bOr�VMNrYrOPP YNfyNN NyY.OT�ObP WOb »f»rrM +`I .;»c� lrNpV OYP V+O WVp WrV JYJ.fwONNb NPNNNV Iq `�' ,V N„ OPP'rOP.JO V+TYb LN NrN MYy NNNb Nb MOl PO» ;T' /�� 'T \f� m'YNN`y.N Na'A)AyA1r11101pp000in S�1 Y1rJt mONr T�:b� n j'lti >s »ySZ xOg y...nf n� m yT�� zzny<lrcz< myn. «TNY oy� Yz a aD��'o .i m�ov'ra�w' IQnS a :DgnN Za-1 �-ziz v>i n°>��roi i .i'.i 'jp.r �a »q�'NTm < «ra NOEyon.z » »mm »a g�.°.iym1N :. J °S � "�z vz nnyrosyan » »Yn -.sm "zY i yl'"+ X`t+.i t »z A �i nia'.°.rn".Y.nCcin " i ^mei...z.'m'm rz mzNn nnr�nrsi ' .°? 1. %c Y . OG. y 10r1T'nSSp.- �3 e.+C . 9 D f >=n Cw.ON 00< gw.Oryy yz..�""" ./* g �.z �s�y.n�mmzg n. au nii na zi qo on r 1Gt i �.qaD -nr « yin Nt 'nmyzL 1 "S \.1 Y° NsO w2TT�y'Sr AO °A »r r �N`�n O O j OYEN •qV° m C 1 / �: t io -zi y�a � 'n>t'•Ja ° v mm t 1 iA A q0 S tit Ny'.°.o°..°.rAaci�ni "og��ay ygs�zvc,c °za >a+D. °nnyn�+z iYx i_ -. »YYN ...� -7 ° >q .'.r.c e-NO ;Fw� Nmy� »rNq»NN zNNO V'nlNn.°.. nn.nz SN NNE rra��.m..n nn°'T t w A-.Pmr cNa rr�.r nr-.�n H" vD nD wynN n xmq fi ini n a°rz " »NniaNS »N� N nNn- yiNNVY .° 7 on�a as � z nnenaNm.ncr iN nE °rT D i r >mTT..nn > 1 "F q3;: ..ss D�Y i Tm nn mm am.':.mnyv i °z ��'1^ e eNa .a.R a'ac y yr NM as Aan »N � � rycmn inn n n n nnnn n-N.o nn» _ n0�0 00 D O O oDVa Dom' o °n ' » T xizT Tm m z T mmmz zo xm+' i aAra aA a a n agora az a N N NNNNNNNNNNNNN�/NNN4 NNN N. NNNNNNNNNYNNN IL /f NM UMMVI.uP.NMV JNM VU�.Pi.v ymj uyPii yP.ga NUybiuV N>'�b «bbbb > �PV }y NCO iPMp NJY.yyr O20 YO N�WN »PM. >VM VNN VNyN1 �'�'�' j T O.O b..P Mf VNr JiO.fJ 11{ Y o Ir q V�VNM VPdPr NPFPC� N rA fPYYJ. J1dfN P r <NLVOYY MJ.f�V rOONU ;' m uvr o�nu Ng�P�>$u.Y -N "°..N,.ou NON :aNno NNmi/�foN u Yo frets VO Wr NOOUf �o Nau�.r »moo f'>o•.au Pac 6:.o:.00 �Y No fN nurWOWa1 P vry NUO+bo WpDNUn NNOOOo 1 1. M. irTT tin v�0y ,<< r-m I r MNPm� ny /S you j � �.°.o oNa �eNOeNZ : °m Na z ivitNrd'1.` -z is Nsm yam n i mot$ as �i Lnm nobT° il°rr YN r NNO ° b i nn� n oti � r � � N � c M1NN //N NN��N NNNNNNN / y POp y.M Pw uPiV�ubiVMVMS / a .YNn i ii Nor . o W P YN. is °u �oo$o�re°°oeooe� 4 °P PiVb°NVOP ■ E P.ilO iyiNrNyur ib �%N l rYVaP Nryyyi Oy SlwuiPNi �� F �i�YtIS STV 6MZT +.. m Sr .i i�oya i r /Tr�Nn Ar faN .T °r° t GmK 4 S D A ^.eN a i .z nm M i N N N i � s; T � r b N < 1 1 irTT tin v�0y ,<< r-m I r MNPm� ny /S you j � �.°.o oNa �eNOeNZ : °m Na z ivitNrd'1.` -z is Nsm yam n i mot$ as �i Lnm nobT° il°rr YN r NNO ° b i nn� n oti � r � � N � c M1NN //N NN��N NNNNNNN / y POp y.M Pw uPiV�ubiVMVMS / a .YNn i ii Nor . o W P YN. is °u �oo$o�re°°oeooe� 4 °P PiVb°NVOP ■ E w L�9 e $ i J I POSuruYV��SE r °000 u�MtiErw > w T _ r n „.`COTr„ �p e pBnOZS�y7 w i nr rO i��O1liDf � B On� v >„ f. A� r a: Y ` ,s• esn s „nn n ^ 9w n n nII n &yeLR oS ��.°.yYS�uSbT�So °"'n +ei.„. ;:SS:i2 .S.°F',i•� w L�9 e $ i J I � 0 ; � ~� °E ! y 2§M; 72 0 ; � ~� °E ! �j( /... /.... )� • a r" - -v ,,,r'n�'syat aYT y�.,r -.: '.ir: to .i y.f. :vki.�r...y tiis'.r= t'_•:�, °X rh� %ti.l_C ^ in$ Ea .".s °va- ".� "'a.'.i�•r€+'9 <:Rizi ii.'�Ly C.- '- 7.`'.'z'Gi ' Ovi ?LAM 3ccR2 ^8: �aR�a' 2 9- a ., _¢° R DG^,Y �gsa^ag t° Ga r uii.•. -'• +"' nn^ °nom t onn� en .•i C u •.. � wit AY 3u 3 f Ic n °o°2E °fie............. ............ g °LLJ.^.0 ranip a r°�er o..y...aw"" -8'.. r. "...w tc 's's's .. o��= oosoass: c�' so= °ox��s'ssaso...aeo�a »= ! "i c 0 j b 1 S i % Y . C 9 it i� ,r 1 a l a '• °9B g.`rr r?x:2:e.n » »L. • ^- :nFeenF..�b 4;e :r'��A��aEE•iEnen 5"" .` "• ,.°F, A'�� ;Z'v� � : : ^p: C1aeS ^f "��r: «YeR ^:.�voiC' «9� er =A :x^ "a= SRS •x �< " - a �° HE LIT +• o> u - eo a oou n o - 6i o uoeuoe000e suenonuooseeeeeeo ^ •• OSO `.'S. C.!L Sa°r ".»vrOJ >rp n. ° UN�01. rpq�uU� r .... .... .e..- T=.0lzZ +'? 8R .1 ».e.." -10.39 "i c 0 j b 1 S i % Y . C 9 it i� ,r 1 �,-` '> Qa '/r °' • • ',,f;,2- av".`h,..l Ice,Ct:'= .S'r'i' = V. �,.- i,. • „ti iY.n..,0 1 aY I..' .O ^JO,OY rYYVY YY YYVYYYYV - _- rrr_- rrrrrr , _,.•, ( Jwowrrrwr.wwwJOOJ... r..- r.rr•l.. rte•-! i '=�ccasaeF:i..n.»is'�t$ € @�2c98S a °Pe °g3 �• si''s4 i it ` f � ;5 Yriaa.�aa¢me;ca� I ? 8 .�.... 9...,...�.....Y.w. =ye °3_89 ! ” •S �� 0.°.9.°.9 y� w <OSL=iLi i�[j iCiY•I ^ C ;• o "o6ee0 �•• ^oar -so J. f, � �S°• #^o�, ^aa �n`.W�w.^.5 j1 n`nn�nnnr n.'.. •9,' . . .. . .. . o �^. -ene� ooee3 °9 I y DiTOAap --- � YoYODUTeaoYneYeue000uuo o.+o o^no !� I. ^ I w^r.444 swJ r±4 � t' A r 3 November 2, 1988 CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL To ORwR A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rambo Cucamonga mat an Wednesday, November 2, 1988, in the Lions Park Community center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The mating was Called to order at 7830 P .m. by Mayor Dewis L. Stout Present were Councilmemberes Debotah brown, Charles 1. duquet TI, Pamain Wright, and Mayor Dennis Scout. Also present wares City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet; City Attorney, James Markman; Assistant City Manager, Jack Lam; City P iamoer, Brad Buller: Depucy City Eogineer, Wilitam Silva; Scnior Planner, Dan C,'emani Associate Civil Engineer, Walter Stickney; and Com:aunity Services Manager, Joe Schulte. Absent ras Cuuncils,ember: Jeffrey Ring. B. ANNOUNCffMNTS /pRN8011L TIONS B1 till items submitted. k a e a a i C. OONSSM CAISRD:k Lauren Jassermtn, City Manager, requested that the malting adjourn to a closed session ra discuss property ccquiaition for the North Last Etiaande Park cite. (;l Are oval of N, ices: October 5, 1988 C2 Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/19/88 and 10/26/88, and Payroll ending 10/13/88 for the total a.souat of 94,197,268.59. C3 Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of 10117/88. C4 A, proval to accept Terra Vista Plan Communities Nest Creenway Park im ma provrnts. (1404 -06 PK DEPEL) X City Council Miuueao November 2, 1988 Page 2 C5, Approval of the Park and Recreation Commission's reccsmondatinn to alloy a monument in honor of Jim Baront Corps of engineers Resident engineer of Cucamonga Creek, be erected on flood control property within Heritage Park. (1404 -05 PARE)(0807 -02 SIGNS) C6. Approval to redees bonds, publish and sail Notice of Redemption for prepaid assessments within the A1La Loma Channel (84 -2) for approxivately $70,000.00, (0401 -03 AL CUM AU) C7. Approval of the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II and issuance of Categorical Exemption for the Jarsef Street Stom Drain from Utica Street to Red Oak Avenue ( Assessment District 8. -1). (1110 -10 STORM DR)(1403 -06 SIS) RE.'10LUfION NO. 88-639 A RESOLUTION OF INA CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RA1)CNO CUCAMONGA, CALIFCRMIA APPROVING THE ENVIROM SKAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EKEMP 'ION FOR THE PROPOSED JERSEY STREET STORM DRAIN FROM UTICA STRUT TO 2ED OAK AVENUE BEING PART OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT J2 -1 Cf. Appmo iry- eoocc;vivsyttpyts- 8rty- Ordiaamree. ITEM RRNOVID FROM C09SM CALENDAR (0102 -02 POLICY) C9. Approval to authorize the removal of two vehicles from the City Fixed Asset Inventory from the Intergovernmental Service .'ned 72. (0603 -02 FIX ASSET) CIO. Approval of an amendment to the contract (CO 86 -083) for expanded males tax analysis with Hinderliter, DeLlams and Associrtes. (0602 -01 CONT AMEN) Gil. Approval to enter escrow proceedings v.th Herman A. Schmidt, Selma B, Schmidt, and Stephen I. Novotny for 5 acres designated for the future North East Community Park site. (1002 -03 ESCROW) C12. Approval to confirm a City Council decisita made on October 19, 19889 for an appeal of Planning Commission conditions fo• a propmsed 61389 square foot two-story office building on .40 acres of l..nd on the southwest either of Vineyard Avenue and San Bernardino Road in t Community Commercial District within the Foothill Boulevari Specific Plan - APN 207 -102 -09 - Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88 -11 - Matlock and Associates (0701-06 APPEAL) AESOLUf10N NO. 88 -640 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR TUB CEVELOPHeNT OF A 6,385 SQUARE FOOT 2 -STORY OFFICE BUILDING City Council minutes Noveaber 2, 1988 Page 3 ON .40 ACRES OF LA)(D IN THE SOUPHWSST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND SAN BERNAADU90 ROAD IN A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN ACTIVITY CENTER -APH 207 -102 -09 C13. Approval to authorise the advertising of the "Notice Inviting B.ds" for the gale of the Historic Landmark "Lodi& House ", 5702 Amethyst Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga. (0601 -01 1Ir)(1402 -04 HISTORY) RESOLUTION NO. 88-641 A ABSOLUTION OF ThE CITY COUNCIL or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIOMS FOR THE "SAIS AND RELOCATION OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK "LBDIG HOUSE" 5702 AMETHYST STRUT ", IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTIUG THE CITE CIZ= TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS C14. Approval to authorise the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Haven Avenue Median Improvements Phase III - South of Lemon Avenue to Borth of Wilson Avenue Improvement Project, to be fr.:4d from Beautification Funds, Account No. 21 -4647 -8138. (0601 -0; B1D)(I110 -05 NSnrAM) RESOLUTION NO. 88-642 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS PRASE III SOUTH OP LEMON AVENUE TO NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE ", IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ClSRK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS C15. Approval to award the bid for the landscape maintenance contract for Landscape Maintenance Assessment Districtsf No. 2 (Victoria) and No. 4 (Terra Vista) to Landscape Wast, Inc. of Los Angeles, California for the amount nT $203,652 to be funded virh Landscape Maintenance Asseasment Districts: No. 2 (Victoria) and No 4 (To- ra Vista) account nos. 41 -4130 -6028 and 43^4130 -6028 respectively (0601 -01 B10)(0401 -00 LANSCAPE XD) C16 Approval to award the bid for the landscape mainteuance contract for: General Fund Pa kways (various location); Landscap. Maiatenance hsseaament D utrict No I (city- wide); Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 3 (Hyssop); Landscape Maintenance Assessmunt District No. 5 (26th and Hermosa) to Landscape Went, Inc of Loa Angeles, C..'_ifornis, for the amount of $2159480 to be funded from Engineering /Maintenance Goat -act Service Account No. 01- 4647-6028 S, City Council 111nutca November 1, 1938 Page 4 (General Fund Parkways), Landscape Maintenance District No. I Account No. 40- 4130 -6028, Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 Account No. 42- 4130 -6028 and Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 - Account No. 44- 4130 -6028. (0601 -01 DID) (9401 -03 LNSCAPE HD) C17. Approval to award the bid for "City -wide Concrete Repair Annual Maintenance Contract" to Raymor Electric Company of San Gabriel, for the amount of 912,690 to be funded from Maintenance Ctv`.raet Servicea account No. 01 -4647 -6038. (0601- 01 BID) CIE. Approval to reject all bide as rubmitted for the Landscape Maintenance Contract for Haven Median Islands and San Bernardino Flood Control flash Ends as being nonresponsive to the needs of the City and authorizing readvertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids ", to be funded with the General Fund, Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 36 and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 4 Account Nos. 01-4647 -6028, 46 -4130 -6028, 43- 4130 -6028, respectively. (0601 -01 BID) RESOLOfInN NO. 88-643 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "HAVEN MEDIAN ISLANDS AND SAN BRWILDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL (VARIOUS LOCATIONS) LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACT" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS C19. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security, =4 Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. i and 6 for DR 87 -59, located on the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Center Avenue, submitted by 114vangete Business Center. (0602 -01 AGREE IMPR)(0401 -03 LNSCAPS MD)(0401-03 ST IT NO) RESOLUTION NO. 88-644 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.40NGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMZNr ACREEHH',ir AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87-59 RESOLUTION NO. 88-645 A RESOLUTION OF 13 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TER ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MILMNANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 LiD 6 :OR CUP 87 -59 City Council Minutes November 2, 1988 Page 5 a C20. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security, atd a: Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenanen District No. 3 and Street US og Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 87-61, located an the vast aid f Rochester Avenue south of Sixth Street, submitted by Rochester Asa.cfates. (0602 -01 AGREE IMPR)(0401 -03 LN9CAPE 1ID)(0401 -03 SS IT 107) RESOLUTION NO. 88-646 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVALOPIEUr REVIEW N0. 87-61 SESOLUrIOH NO. 88•-647 A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOKCA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 PDX DR 87-61 C21. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13060, located on the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Fairmont Avenue, submitted by William Lyon CompsnF. ITEM REMGFXD FOR DISCUSSION PER REQUEST FROM COOECILIaE EUQI6T. (0602 -01 AGREE EXTN) RESOLUTION SO. 88-648 A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IF2ROVEMBNT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 10360 '22. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13059, located on the cast side of Fairmont Avenue between Highland Avenue and Bane Line Road, submitted by William Lyon Company. I.YEN REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION PER REQUEST FROM COUNCILMAN BUQWT. (0602 -01 AGREE ESTH) RESOLUTION NO. 89-649 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13059 C23. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Exteusion for Parcel Map 7902, located on the east side of Mayberry Avenue south of Wilson Avenue, sutmitted by Blair Home. (0602 -01 AGREE EXIN) City Council minutes November 2, 1988 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 88-650 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF RANCHO Y CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT A,,jnjeHr EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 7902 }� C24. Approval to execute /mprowment Agreewmt Extension for Parcel Nap 7441, located on the east aide of Amethyst Streec between LaGrande Street and Lomita Drive, submitted by Donald Tacket-t. (0602 -01 AGREE EXTN) RES(E.UTION NO. 88-651 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENL' SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 7441 C25. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 9649, located on the southwest corner of Wilson Avenue and Hermosa Avenues, submitted by Threes Tucker and William Garvin, collectively. (0602 -01 AGREE EXTN) RESOLUTION NO. 58-652 A RESOLUTION OF TFE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMN,! SECURITY FOR TRACT 9649 C26. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for 6737 Eact Avenue, submitted by William Hassler. (0602 -01 AGRER DXTN) RESOLUTION NO. 83-653 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR 6737 EAST AVENUE C27. Approval of Hap, execution of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement (CO 88 -181), Agreement for Postpoeement of Recordation of Covenants, Conditions and Rest.ictious (CO 86-183), Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security, and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Mainte ante Diet •ct No. 1 for Tract 13650, located on th3 southeast corner of Foothill ulevard and Baker Avenue, submitted by Morthwoods (0601 -01 AGREE I /L)(1.. : -0 CC&R)(0401 -03 LNSCAPS HD)(0401 -03 ST IT MD) City Council Minutes November 2, 1988 Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 88-654 A RESOLUTION OF 7dE CITY COUNCIL OF TER -^IVY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR POSTPONEMENT OF RECORDATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENr, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL NAP 07 TRACT N0. 13650 3,910.40 RESOLUTION NO. 88-655 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C1;CAMlOUGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL P902ERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM NORTHWOODS FOR TRACT 13650 AND AUTHORIZING TKS MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SANE RESOLUTICN NO. 88 -656 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGI, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE AWVXION OF CERTAIN 9ERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACT 13650 C28. Approval to execute Professional Services Agreement (CO 88 -184) with BS! Consultants, Inc., for the "Street Light Inventory" project in he amount of $14,780 013,436 plus 102 contingency) to be funded as followst (0602 -01 CONTRACT) Lighting District d1 - 55- 4130 -6028 $ 4,172.00 Lighting District 02 - 56-4130-6028 $ 4,565.60 Lighting District I3 - 57- 4130 -6028 $ 3,910.40 Lighting District i4 - 58 -4130 -6020 $ 1,788.80 Lighting District i5 - 59 -0130 -6028 $ 343.20 C29. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 1 (0087 -159), Via Carrillo Drive Improvement Froject, Southwest Cucsaonga, for the amount of $18,9249 $5,674 to be funded from CDBG Fund, Acciunt No. 28 -4333 -8704 and $13,250 to be funded from Utility deposits. (0602 -01 CONE AMEN) C30 Approval to release Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security submitted by The William Lyon Company and approved by council on December 16, 1907, and approval to execute Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security submitted by Haywood domes - Victoria for Tract 13442, located in the Victoria Planned Community, on the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way. ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION PER REQUEST BY COUNCILHA9 SUQDET. (L502 -01 AGREE IMPR) City Council Hiuutee i Yovemhar 2, 1588 .. P. go 8 RESOLUTION NO. 88-657 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF iRE CITY OF RANCHO CUCIMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RELEASING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IMPIOVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND APPROVING NEW IIOROVB!Elfr AGREEMENT 1ND SECURITY FOR TRACT 13442 C31. Approval to accept the Archibald Avenue SidevalRs, Phase 11. Improvement Project, from 6th Street to Foothill Boulevard, as complete, release bonds and authorite the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amouat of $39,788.85. (1110 -30 SIDEWALK Pl);0502 -01 BOND REL)(0704 -18 NOT COiPLT) RESOLUTION NO. 88-658 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR ARCHIBALD AVENUE SIDEWALKS FROM 6TH STREET TO FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZING THE PILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FCR THE WORK C32. Approval to acQtpt Improvements, release of bonds and file n notice of Completion fors (11JO -10 STREET PI)(0602 -01 BOND REL)(0704 -25 NOT COIPLT) Parcel Mao 7646, located on the south side of Hillside Road Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $ 2,800 RESOLUTION NO. 88-659 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC, TMPROVEMENfS FOR PARCEL NAP 7646 AND AUTHORIZING THH FILING OF A NOTICL OF COH°LBTION FOR THE WORK CUP 85 -17, located on the south side of Lase Line Road cast of Hermosa Avenue Faithful Performance Bond (Street) 4 18,000 RESOLUTION NO. 88-660 A iSSOLUrION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCU(ONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 85 -17 AND AUTPIRILING TILE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COHtIJTIOH FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes November 2, 1988 Page 9 Traet 13022 Storm Drain, located on the vest side of Milliken Avenue south of Vie [prim Park Lane(1110 -30 S DRAIN PI) Release. Faithful Performance Bond $925,000 (Stern Drain Improvement#) Accepts Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 92,5PO `,C. (Storm Drain Improvewnts) USOLUIION NO. 88 -661 �^..` A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tab CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM(ONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING INS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR t TRACT 13022 ST02M DRAIN IMIPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZING Tag FILING t OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK Tract 11793, located on the east side of Amethyst Street bete en Pimhland Avenue and Leman Releases Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $248,000 Accepts Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Oceans) $24,800 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -662 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOT TRACT 11793 AND AUTHORIZING THE PILING OF A HOTT ^g OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK C33 Approval to release cash dep• for model home sales office fort (0602 -01 BOND REL) IM 6 S Residential : evelopment - Tract 12772 $ 2,500 Penrfield Development. Inc. - Tract 11793 $ 2,500 Subdivision Sign $ 628 Nordic Development Company - Tract 11997 $ 2,500 C34. Approval to support a voluntary drought conservation program. (1204 -00 WATER) Y,q City Council Minutes y November 2, 1988 Page 10 r. F d RESOLUTION NO. 88-663 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF -.Bg CITY OF RANCHO -" CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A PROORAM OF VOLUNTARY WAtER CONSERVATION TO REDUCE WATEo CONSUMPTION BY TEN PERCENT MOTION: Moved by grow, seconded by Buquc: to app -ova Cv sent Calendar less items 21, 22 and 30. Motion carried, 4 -0-1 (King absent) s a + ► r DISCUSSION OF ITEMS C21. Approval to execut: Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13060, located on the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Fairmont Avenue, submitted by William Lyon Company. AdD DISCUSSION OF ITEM: C22. Approval to execute Improvement Agreencoe Extension for Tract 13059, located on the east side of Fairmont Avenue between Highland Avenue and Baas Line Road, submitted by William Lynn Company. r Councilman Buquet wanted to find out what the basis was for the 12 -moLth extension. He thought it was excessive. William Silva, Deputy City Engineer, stated that the period depanded on the ms.gnitude oY the improvements to be made. Steven Ford, representing William Lyon Company, stated they needed a time extension to take care of the paperwork involved with the buyers of the tract. a proper bonding was not provided wham they took possession of the parcels. Ile sated ttat these were solely in -tract improvements and had nothing to do wLtt Highland or Milliken. eCIION: Council directed staff to come back with a memo as to the status of the Lmpro- aunts. M017I04 Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to modify Lbe Resolution for a 30- day exteozFOn period. Motion carried 4 -0-1 (ding absent). • a r s s DISCUSSION OF ITEM C30 Approval to release Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security submitted by The William Lyon Company and approved by council on December 16, 1987, and approval to execute Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security submitted by Baywod Homes - Vreteria for Tract 13442, located in the Victoria Planned Community, on the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way. City Council Minutes November 21 1988 Page 11 Since thin vas eonaeetad to the Its= C21 and C22, the folloviag motion use made. NOTION: Moved by Buquet° Accorded by Bra" to approve Item C30. Notion q; carried 4 -0-1 (King absent). r R r r► a R i; D. CONSENT OHDI1AYCIS O1. CONSIOERATIOtl OP PRDAIHI7INC CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CPC °8) 7N PADC8S5E0 FOOD PACKAGING. Continued fray Octobar 5, 1988 mating. COUNCILWOMAN BROWN PULLED C ITaM. (1403 -04 EN9IROS) r ' Councilwoman grown stated they were requesting the item be continued since there r vas a new ordinance before Council for ceasideration OEOINANCE 110. 371 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1IY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 Of 71Z RGNCHD i CUCd1WNCd MUNICIPAL CODE' BY AODING A NEW CHAYIDR 0.22 EUrITLED "PRORIHIYION OF CULOROFLUUROCARBr 1 PROCESSED FOOD PACKAGING" M3TIONt Moved by Prove, aeconded by Buquet to remnve Ordinance No. 371. Motton carried 4 -0-1 (King absent). i r r a R r r D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEEI AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-05- UFITZi - A request to snand the Etiwanda Specific PAan Nap j.— L(Very Lev density residential, 1 -2 dwelling units per acre) to "GC" (General Commercial) for 57 S+ acres of land located south of 24th Street between Cherry Avenue and the I -15 Freeway; and from "PC" (Freeway Commercial) to "GC" (General Commsrcial) for 0.5 acres of land at the vestrrly conjunction of Cherry Avenue and the I -15 Freeway. The City Council will consider ether appropriate Etivanda Specific Plan land use categories (neighborhood Commercial, Convenience Ce®ercAal, Freeway- Relaced Commercial, Office /Profesaioca.) - APN 226- 121 -08, 11, 12, and 226- .12 -03. IM POLLED BY COUNCILWOMAN WRIGHT. (0703 -05 ETIW SP) Councilromaa Wright stated she pulled this because she was not approving the its,. ,-_yt City COUDtal Minite_s .r November 29 1988 Page 12 00INANCE 80. 376 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIM CITY OV RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIU0D/, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 83-05, ANSNDLNG THE ETIWANDA SYCCIFSC PLAN LAND USE NAP F20N "VLD (VEMY LOO) DENSIvl RESIDENTIAL (1 -2 DWELLING UNITS DER ACRE) TO "GC" (GBHdRAL OOIP.6RCIAL) FOR 57.5+ ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE BOVI&H OF 242E STREET .;t BETWEEN CHARRY AVENUE AND THE I -15 PRBEWAY) AND PROM nFCu (FREEWAY COMNERCIAT.) TO "CC" (GENERAL COMERCIAL) FOR 6.5 �y ACRES OF LAND AT THE WESTERLY CONJUNCTION CP CNEkRI AVENUE �} AND TPE I -15 FREEWAY, RANCHO CUCAtDNGA, CALIFORNIA - APN y 226- 121 -08, 11, 12, AND 226 -112 -03 I' City Clerk Authelet read the t.tle of Ordinance No. 376. LOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Buquet to valve full reading of Ordinance No. 376. Notion carried 4 -0-1 (Xing abeam). MOTION: Moved by .sown, seconded by Buquet cc approve Ordinance No. 376. Mo:.oa carried by the folloving voter AYESt grove, Buquet, Stout 1 NOS t Wright ASSEUrt Ring 1• O a A, A E. AOPERTIDED PUBLIC HEARINGS E1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS)ENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMEN* 88 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CIICAHONCA - various ameadmeata to the Sign Ordinance tog'- d1 -9 nean signs and w windo sigsigns. Continued fr October 19, 1988 meeting. Staff report presented by Dan Coleman, Senior Planner. (OBD7-02 SIGUS) Mayor Stout opened the meet , for public hearing. Addressing Council van: Hike Mitchell, representing the Chamber of Comerce, urged Council to vote yes, since 00 Chamber was very happy with this ordinance. There being no furtber public input, Mlycr Stout closed the public hearing. ORDINANCE MO. 358 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCH.: CUCAYONI:A, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE A1ENDMEM'- 88-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO .UCANHNiA MONICIPAI, ., - City Council minutes ` November 2, 1988 Page 13 CODE TO mODIF1 REGULATIONS FOR NktuN AND WINDOW SIGNS AND ADDING PROVISION FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR CITY 6--C .g0RED SPECIAL EVENTS City Clark Authelet read the title, of Ordinance No. 358. MOTIONS Moved by Suquot, attracted by Wright to valve full reading of Ordinance No. 358 and set. second reading for November 16, 1988. Motion carried 4-0 -1 (King absent). f e e* A d E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNE14T A.7D CONDITIDMnL DSR PERMIT SB -03 - WHEELSt AND WUELER ARCHITECTS - Appeal of the Plcnniog CLIZ&on s decisieu sp(-•oning the dtvriopment of a retail center and service atatien totaling 4,416 squay., fust oa O.t" acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) at the Foothill Boulevard dpi.ifie Plan, located ac the - outheact corner of Foothill Boulez.;• --so vineyard Avenaa - AP: 708- 192 -06. (080202 CUP)(0701 -06 APPEAL) EAVICCNMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88 -09 • WHEELER AND WHEELCR ARCHITEITS - Appeal of the Planning Ccaais¢iw • derision approving a request to reduce the required parking setback alcag Footull Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feat and along the rear property line fn i 15 fact to 5 feet for a retail center and aarvice station in the Cormo nity Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Mbulavard Specific Plan, located at 06 southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN 208 - 192 -06. Otaff report prventod by Brad Buller, City Planar. (1002 -02 VAQIANr$)(0701 -06 APPEAL) Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended tl'at the item go btok to tht, Planning Commission fer consieerstirr. James Mar ass, City Atto -ney, state(' that proredurally all the City Council could do was to continua the item. Mayor Stout opened tba meetSag for public hearing. Addressing Cout -il "rat Marjorie Mikels, repreaeatiag the appellant, Is Paluma Romer are Association, stated they were in agreement with the continuation. Paul Wheeler stated he also concurred with the continuative. There being no further no further pubic input, Mayor Stout closed the public hearing MOTION: ?..red by Wright, seconded by Brown to tontine the item to Deccwar 7. Motion carried 4 -0-1 (King absent). r F, 3 City Council Minutes' '�'•' November 2, 1966' Page 14 Ras air 93. VACATIOM Of BIN DIEJOD AVEKUS - BEHNARDINO ROAD. StOtY report presentel by Walter stickne„ Associate civil Engineer. (1110 -18 VACATE ST) Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. A greasing Council WAS: Jim Kline, CucamoeEa County Vater-Dietrict, stated the District was in agreement with staff's recommendation for the vacation. There being on further pub LL- input, Mayor Stout closea the public bearing. RF«ROLUfICN NO. 88-564 A RESOLUTION OF THE UITY COUNCIL OF TEE CLTY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA,, ORDERING TO BE VACMD, BAd DISCO AVENUE FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO NOR'-H OF SAN BERAAEDLBO ROAD NOTIONI Moved by Buquet, aacondod by Stout to approve RaaolutLUU No. 88 -564 ordering the vacation of San Diego Avenue. hotien cc-riod 0 -0-1 (King absent). R e a♦ a e F. PUBLIC HEARTM P1. No haws submittee. It sea• C. CITY NAHAG8R'8 STAFF RUCKTS GI PRESENTATION CH A YOUTH ASSISTIN(S PROGRAA. (1402 -03 COM FROG) Jodi grandenbergert CASA Iritreacb consultanc, asked for Council's endorsement of the program. Jim Runt responded to question• by the Council. MarIONt Moved by Wright, seconded by Brown to suppurt the Youth Assistance Program. Motion .&tried 4 -0-5 (King abet.nt). e s It a a It I City Council Kinutes iU November 2, 1988 ,'•� Page 15 ^c 02 HOTIONt Moved by Wright, seconded by Euquet to authorise joining the State end Local Legal Cwetor wits a coaaitsseut of 62,000.00. HnOca carried 4-C-1 (Ling absent). r a a At .a C3. ODHSIDERATIOS OP A LEb.SE AUa Emar tw ve -aaja ......- - .-.-.- r ORGANIZATION FOR THE HOIIS6 LOCATED AT ffn AND 9TH STREET. Staff report t'..} [" projected by Lauren Wassetua, Cicy Meet (Ofi02 -01 CONTRACT) 71 ? WrIONt loved by Euquet, seconded by Wright to app�ovs the lease agreement. , 'r. Notion carried 4 -0-1 (Ring absent). a * t o t e ' G4. M UEST FROM ARTHUR PRANK 9AHPORD - Iapowading and registration of personal vcbiele. (1180 -.0 :EQUEST :{ Hr. Sanford made his praaantatron to Council. ACTION: Council raceived ..ad filed the report. A, a a e At t G5. CONSIDERATION Op GRAFFITI ORDINANCE. (Stout) Awing reviewed by City Attorney. (0704 -aV FANDALISNI .Lee, N. 4:nan, City Attorney, stated be had received a copy of Redlands' graffiti ordinance and had reviewed it, but bat goal ideas for something batter. There is a graffiti Law by the State which lets you go onto private property. He felt he would be *Sle to bring the ordinance back in two wanks for consideration. e a e e e a H. C00.7CIL •JUSTNESS N1 No iteos .ubmitted r e f s t e I. IDHNTTLTICATION OF ITEMS FOR NR= MMI2'C City Council Miwtea ", November 2, 198d z Paga '16 p1y Il. Councilvom:a Wright asked that a report come to Council for consideration x� of the di&play of X-rated movie covers to the general public. She felt there must be a way to handle this. ACIIOMi The City Attorney we directed to bring a report back on some options. .r i. I2. Councilwoman Wright requested a status report on the City inspection problems. • :crew i J. CONMVICATIM FAQ1 TVX PCSLIC Jl. No its= oubmittad. , A, x e w e a K. ADJOURRM - s XTIONi Moved by Wright, seconded by Brown to adjourn to a closed session to discuss property acquisition for the North East Etivanda park site. Motion y�• carried 4-0 -1 (King absent). The meeting adjourned at ROO p.m. _ Approvedi Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk `f .�i M. R; Vii/W&M. !I:t5 W WA MEW ■ A- _9 .1JE44 I V.; � I rr t-4;-LL:.LLLL � �| �}_ �� ■ 57 u f '- > E i i ..... ",.rr c- �erY ♦'�?r Naf7J S1.7S "' �. .. .. -} ... .. ..fly. � yS dL :i �' g 3xf .�ljnsn5a C Y3 §Y CgsCtYc?a °@ a £i a. -s d 3 693 pyi��l� ��Y��,.• �yB'' °��s Paaaa� aaaf PA's I i MCES,geEgg Egg sg�gSCS 'e2 `gaS£ _3'y�ac gga a .a�� Sa as :a aaaia5a� �a��iz5 illf5� -211151 �� ti3�Ti8aaik2$8i]1i8i$9NYYiYai j1hii CE L's lSSSa In sssssssasrsaz :sssssssaassss :sea :sssca :assess: tE as4asssasaassa8sai`ss's's sc4sYaa'sY's aC_s if °Ejfsassia 4 r�� D ?j��i��Y3�,3•i��tt��lfin #,t �i�tit¢3¢ij109rj�Y�D! � i' sssasssasasssa' sszss 'saaiss'ss'ss'sassis= a'snzsisia ssa a ai`s azss+Ti�si'saa`si'si 54SsiYsssY`s saacY 6j!a ap_'z sa '' sisas as's iss ssssaas s'a :asasssxsszssss_ysas'ssssk k r:•.- r:. +�r ±rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. rr. ±r .• rrrrrrrr a3 Y'ng�El's $$$Yg$ggY$Yg$QYi<i'aHOsY$$��'= gg�2Qg6'agve a3 rrYrrr� +- rrrrerrr. rarrrrtr. r »rrrrrrrrrrr: r. _ YI YQgY$ 4Y$$$Yg$g gY $Yg9n$>a$'a9$iY$$gg =$8gggg &QgY� rte. - -- •.vrr r. r a r. r r ±r>r- rrr rrrrrr s' r rr . 35.? s552a4S_ 3�ocff5y3iQSE $L0S`a'c5Eca?a9g�+�f EI 3egsa g�ggsa� aIS agsg ggga gsgaa=e° tz- gQ g- ig s la n. z3g= eaaa?g7agic- sfi_.; :'eaezB'a.L'zEi�3:...5'sY..'asi s_� �;' i�s� sgyes i3 a 3 ssxpp ss s 3 f �q `� ggREER a g F B 101 1 r ,t vv, �haagax ?a ?aa `a s- asaasa E aFa's' :2saFFF ��: sssiitazs:ssass'saszi'sassiss sz 5 s :sss :ss :ss I ; i 22F ai5?'i aF3a�i2 -ax "s aa2aY's Fax xaa 3 asass:F'a FaF Li R J !3 # #$iiii g33# #333 #333Ilt3Y i ,ii #3!3¢i # ## i2 +, sziaset 'sisiss'.kiiasisiz's "ssissis zassiiIszzz �( ` Y- 22Fa8�lY£��3Ya� aFaa ?aa'a iaY ?s ?a 8 YEaFF ?'s asFF :sxaztaasassasssisasassaszsss x sssssszzssz B iIIbCsY ��e5 53i53tlGdlPlP;it5 iulFY w 91fiFgims as rr - ?r x9folrrr;•.;,rrr. •. rrrrr•r i 99,19 FS3B6i3fn35iH63i3ir38 $36$3 ti viviYi g3 3o355s�$EP��g3r663E33Evar r n� R; BBF- BE09i3 El aa�£E3c @FQ aa ne 6aF�#= °i r -7-7E2 >ees� gyRe3�3s33ca g zs 3�a3�OH H a43 aa1331 `i 03ataz- :aEnut ^cann9cx�aat? - s _ a ac2F 5 eFaas5b_gcSE �� Y •y? 66 pt Qv��[[ 6�3_ _ 4_fE fafa s ssssassssg S � � � �== -= 5= a_��E�83oFtiE�E_ � ja L9 iy =x =� Q�gg2�ae3 =ggF= F= ' =fs =�g�c-� gF a NO 11111 Mail !jIfIll I IV I gill 553r �5$axda5��$i�aai�ia5aa5 999 1 9 PAM Etf2 I sags5gia a_spasiaaassasaaaaaisasi's gL: r =ns= s i ssssaasasass :asassssssssaaasss s ,; � { ?�� #s$sgcsasaa's iasas aii ii i'sasa'a'ssai's's b i si 's s 3 ?+ iE #t£f #iDYlRF ? ?? FI$YEit t3 DiH itss a = as' asi ssssissaasssasbRS'sa :s'sa:'ass Egg 2 aa'a's a`s aaas "s saga's i' :a :ss a =ns= s = sssss sasiassssassssassaasassssas rrrr' rrrr. rrr -Y rrr. '. r rr p� i! its► il3Ff '5f� &a�S3Qlf�lS5 &f�C93fsi$'xfih EPS? n ? iiilsd�iEatY6i l9f20�GIF$p5Ya£ @ss{tI ' 3fa - rrrrZr�rrrrrrrrrr••�r;•;•r rrr- S 5. E S 5�fs$ 'aif3pera�d£C�3F.'3�f &= ia�? @':I3 it glg ; §3i�3��i3333i��3�3�i� a� a 3n =a _ a '' s5. asa lfii.a.. °e8utlL0nfEiis�_- .aa_�z8 = a ,g �Q AAtAt a iJ� y iz z N �Off II1 ' 111111- fill L3 n aa d __IHpili z s r it o =nz s a nssn�as a ss saes 9 ��'j�� i � 3 HY =a ! 3 1tYt =s`—a� F Sf ItiF 3E A xx8 it a s s cases s i ais's sas s ssssss aG3] c i n si�a i s fiaua'aa s ssssss !SC b r rr r r rrrrr - rrr a? a 5 Nita 9 risr -9ss 5lifyi �e ! s E m 9 5i 6E_E 3 �sffHeJ !I Y r r - rr r rrrrr rrrr 3 r ? 's 25 , 6p L E ii!3!t>E3 i Mesa !1 Ice 9UR I Baa�C3a3gr aaaa-II a2 ?z55 3 �3�33�3�Ti3 ay s 3 5 Ia'36 -a E sxzir.s s58Yzie !� 1 O b i r r 9 !`` =j 9 i iag =a 3 EI a ai 3 iaa pGQ6 tl ■ , � � � k' » �� 2 ! ■ 2 | rd ■� |! k | | |�' | |! | | ■ §| : | ■ !§ � ■,! ■,, |\ , � � ■� Q • � � ! ; ell E;;;;;;;; ;195 ; ;21021999 |t� ■ |�.��. | ;.t)� ..��&ttt ■� |. , `9 ! t ! - | i a g K t !! !! ! -- qtq}2 4 ! |!§ 'Ill . � | :, ■ § | � k R k .- �| | � ®- § , | I Will |� | |� ■ § . | ! .!■,■ ` ■■ §■ p i; ; §;; ; ; ; ;:; ; ;; i�� a V k k k / ; Wild k ( 9 i,kI Ix q 4 } \ a / a as ; ; . R k .- �| | � r....t..._ __ _ . Nov - 8 Iwo 1R1 i.wO, t�Cetflala Xm sft. _ w-a.l. a.0 a na. .r.....rw.. u•. +.. Ytbf flaw arrr Ms Mf T46 ar41 2 ! "tm OP MMXA 4M 1 Mr Sr 1aa1 O 1 rMM OF TEOdACr"" f. 11... T.... YwtMWNYh1wJt .. 10.14.. Y...w.N.bN r1Nh •�- awr.1. [rYN b r r�M.y.� d y N M AbY'a4 •�. •r•r. • -.v r.r. rY.r • r 10 r r.+rL.w.Wf •V M f.ri f.1 N h gr4wy. 12 AaWw+.r+ MI hr Y.T warty rrYi.a Y .W Yu.N MwY..../ t... N h - •• N . 1a..r.. r1 Cwr.l A3 13 DAR C1 CALh^0.MA C.w.r :Al arro..a1.. ON. 1t/ • w.w� �iw�..� 1.ar �.. Y r .�.��....Mwf �w . r.r .r .r w��.... ..w ti ....ti . v...+... w.. r�.. r ..urr�....r.....r.r..r.rrr..... r.�..w++...w.. A)►tlCAT1DN BY TRAttlMolt 11 ST." d CANf1011.t Cw.ry M p,r Ya .�..I M.u.. ..w ..r ..�..��... .. r�w�llV.M..�.w..u... ...I r..�. Da!/Nth4.6.'- TN.TAW sty Droardwrus C* AwrA.y ❑ t.way rb, ❑ ^+ter nfrt 0 COQ tWlo- 11 /aig ❑ tYr.N l.o M- ftw go Y e. n c m V � i l" P O ARCHWALD AVE. M v F 1 C M 86C6 f9GC h6L6 + s> m:E m N O O a N N O S fD j rg a 9 � � •'� 2�F tz. C� m r 0 4 > r . w r r y Z a � r A i9 b b N V_ 'J A O T �O C N O V O b 0 b J b O ,a V P c V P m Smv n ' l 11 6 7 v b 2616 06C6 8816 9816 hU6 28L6 10916 8116 9LL6 a a � p� a 6= s ru ti trI —.4 ... ,4woof. Cr I KIA M p AIRXMIIW ,a " raa.11lt •lb. /h. o— w^^Y w_ . • b r riwyjr� v Myr p.�w � II tyfr s'RS'Mwr rwwfn lOM «rrd.ar y.d YwyMMbi r.14 �.aM frI M M. Mw.M Ii A. fia.r �I ki Rbl «� trait "yylw Y Mir 4 «W _(ll 11.n h 0 M al.l.r r awr r y V Irrw A Mw M M WKr�w N. 4.wv. W 11 VAN JI CAV .0 M M .VM«L lawns Cwal _ CrrtN —.Sly -�• -w. -_ A�' W. wA • �. M.r. �L ay w _ y .wn M1....W wVl. w.�.Vrr .r .w�� •.w.w �r.w.r•+Y. •'I« Il lffllCArt LGI 11ltl �_ ArH1tA:TOn sT Twuzdw IS STAit Cf CAIVpWy Cr - �.. I. .w.r�rr.rrL.wy. ..ryi. r.r✓•. war.. ...r w• nr. +. II lw.a. MNN W I...1 _ M W 7%I CNr C «„M 1/ l' MAW iCIII. j.l.r Tlfl Cyrl7n l%/1'r'�rUM Owtf AayaAN, p Q no iaVrl «OwL I. iY M. Yr. M1Ylyy.,..�Ir 1. TTn(tl p IICIWgy qC 1Xt a lA1L aluAl. atop n-aee ccog U.4 ISM 1Yrb ML /raft Ss iq4 � Maa.Dr • lfr flr.. 1 ITPt(17 Cr TSAA14C101 a Ill /h. o— w^^Y w_ . • b r riwyjr� v Myr p.�w � II tyfr s'RS'Mwr rwwfn lOM «rrd.ar y.d YwyMMbi r.14 �.aM frI M M. Mw.M Ii A. fia.r �I ki Rbl «� trait "yylw Y Mir 4 «W _(ll 11.n h 0 M al.l.r r awr r y V Irrw A Mw M M WKr�w N. 4.wv. W 11 VAN JI CAV .0 M M .VM«L lawns Cwal _ CrrtN —.Sly -�• -w. -_ A�' W. wA • �. M.r. �L ay w _ y .wn M1....W wVl. w.�.Vrr .r .w�� •.w.w �r.w.r•+Y. •'I« Il lffllCArt LGI 11ltl �_ ArH1tA:TOn sT Twuzdw IS STAit Cf CAIVpWy Cr - �.. I. .w.r�rr.rrL.wy. ..ryi. r.r✓•. war.. ...r w• nr. +. II lw.a. MNN W I...1 _ M W 7%I CNr C «„M 1/ l' MAW iCIII. j.l.r Tlfl Cyrl7n l%/1'r'�rUM Owtf AayaAN, p Q no iaVrl «OwL A i, i E UI'S Located: 10706 Foothill Blvd Property presently Zoned: General Commercial Zoning of Adjacent Property: rth: Low Residential South: Nedimum/Higa Residential East : General Commerical Nest : General Commerical 9 a ' 5 � i i , , APA/ 1077- 621 -26 Joe Torrex 28 NOV. ,1988 Foothill Blvd. -d l� ei S s a' �n X i; K" Ma&-,a- Se��t CAL tAlr tAS rrrrNlAe 2 KAMM cy wnluJlryq OCT 1 SILO CAAtAr A... QJSr lW C.Lwr Crb C Xu1elp Cr ,,, A 91 iI0 lY H 0 S lkh _ i.Mhrwn MJf ��NUwbw t Mrrti Ayrrf b 89rw1 S�>) -I4riw wy SM r Ww F Wf swnleN d fNrrfl ILL W.r ww w..r +Nry sl N Y ►r.twwr d Y A{rinl[ M'+w9w fiwwl Aa « n9Ndw d Y 0.lwrbrr rr. f «yMYIp1 f I I apirw •'Tp• w.w b Yywf 1 « 10 «� wwwdr.n J101yd M /wry Arl J lM rwiNww, IL AXrawr TM• fN w sl rrlr. frllwiy \ M.dw 4rw P.+`w1 wl M. M Y OwfX¢.1w J • Mr —i..J _ 191 rr14. w9 w.Wb «fw rwwd 4 Mr1 b.vNYXwWwNYA{eAdf LwwrM C«wN A.r. IS STAR W M-MIA c" M _11d.N1WCtlMO_ Ob.__AQLLlL4�_. 14 AMIICAIIT 11Gw MIN f AIPIICAT1ON BY TIANHROR IS STAR OF CAL"OKA � w � r � ,tiles rM.... ✓r ./..../ . �. �.Y..Y .w .1 ..w.w .w ti M r.Y .W~r.�r +mow .rte L. I .a wrl.. rr.. le S r.r.. it rr .r �wrr •y-r.Yr ...1 r �. Yom/ r .. �..r w r .Mr.r �. w�rM rrrw� w.I .r. �.w�Mrtir•Vp Lb NNWNbtow TAfftbw8rl DfprtrrYUw DJr AnrAy rI rwwly+4n r'YyI MT.4 Q 9rw.w4lw N____IwY J_ __ Cn4r r.�_. _._SwtldW r nno . v • •w ..., m 1. nRxl a tA]lpf(f) PAS /f0. !lQf1 hC fA1 L<• 1wr s aW flrl EA saflro r1... m coat —tats . I..y I.��iul4 p t Tnxu a T9A14Atpf(11 B UC. SILO CAAtAr A... QJSr lW C.Lwr Crb C Xu1elp Cr ,,, A 91 iI0 lY H 0 S lkh _ i.Mhrwn MJf ��NUwbw t Mrrti Ayrrf b 89rw1 S�>) -I4riw wy SM r Ww F Wf swnleN d fNrrfl ILL W.r ww w..r +Nry sl N Y ►r.twwr d Y A{rinl[ M'+w9w fiwwl Aa « n9Ndw d Y 0.lwrbrr rr. f «yMYIp1 f I I apirw •'Tp• w.w b Yywf 1 « 10 «� wwwdr.n J101yd M /wry Arl J lM rwiNww, IL AXrawr TM• fN w sl rrlr. frllwiy \ M.dw 4rw P.+`w1 wl M. M Y OwfX¢.1w J • Mr —i..J _ 191 rr14. w9 w.Wb «fw rwwd 4 Mr1 b.vNYXwWwNYA{eAdf LwwrM C«wN A.r. IS STAR W M-MIA c" M _11d.N1WCtlMO_ Ob.__AQLLlL4�_. 14 AMIICAIIT 11Gw MIN f AIPIICAT1ON BY TIANHROR IS STAR OF CAL"OKA � w � r � ,tiles rM.... ✓r ./..../ . �. �.Y..Y .w .1 ..w.w .w ti M r.Y .W~r.�r +mow .rte L. I .a wrl.. rr.. le S r.r.. it rr .r �wrr •y-r.Yr ...1 r �. Yom/ r .. �..r w r .Mr.r �. w�rM rrrw� w.I .r. �.w�Mrtir•Vp Lb NNWNbtow TAfftbw8rl DfprtrrYUw DJr AnrAy rI rwwly+4n r'YyI MT.4 Q 9rw.w4lw N____IwY J_ __ Cn4r r.�_. _._SwtldW r nno . v • •w MISSIAH 9620 Center Ave. Suite 180 ` Rancho Cucamonga. Ca. 91730 Property is currently Zoned; Industrial Park; within Sub -area Six of the Industrial Specific Plan - Zoning of adJacent Property is; North; Industrial Park, within sub -area 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan. South; City of Ontario (Vacant Land) East Haven Overlay (Vacant Land) q liest , Industrial Park, within Sub -area 6 of the Industrial Specific Plan. APH ZIO- 391 -18 .r 10 Nov, 1988 Joe Torrez 1V •rur\ — :EN7ERPg15' .. s a Q , ' !! � 0 20 Ll ht 3 a b zs. • �co&magcc 6ENiEi!- f° ct K C,? hr. a / Y , Y rYI. 0 St i a i /,LY .OYOAC � IIUK ♦ 1,t V - ern ---- -_ Y } L�� .r -.. .• •.� •� - ��.� i f �R�y'. � {.w' rf !�%li wbo _ _ _ -F�nu +� _ NdY..,, v`t, r sus�snstN tr �rri sw�rs ••••rr:r. w..r_w, —="—'� e 11# s s C �r%.,pp,tiyWsw iarsW ...r........... a -� :i., M1 Sums can r k tw 61urarrrl. c1 .yns.[iiir Lr.7sW 1sii/01, Nr.I 1., Jr. a Or" S. cy rrwrJ.b mo i s41w Ow ' 1 Ymm d isAllNppl[q •n u w W. ft�LL 41". arse s w r Tmu 11 Mr�arr qr (U ►� rrN Ywa.. rw/TI Y ..d.. . r..+w ./ I.nr w h - -•'--� d • ]n.......N AI Ir Y.alr.Id.r rrwr wMw4r1 drr dMnid,.s. C. 11 STAN ON CALFO I C—AN n�.rr r�.r�_rr� •�r.._. � ...u.r•�rw...��.Yw..wrwr.rr r. u r+/. ...ra...�� +r.. Y.I rfru.. I.r...rYwwT��.. ... �.ti•+. r. ti�.�r.rr.�rr r..r rr..rY u.r.. r.�...r. �.Y.. r.. r...r wr..•M1..r •r. I +.i+.Y.n r.r. wY M.... or M1r... Anl'CA7/tIN1 iY 7LANNJ77RW Is san OF c[ISOUr[ C� irr.r�r...�.. r..r ..... ..r r..... �. rrrrr .... .r.....r... rrr..� •-.. r• r. rr..wwru.�r.rrr..r.r.r..�•�.r.r �...r.u. r...�. r.�.r V. � � � .w1 rM1..w. r .r..Y. �' W rr• M. Y .�Yw r ~� .. �I. wr.u� y +..� Y ..r. 0.AYWA*Ptr 7Y 1'Ir, 7>D,., YU.OA rnww ❑ t.r1.[..Ia ❑ r'�' /M�_ lo/iVM ❑srwdrM d_�_,Jdly _.(Y4we_ T IIY 7 �1�, i 1 11 1 I 1 1 r 1 I RAHoKA Qur.. m N N 2r M � A c c a y i �'°o . n a o 0 0 C>• N r S � J � � •I J n o 0. y b n a d s�sa r r r N .Z J \ + y N _ G 0 O r m ° �a 6 b _ ro' o. io m J 7 N r •h� J I P,r&ii r uNNUrr�.n 6UIRIIIIV W&YANI1 4� t3 e' -T. - Tw D.rwr� M AIwX.:t blwp C. ... I IIOI F..elr I 3.a..�r.c.Xt..ru w 4rINrelXO ta-r.0 wr • e1.. �.r w.w. e.rlry llAe. e.+wr4Mi.I.fMwr NAMM OF AMUCANTM .6 s I.rw..t • _. - ..e s... YN) Arrar ■oYU � tip.e. ISO nrw.le. 3.r. sou p :rm? M TrAXl#am," �.m.,.Y. I__. rmu ( OIL .YValw.dy.l..rn.rrrw.�r1.M.VIwJ .nyMM X<r.w MMA1aA.4 Vwr.w 6Y..l Aw, _ Il ]TAN OR CALXOb Crwy'M 1. 1JtU[ANt YY.N 1Yt11.y.�_: • •.. AMICA ION BY IRM3r=a -- re SUM G CAUI C.Y 4 p .`...". .:.`..��`.;..... w �....., ate... �. .... r...� ..�. .. ..� 0.4.x.. L �..✓•. .I ..�M1. � 4.... �i�. a�. ..4. .1 .�1.. •fir+ ��.1�`+�r . +.... 0. Not NrR. Br{er T1W Ii.rl iw INI..T..r.t Vw 0.1r AwdM ,] rwwe.e..AC.. ❑ nr.e.r o..ra I I' O ?1 �13 BLOO. f hove Am% L 3 ft rAIZ 11aab bEE 8L I M C�Y R A"* / WAY - wry JERRY'S DELI 9047 Arrow Route Suite 190 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 APU 209-012-19 Property currently zoned; General INdustrial. within Sub-area 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan. Zoning of adjacent property is; North; Park, dim Residential South; General Industrial , within sub-area 2 of the Industrial Specific Plen. East ; General Industrial , within sub-area 2 & 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan. Nest ; General Industrial , within sub-area I & 2 of the Industrial Specific Plan. 10 Nov. 1900 Joe Torrez OCT 10 1988 COPYw_.r_�_� A 4110114 m AtmNpsa Wt9t0AM U�eYtt1 it D19r9�1 IFter..r. CJ1,9Ala aV tt?YJI1tAO fM.•SrI/•J SwJi.AJir l.r ArrrlrNaawfi.w I. TMOf or II@C[{Ti nit IO. W Y!i 22131 a vin 2411100 11Aai A,&W _Ir 1. TOY 0 9frOn Orr 019130 Ot Coat uis 0a. 2 KA=t(O IN AMICJM'q ..1. IeaT tfr... fArr —� . Me..s... Se. S. tW30 OF wAi:Atmq m fit uc IN! m t ]Oa.W Q AlaflAl. ".SO 1M eaYaat, 191.00 114rrMaw 9990 FAAU itt alb.. ISAAC a °r �• Carl IOTA S !95.90 a nn.... tl -!91340 laur.na.rN s9 IAnalara .. u.Mm«"2 �',."`"., A'10i m 9.A m O. '..a JI MIYYOM1 M M V19WYM 9113 11. tgfr..'NS• _ra Y w.l V. la w w It Ap9t r. a►a. 1.1 M q rrpr gYtd Y rw4 tawr[ maw A Mw J M pYialsww d. 4wY.. ar 4 re. wvllti.WY rerrr nW Yw...._ .gJMY..r•eerMA9rW e..a... C. IT STATt OI Cll60b1A Crrtr- SAYJ•"••'tID_ On._1�1LlAWi__- ..�....rr ..'_..r' ..—.. .. mow. w...R � .� —�...e .��. ....�. _ r. I ti+ 1. «r r •.�. J_•. _. w +•n+ M .� r .a.u... h Lr rr .....w. WY . la Asnlu.rt _ �i, Af►IILATION BY TRANbTROR 12 SIAN d O $WA De N.e Wnm a I, Ii WI faO PA~,1 Lb 04 0 U-, ,wA 0— cots Awto ! ?lSff_ -± •-- ....'.° II C =D b 0 0 0 go N N A N W SS9 a am�s� 0 N A .• N b z n arr.IU) CUCAMO A COU11110 VI VAnil O b C b� C Oa q a b O c Ux 0 +1 6 N O W a C =D b 0 0 0 go N N A N W SS9 a am�s� 0 N A .• N b z n arr.IU) CUCAMO A COU11110 VI VAnil CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: Russell B. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Bob 2etterberg, Maint. Supv. Streets L Storm Drains SUBJECT: Approval to Lease/Purchase an AcuaTech B -10 Catch Basin Cleaner with Option "B" from Dew Par Sales and Service of Mission Viejo, CA, 92691 authorizing 5 year Lease /Purchase of $30,100.00 /year for first year to be funded by Maintenance Account Number 01 -4647 -7045. It is recommended that the City Council award the lyrchase of: One (1) AquaTech B -10 to Dew Par Sales and Service of Mission Viejo, CA, as the lowest reaNnsible bidder for the 5 year Lease /Purchase for the amount of $30,20000 first year. The 5 year Lease /Purchase to be funded from Maintenance Account Number 01- 4647 -7045. BACKGROUND, /ANALYSIS At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, November 14, 1988, we received bid proposals for the purchase of one (1) truck, mounted catch basin and high velocity combination sewer cleaner. Bids were opened in the City Purchasing Office. Bids were received from: Dew Par Sales of Mission Viejo, CA; 3T Equipment of Walnut, CA; Nixon - Egli of Santa Fe Springs, CA; Haaker Equipment of Pomona, CA. Although, we specified a single rear axle unit, we were given option bids from three out of four vendors for a dual (tandem) axle unit. After discussing with the vendors and staff. we have decided to accept the Option "B" package which still falls within budget and purchase the dial (tandem) axle unit. The 3T Equipment bid, a Camel 200, which uses a hydraulic extruder plate inside the debris tank, incorporates an unacceptable hydraulic system inside the debris tank. The truck chassis and drive engine were also of a non - compatible type ro cur fleet The machines offered by Beaker Equipment (Vactor) and Nixon -Egli (vac Con) failed to offer the minimum of 320 degrees broom rotation or single engine operation. AquaTech t, Page 2 .i` 1 Dew Par Sales provided the lowest responsible bid with the AquaTech 5 -10 that provides single engine operation, 360 degrees boom rotation, and a positive displacement pump system rather F• than a vacuum system. A bid summary is attached for informational ur p poses. .r. It sho.,ld be noted that the bidding process was delayed due to w vendor claims that uur original specification was proprietary. A .6 review of the specification in cooperation with the Purchasing Section and the City Attorney resulted in minor revisions of the pecification for clarity. All vendor questions ware answered in wriuing. Although it is possible that unsuccessful bidders might have comments or questions, Staff is confidant (as is the City SK Attorney) that all proper steps were taken to specify and bid the J. best and safest equipment needad to accomplish the intended d tanks. .y +� Res 1 witted, cc: Liz Stoddard, Finance Director Joan Rrrse, Administrative Assistant i• W 3� Vendor and Equipment Dew Far Sales and Service AquaTech 0 -10 3T Equipment Camel 200 ?' Nixon -Egli Equip. Co. Vac Con V -212 Haaker Equipment Vactor 810 ■ 37 Option 'A• Option •B" Unit with Unit with cptions tandem axles $131,867.04 $136,933.38 $122,117.01 $129,168.42 $138,308.60 No Bid $133,931.00 $141,629.00 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: John L. Aartin, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Rfght -of -May and Park Acquisitions for Wooten Property at 9807 Arrow Route RECOMENDATION• Recommend approval to open escrow with Albert D. and Eileen Wooten for purchase of two (2) houses and land at 9807 Arrow Route for Widening Project between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue and use the remainder for the Arrow Route Neighborhood Center plus relocation costs and escrow costs at a total of $129,000 to be paid from Systems Fees Account No. 22- 4637 -8735 and Neighborhood Pa•k Acquisition Account No. 20 -4532 -8808. 94CR(ROUNDJAI IAL YS IS The right -of -way acquisition consultant for the City. John Cutler and Associates, met +with Mr. and Mrs. Wooten to discuss the forthcoming City pr sect to widen Arrow Route between Archibald Avence and Hermosa Avenue. The present configuration of the right -of -way world be through the middle of one of the two rental houses located on the property at 9807 Arrow Route. This property is adjacent to the Arrow Route Heighborhood Community Center as shown on the attached sketch. The owners were aware ce the house situation and anticipated a street proje:t would require removal of the house. However, per a request of the Community Services Department, staff approached the owners with an offer for a total take so that what is not needed for the street Project may be used for expansion of the Community Neighborhood facility. With this approach and the age of the appraisal, a counter offer was proposed by the owner that is fair and equitable, according to City's consultant negotiator. Staff gave Instructfons to the consultant to prepare escrow documents for Council consideration. These documents will is used in making a transaction with the owner for acquisition of the land and improvements known as 9807 Arrow Route. The lot size, acquisition costs and budget division calculations are shown on the attached schedule. The schedule shows rifgght -of -way costs to be expansion thelCommunity Center. costs Thts is thenflrsot acquisition .418f0o the for Arrow Route Phase II Project and yields an additional 10,200 square feet for Neighborhood facility expansion. CCSR December 7, 157,0 Page 2 Tyyppical with these types of acquisitions is the additional -costs for reloCation and escnlw processing. in this case, the City has two renters that the consultant relocation firs has begun to contact and estimates a cost to the City to be approximately $4,500 per renter. 1 Res ctf�ily submitted, i RHM: Attachment 39 N= F, i . w WOOTEN PROPERTY 9807 Arrow Route 2 houses and land Relocation (2 renters) 0 $4,Su0 each Escrow Costs Sgc.•re footage of Property Right -of -way needed Arrow Route Right -of -way needed Alpine Street Remainder (Community Services) Costs 17,000 square feet 0 $129,000 Right-of-way Remainder (Caeaunity Services) 40 $115,000 $ 9,000 $ 5 Oco 3129. rotai Costs 17,000 5,100 1 700 — 6.0m 'square feet 10,200 square feet S 7.59 /square foot $51,612.00 $77,418.00 PAnTTA7CC PIIOTOGnA]Ill AND PLAT AIAII t Jew orfart to be Taken Taken by Nancy Collins September ori987 It AA', w IFOurf- 0' lVe r" oxzv SCX y tz/vi WOOMt-1 P P%r- c F— I- DATE: TO: FFMI: BY: SUBJECT: Y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAkONGA STAFF REPORT December 7, 1988 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Linda Back, Junior Civil Engineer _z, - it�� t Authorize the advertising of the `Notice Inviting Bids' for the 19th Street and Haven Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, to be funded from Systems Development (Account No. 22- 4637 -8746) REM PENDATION: It the i'3 '19th recommended trcet andmH ven venue intersection" Improvement iProjectntofbe funded from Systems Development (Account No. 22- 4637 -8746) and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Clark to advertise the 'Notice Inviting Bids'. OAC.CGROUND /ANALYSIS The Consultingt Engineers. lanrs e byflstaff andv approvedpby tthebyCity Engineer. The Engineer's estimate for construction is $426,000. Legal advertising is scheduled for December I.S. 1988, and December 22, 1988, with the bid opening at 2:00 p.m. on January 5, 1989, RespectM tAed, R1d1:LB:dlw attachment RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHC CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVICG PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "19TH STREET AND HAVEN AVENUE INTERSECTION', IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS. WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for '19th Street and Haven Avenue Intersection'. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE IKVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour of 2 :00 o'clock P.M. on tho 5th day of January 1989, sealed bids or proposals for the '19th Street and Haven Avenue Intersection' in said City. Bids will be opened and publicly read immediately in the office of the City Clerk, 9320 Base Line Road, Suite C, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of 19th Street and Haven Avenue Intorsecthon". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles i and 2, the Contractor 1s required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem .ges for work of a similar chrracter in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per them wages for holiday and overtlne work. In that regard, th3 �3 Director of the Dep3rtW1t of Industrial Relations of the State of California is requ;red to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such pprevailing rates of oer diem wages arc on file to the office of tte City Clerk of the city of Rancho Cuueonya, 9320 Base Line Road, Suite C, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any interested party an request. be a C44trattithe Agency also shall cause a copy of such The Contractor, shall forfeit, as ppenalty to the Cii� of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars 025.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thareor, if such laborer, workman, er mechanic is paid lass than the ghieral prevailing rat* of contrect,aeYshlm hereinbefore subeontractorrunddeer work him,dineviolation Of the provisions of said Lobar Code. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 971, SUtutat of 1939, and in accordance with the regulations of the California apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices my be employed in the prosecution of the work. of thetLabor Code concerrnning to the the employment ofnapprentises7by the 1777.6 contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in arty apprentieetble occupDation to apply to the Joint apprenticeship committee nearest the tit* of tAe ppublic works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade •or a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the atio of apprentices to Journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to Journeymen in such cases shall not be less thar one to five except: A. When unemployment are of coverage rcnteno 0 p i p he omitteee has exceeded an average 9daysprior to the request for certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C When rstrade i s inn least 1/30 of its membership through app ntceshipt aningoanannual basis statewide or locally, or 0 i ll f d cc t employs gt apprentices on o his contratson an annual of not less than one apprentice to eight Journeymn. y The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the adatrlstratlon of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or Journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements nay be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex- officio th-- Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from tits Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under his shghall comply with and be governed by the laws of the 2� artf7. Chaptera1, Artie e to do 3 of ttlhe LaborgCodarofathe StatetofiCa Division ttornla as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the Mf of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty -five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, :- orkman, o; mechanic PM ployed 1n the execution of the con'ract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work herefnbefore mentioned, for each calendar day dtirtng which said laborer workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (81 hours to vtolatior. of said Labor Code, Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to wch workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. The bidder mist submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount thatlthe bldderswill enterein to ( lthe propose contracts if thedsamsaIs awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the bidder. the Cammoount Rancho the loowweestnbidder ',sssecuritytshall be applied bywthe City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surpli-s, if aav, shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for Wd work shall oe one hundred percent (10014) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to fifty percent Z7 (SOS) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compeusatlanr insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contrsct which my be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for'the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered tram a Contractor whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess a Class 'A' License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulations adapted pursuant thereto at the time time this contract is awarded. The work 1s to be done in accordance witl the profiles, plans, and specfficatlons of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City Clerk at 9320 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00, said $35.00 is nonrefundable. Upon written requost by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be smiled whor said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of $20.00 to cover the cost of wiling charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 902 of the General Provisions, as set forth .a the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by t'%e Contractor, the Contractor my, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies wr neld (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right' to reject any and all bids. 4('9 ' vyI{ CITY OF RANCHO CUCA?40NGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 1, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell II. 9e9uire, City Engineer BY: Jeff Barnes, Forks Supervisor SUBJECT: Award of the Landscape Mainter Median Islands d San Bernardino Ends Landscapes, California for the amount of $91 Landscape Maintenance Assessment Vista), No. 3 -8 (Haven Median) a numbers 43- 4130- 6028, 46 -4130• respectively for the Haven Median County Flood Control Wash Ends b account number 01- 4641 -6028. RECQW MTIOY: tM :ract for Haven oad Control Mash outh El Monte, to be funded by and 01 -464; San Berne a by General It is recommended that the City Council accept the bids as submitted by Mariposa Landscapes, In, .. Landscape West, Inc., reject the bid as submitted by Mentone Turf Supply as being nonresponsive, and award the contract for the Haven Median Islands and San Bernardino County Flood Control Wash Ends to the lowest responsible bidder, Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for the amount of $99,000.00 BACKGROUND /AMUJ.YSIS Per, previous Council action, bids were solicited, received Ind opened on November 28, 1986. Bids were reviewed by Staff and the City Attorney and found to be acceptable and in accorosnce with the bid requirements except for one bid. The bid submitted by Mentone Turf Supply of Menton was found to be nonresponsive due to alteration of the bid document. Respectfuil submitted, Rlel: cc: Liz Stoddard, Finance Manager Jerry Fulwood, Resource Services Director Attachment / ^ \ (17 \ 2 kr 9 ! § d 6 ® � ! �G §§ / { !■ -- { ■ � §� | �` |] \, . , ; ■ $ | 2| Sq 2| ! _ k k s § �!f � t \ � ■ § ■ w i ,t, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 T0: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Civil Engineer ti SUBJECT: Award the Amethyst Street Reconstruction, Storm Drain and Traffic Signal Imyrovewent Project At 19th Street and Amethyst Street to Mobassaly Engineering, Incorporated, for the amount of $425,258.0O3 to be funded from Systems Development Fund 22- 4637 -8729 and 58325/1DA Fund, 12- 4637-8606 RECOMEIWTION: It is recommended that the City Council accept ail bids as submitted and award the contract for Amethyst Street Reconstruction, Storm Drain, and Traffic Signal Imprnvement Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Mobassaly Engineering, Incorporated, for the amount of $425 258.00. (Systems Development Fund $347,258.00 and 50325/TDA Fund S78,OOO.Z„ BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Per previous Council action, bids Were solicited, received and opened on Tuesday, November 1, 1988, for the subject project. Mobassaly Engineering, Incorporated, I. the apparent lowest responsible bidder with a bid amount of $425,258.00 (see attached bid summary), the Engineer's estimate was $387,764,50. Staff has reviewed all bids recelved and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has comyloted the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respect Wtted, ii RHM:Li y— ' Attachment cc: Purchasing , .N, ■ 2. �� 05 |� a/ �f ■ m � ■ a ' 77 � 2§§ ` 9)K §§ 2 ■ § m k § ■ § ' § �!§ �k)| : ■ 2 § � { | § k § / 2§ - �, � t . � k k § - — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA { STAFF REPORT December 7, 1988 r FFRDN: City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Lcura J. Bonaccorsl, Landscape Designer Approval and execution of landscape plan- shacking contracts with J. F. Davidson Associates, and B.S.I., Incorporated, for FY 1988 -1989 RECOOMDATION: It 1s recommended that the City Council approve the subject contrscts with J. F. Davidson, Associates and B.S.I., Incorporated, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the same. BACKGRikiND /ANALYSIS The services of these flan shacking flrns have proven valuable over the past Year. The continuation of these services will enable landscape plan - checking for City-malntalned areas to continue ir.. a tiaply Banner. Staff has received and renewed Contracts for landscape Architectural Services for plan - checking for FY 1988 -u9 from the following two (2) fines: J. F. Davidson, Assaiates of Riverside. B.S I., Incorporated, of Santa Ana The oaximum charge for plan - checking will be $310 /sheet to reflect the actual cost for pr;viding the services. Copies of the contracts are available in the office of the City Clerk. Respect 11 bsdtted, r RHN:Li ly Attachment �a RECOKMENDATIONs p It is recommunded that City Council authorize the Ma wide Concrete Clerk to execute the cot tract documents for and Citywide the Repair Annual maintenance Contract, Administrative Servirea Director to expand $12,690.00 to be funded from 01-4647 -6028. BACKGROUND /A10 -7-Y 81 S On Wednesday, November 2, 1988, City Council awarded the el, San contract to Raymatf Elect•receivedanf rom15Raymoran Electric �COan S. Gabriel, CA. documents, bonds and insurance documental executed contract reviewed them and found othem to be complete and in accordance with the contract p p oaal ReZpaa- RE submitted, / r / cc, Joan Kruse, Administrative Assistant CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATES December 7, 1988 City Council and City manager TO: Russell H. Haguite, City Engineer FROms Maint. Supv. Streets c Storm Drains BYS Bob zatterberg, Electric Company SUBJECT: Execute Contract toitRaymor of $12,690.00 to be oundednfrom Gabri 4647�6028he amount RECOKMENDATIONs p It is recommunded that City Council authorize the Ma wide Concrete Clerk to execute the cot tract documents for and Citywide the Repair Annual maintenance Contract, Administrative Servirea Director to expand $12,690.00 to be funded from 01-4647 -6028. BACKGROUND /A10 -7-Y 81 S On Wednesday, November 2, 1988, City Council awarded the el, San contract to Raymatf Elect•receivedanf rom15Raymoran Electric �COan S. Gabriel, CA. documents, bonds and insurance documental executed contract reviewed them and found othem to be complete and in accordance with the contract p p oaal ReZpaa- RE submitted, / r / cc, Joan Kruse, Administrative Assistant 4 a �t f z t, 9� C i DATE: TOt FROM: Byt SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT btcvmbor 7, 1988 City Council and City Manager Ruasell R. Maguire, City Engineer Bob 2etterberg, M ±int. Supv. Streets t Storm Drains Eyecuto contract for the Citywide Concrete Repair Annual Maintenance Contract to Raymrr Electric Company of Stn Gabriel For the amount o: $12,690.00 to be funded from 01- 4647 -5028. RECOMMENDATIONt It is recomaended that City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract documents for the Citywide Concrete Repair Annual Maintenance Contract, and Authorize the Administrative Services Director to expand $12,690.00 to be funded from 01 -4641 -6028. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS On Wednesday, November 2, 1988, City Council awarded the e1, S4n contract to Raymor Electric Company 315 S. San Gabriel, San Gabriel, CA. Staff has received from Raymor Electric Co., executed contract documents, bonds and insurance documentsi reviewed them and found them to be complete and in accordance with the contract proposal. Respec submit t�edd,,�__,__��y cc% Joan Kruse, Administrative Assistant s■ 0 a ✓x j DATE: TO: r.' FROM: I BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT December 7, 1488 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer INl:fe Valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenanc District Nos. 1 and 6 for OR 88 -18, located at the rest side of Santa Anita Avenue, 2000' north of 4th Street, submitted by Colavin Group RECOM EIW,TIOM It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving OR 88 -18, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District Mo. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Mos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clei* to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANAI.YSIS/BAr.KGROUND DP. 88 -18, located at the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, 2000' north of 4th Street, in the Industrial Area Specific Plan Development District, was approved by the Planning Comoisslon on July 27, 1288. The Develcper, Colavin Group, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off -site improvearnts in the following amounts* Faithful Performance Bond: $14,000 Labor and Material Bond: f 7,000 Copies of the agreement and securit; are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts and Cucamonga County Water District. C C. S R. 's have also been approved by the City Attorney The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form sfgm.d by the Developer is on file in tiro City Clerk's office. RReelpp, j submitted, 1 Attacttmnntts.4�w� 1v RESOLUTION No.,� A RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIIONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPP^'IIWG IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IWROYEW67 SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 88 -18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ranch] Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreemert executed on Duiember 7, 1988, by Colavin Group as developer, for the improv!ment of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, 20001 north_ of 4th Street; and WHEREAS, the installation-of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the termm thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real'Oroperty as referred to ilanning Commission, Development Review Uo. 88 -10; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improveavent Agreement. NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MO.L'JONBA, HEREBY RESOLVES that ttid Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security be and the stme are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign _ said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. .VY 1`. '• •x ?Ay� 4.:i1'•" �l "v+Y�l��^e }: , � •. . ^ r :, �•2- t.�r RESOLUTION W. A RESOLUTIONI OFjTHE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCNpNGA, CALIVORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR OR 88 -18 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping' and Lighting Act of 1972 ", being Division 16, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the •Maintenance S District'); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 'Landscaping and LI hting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and Incorporated herein by this refarenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District lave filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's 'Report'. NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as sham In Exhibit 'A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Halntenance District, including i5 Tvy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. ci A88E83MENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 -- 4TMSZUT 1 Sgp %, CM OF RaCSO CUCAVOIWA 0OUWT OF SAN BWABDINO if" J r .`l�5^: if ,.. y�i�• S+ yy.... iTrk` "w12<:. .�'�.. •<, t•_- ••_ v y�, +��+" �;'(� c�`�_�ti'ml''iit.1'L•r.r. v.: ".v. .. :i'.�. � "� "� � _'t'77.�t.`'..�,v,_ ,�.t5^ -'i' r ♦ .{ .541 nr•131 CY `. \•:t..ww± Y , E7fMItIT •e• _ PROJECT MW: OR 88 -18 NO. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 4.25 acres NO. OF ASSCSS. UNIT: 8.5 units i STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT " No. of Lapps to be Annrixed District No. WUVL YZVUL 44-WU Yr-J LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Turf Ground Cover Trees District No. Street Name Sq. ft. Sc. ft. Ea. 3 - -- - -- - -- 11 I I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engiaeer BY: Millie Valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improverent Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13642, located at the east side of Beryl Street between 19th Street and Base Line Road, submitted by Hix Development Corporation RECOINIE"(1011 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13642, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor ....d the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/6ACKGROUN0 Tract 13642, located at the east side of Beryl Street between 19th Street and Base Line Road, in the Low Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1988 fo- the division of 5 acres into 19 lots The Developer, Hix Development Corporation, is submftting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $210,000 Labor and Material Bond: $105,000 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts and Cucamonga County Hater District. C.C. b R.'s have also been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. WRe,pelY bmitted, iOL•JARsd'ty� Attachments r- e �a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF R&MCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 13642 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 13642, consisting of 19 lots, submitted by Mix Development Corporation, Subdivider, located at the east side of Beryl Street between 19th Street and Base Line Road, has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider for appyroval by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Callfornfa, and in compliance with the requirements of ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final No p of said Tract said Subdivider has offered the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution by said City, together with good and sufficient Improvement Security, and submits for approval safd Final Map offering for dedication for street and highway purposes the rtreets delineated thereon. NOV. THENZPARc, TiE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PJXHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as failo�s: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and tha Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and ? That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by tae City Attorney; and I That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. sg �w RESOLUTION W. q, f `� i A RESCLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO ' CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY To LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 90. 1 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT NO. 13642 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucaawga, C. tfornia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to 3, the terns of the 'Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972', being Division 15, SS Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the Stale of California, said :Y• special maintenance district known and designated is Landscape Maintenance `r7 District No. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinafter referred to a•: the 'Maintenance District'); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 'Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take icthxrerncr , ta and and orporaedereinby this referenced to the MaintenanceDisti•ic WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report" HOW, THEREFORE, THL CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCNGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the proper as shown in Exhibit "A' and the work program areas as described in Exhibit 'B' attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future prrceedings of the Maintenance District, including Ve ry T of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. M X % l7/ ` r ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICY NOS. 1 ANC 2 N /NOT /CVrN lrRCJr ticavamtsv Apo Iol Ih .07 tt 2aY � :OY Z e fit Ifi q 4i a II A' O t «i lfl � 9 Id 5 Iy I6 PAI Sird • a a r NNN - - react: a 3` ly�li i O 14 .}j` _ � • ti;- -- _ I oarw vulva I rarity n \4l NfMLM/ef CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A COUNTY 0>! SAN BUNARDINO 81'A17 Oi CALUbu , a S • .r v t tia J�u V• v `'!'J ��` =vvtsti .eyu w� PROJECT KW: TIACT NO. 13642 N0. Of U.U. OR ACREAGE: 19 d/u NO. OF ASSESS. UNIT: 19 units += STREET LIGHTING MINTEMWE DISTRICT i + Dlstrict No. �k?• of La o be Mnexed 1 _Lt, s� - -_ 27 W 2 9 --- -° LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT District No. Street Name Turf Ground Cover Trees S , f�, 1 —� Sq. ft. Ea_ 25 t `i• F — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT mber 7, 1988 Council and City Manager i ll H. Maguire, City Engineer M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspeutose of Bonds for Tract 12870 Etiwanda Storm Drain and ria Basin located on the north side of Highland Menue en Etiwanda and East Avenue RECt"O NTI0M: It 1s recommended that City Council release the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond, Tract 12870, for the construction of the Etiwanda Storm Drain Phase I and Victoria Basin. Background /Analysts Pursuant to the Improvement yAgreement, Tract 12870, the subject bonds may const construction of when the Ett ands Storm Drain executes a ,antd thcontract unty execute.-; and awards the contract for the Victoria Basin. The City has awarded and executed the contrcct for the Etiwanda Store Brain Phc,e I, and it is well under construction. The County has awarded and executed the contract for Victoria Basin at the Supervisors meeting of November 1- 1988. Therefore, it Is recommended that the subject bonds be r!iee d. ".ELOPER: A.A.M. Investments 10070 Arrow Fuute Ranrto Cucamonga, California 91730 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Storm Brain) $822,000.00 Labor and Material Bond (Storm Drain) $411,000.00 Rose t su muted, m ■:' y_' �i2ik.=, Ylr `':��i41„?%w'gj4.i�.- y.,'L''". 'd� ..t °1 °t :." +: t:�: t�'• :'� ""::it�: �".�.� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1968 4 C1 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguirv, Ciiyy Engineer BY: Steve M. Gfllfland, Public Works Inspector.r SUBJECT: Ac0. "Ante of Improvements, release of Maintenance Band for Tract 13131 located on the northeast corner of Arse Highway and Vineyard Avenue REUPPO BATIOM: I is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds Background /Awl; si s The required one year maintenance pperiod has ended and the street Improvements remain f-ee from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Robertson Haines 1003 Cooley Drive /102 Colton, California 92324 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $17,250.00 , �00 e: DATE: TO: FR0M: BY: SUBJECT: • 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT December 7, 1968 City Council and City Manager I Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector — - > I Acceptance of Irproveeents release of Maintenance Bond for Tract 11781, located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue RECOSIE DAT140: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond Background /Analysis The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Daly Reyes 9035 Haven Avenue, Suite 102 Rancho Cucamonga, Califurnia 91730 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $9,200.00 Bps /pec u tted, RHM: Sia1: sjm DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SWECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STAFF REPORT December 7, 1988 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Steve M. Gilliland, Public Norks Inspector. ■ Acceptance of Improvements, release of Maintenance Bond far Tract 12091 located at the northeast corner of Ath Street and Grove Avenue IECOPE1DATIOM: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS The requi -td one year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Rancho Verde Village 1725 South Grove Avenue Ontario, California 91761 -4530 Release: Mainte,iance Guarantee Cash Bond (Street) $10,200.00 RespectfpHr ubmitted, A zy'. —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMGNGA STAFF REPORT x =w DATE: December 7, 1936 V L TO: Cfty Council and City Manager ,w FROM: Wessell H. Maguire, City Engineer tf: BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Impector�T SUBJECT: Rolease of Bonds and Notice of Completion 5� RECOM ENDATI0U.- i' The required street improvments for Parcel Ma " have been completed in an acceptable manner and it I$ recoemendedp th.c City Council said improverents, authorize the City Engineer to file accept a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release Perforstnce Bond in the amount of $31,030.00' the Faithful I BACKGROdND /ANALYSIS Parcel Map 8680 - located on the East side of Ramona Avenue, south of Base Line Road. Release: DEVELOPER: N 8 S Residsntfal 2950 Ainey Avenue /B -1 Costa Mesa, Califorala 92626 Faithful Perforasnce Bond (Street) $31,000.00 Res pec subo tied, i RM. Attachment ir ]b RESOLUTION NO. `-D A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAMCHO CUCANOIMiA, CALIFOAN!A, ACCEPTiMG THE PUBLIC 1MPROYF.ENTS FOR PAPCEL NAP 8680 AMD AUMRIZINP THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Parcel Hip 8680 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complote. HU, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and V* City EA91neer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion Math the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 61 iA a DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT December 7, 1988 City Council and City Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Steve N. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector., Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion RECONEWATIOM: The required street Irprovements for OR 86 -13 rove been completnd 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 Bonds in the amount of $16,000.00, $165,400.00 and $40,800.00. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS OR 86 -13 - located on the oast side of Vineyard Avenue between 9th Street and Arrow Route, and north side of 9th Street, east 07 Vineyard Avenue. DEVELOPER: Messenger I 16912 -A Von Irvine, CA Release: Faithful Performance Bonds D; 86 -13 OR 36 -13 OR 66 -13 9th Street Storm Drain Street Improvement; 516,000 00 $165,400.00 $40,800 00 Ress�peec�tffu submitted, f R104:SAG:ly Attachment RESOLUTION No, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL-OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANO.I6A, CALIFORNIA; ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC, I►pROYEKUTS y FOR DR 80.13 AND AUTHORIZINGG THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE NOW r 1 WHEREAS. the construction of Public improvements for OR 86- 1+ been Completed to the satisfaction of the C11y Engtreer; and 13 have NHEVAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NON. THEREFORE hereby resolves that the work Is hereby yaccepted0anndd the City Engineer is authorized to s{gn and Vile a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. v i I 70 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUC STAFF REP( December 7, 1988 City Cnuncfl and Ctty Manager Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works I Release of Bonds and Notice of Cooq RECOIREIDATION: The required street faprorements for Tract 1319; an acceptable manner and it is recommended that improvements, accept the Maintenance Guarantee $15,800.00 authorize the Cfty Engineer to file a authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful aaaunt of 5158,000.00. BACKGROUNWANALYSIS Tract 13192 - located on the north side of Terra Vista Parkway, east of Spruce Avenue Accept: DEVELOPER: Lewis floors P.O. Box 670 Upland, California 91785 Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $ 15,800.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $158,000.00 Respec s bat ted. RHN.$ y Attachment I a S. w w , W: O i RE ALU IOM N0. 1 �(J I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUL';IL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANDOGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROYEMENTS FOR TRWT 13192 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILIKG OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WOaH WHEREAS, the construction of public icproveaents for Tract 13192 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS. a Notic, of Coapletirn is required to be filed, certifying the wort conpletn. NON. TKREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that tha work is hereby accepted and the City Eaginetr is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 74- r : CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT- Approval of Psrcel Map 10238, and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 10238, located at the northwest corner of FooMill Boulevard and Sin Diego Avenue, submitted by Cucamonga County Water District RECOIIEIQATUA: It is recommeudel that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 10238 and ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the City Clerk to cause same to record. Background /Ana,ysis Parcel Y•,p 10238 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 1988, for the division of 4.62 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Flood Control designation, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Ologo Avenue. Improvements are to be cor3tructed at the tine of building permit issuance. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the neveloper is on file to the City Clerk's office. Res wze5; W tted, 6- - 6 RH M:WV:JAA:sjm Attachment ` -$rt;. •tj,upxp » af,. _ -tza :y RESOLUTION N0. 8 gI — (o %(a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAl1SHC CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 10238 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 10238) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Nap Number 10238, submitted by Cucamonga County Water District and consisting of 3 parcels, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Diego Avenue, being a division of 4.62 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Flood Control designation, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and it WHEREAS, Parcel Na,# Number 10238 is the final map of the division of `4 land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Nap; and a WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met. A� NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO11GA HEREBY RESOLVES that said Parcel Nap Number 10238 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. � s .a RESOLUTION NO. 4-6 S -(P A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIL ,IL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO' CUCA N1NGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEYATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT MID. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOP. PARCEL MAP 10230 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972', being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, sa'o special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Mnlntenanc%i District No. 3, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Maintenance District "); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the 'Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972' authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time tMr City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit •A' attached hereto and incorporated hereitr by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of propc'ty within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice anC hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report'. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY V RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the atove recitals are all true ark; correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of tha proper as shown in Exhibit •A• and the work program rreas as described in Exhibit •B' attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, includingil—ie-Tevy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder I 75 A8309SWINT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. - I'll .1 1 L . O L V u r CITY Ol BIIKCAO Cuc"ONGA • COUNTT OF AAN MNAW)WO RrATS OF CALIFOANU �. N 3 1 AND 6 AV F- EXHIBIT 86' P30JECT NAME: PARCEL KV 10238 No. OF 0.11. OR ACREAGE: 4,62 acres N0. OF ASSESS. UNIT: 9 units pcl 1 .45 �,. pcl 2 2.15 _ , pcl 3 2.02 il STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. of L s to be Annexed District No 1900= Zj,buU 6 --- _' - -- --- LANDSCAPE MAINTENAMCt DISTRICT Turf Ground Cover Trees District No. Street Name Sq. ft. Sc. ft. Ea. 3 - -- r — y r �7 December 7, 1988 i TO: City council , f CITY OF RANCHO CUCA 1ONGA STAFF REPORT FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director BY: Mary Kuhr., Personnel Technician SUBJECT: Authorizattnn to Access Criminal History Information REWWAORTIDM: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting authorization to the City Manager or designee to access state and kcal criminal history information for purposes of employment, licensing or certification. The City has conducted pre - employment and licensing investigations as needed through the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department to determine if applicants have any criminal history which would preclude them from performing their duties as city employees. The City has also conducted similar background investigations before licensing solicitors such as door to door salesman and ice cream vendors. The State of California requires that any governarntal agency that wishes such information oust have a resolution adopted giving authorization for accessing such. The attached resolution provides the necessary authorization. Respectfully submitted, ge&7-- J m Hart Administrative Services Director JH•cp I RESOLUTION NO. �6 " (q I r A RESOLUT104 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AUTHORIZATION TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DFSIGNEE TO ACCESS STATE AND LOCAL CRI:%INAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(:)(10) and 13300(b)(10) authorize cities, counties, and districts to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes; and WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) and 13300(b)(10) requires that there be a requirement of exclusion from employment, licensing, or certification based an specific criminal conduct on the part of the subject of the record; and WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(10) require the city council, board of supervisors, or governing body of a city, county, or district to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certificatior. purposes. Cucamonga, that City ToRESOLVED cho the City Council is hereby Jauthori ed to access summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall not consider a person who has been convicted of a felory or a misdemeanor involving moral turpftuae e,iglble for employment or licensing; except that such conviction may be dlsregarden: 4f it is determined that mitigating circumstances exist, or that the conviction is not related to the employment or license in question. ?9 ■ JI ORDINANCZ 110. 378 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUB CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON:A. CALIFORNIA, RHCOWOMMING APPROVAL OF RNVIR0IMENTAL AS58SSNBNT AND DEVELOPHENT DISTRICT AMEHUMENT 88-07 (AHMANSON DtVELOPNE11T5, INC.), A -RE-ZONE OF /PPROEINATELY 59 ACRES OP VACAICr LAND LOCATE) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Of RTIWANDA AVENUE JM 25TH STREET TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2 -4 DWELLING UPSTS PER ACRE). AND NAKINU FINDINOO :H SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (i) Ahmanson Developments. Inc, has filed an application for Development District Amendment 88 -07 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Dwalopusnt District Amendment is referred to as etbe Applications. (ii) On October 26, 1988, the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application concluded said hearing on that date, and recomandad approval. (iii) On Novmbtr 16, 1988, the C.dty Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed publi - iaring on the Application. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Batch* Cucamonga dean hereby find, determine, and ordain as follmot 1 This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facto sat forth is the Recitals, Part A. of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. In conjunction with this Devalopment Agreement, an Eavironmantal Assessment, in conformance with the requirements of the Califorris 4oviromoutal Quality Act, has been prepared. The Council bee determined that this project would not have a significant adverse affect on the ewironcent, hereby adopts a finding of no sign.ficant irpact on the environment and issues a Negative Deelaratiee. 3. Based •tpon substantial wadanee presented during the above referenced public hearings on October 26. 1988 and November 16, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony. this Council hereby specifically finds an followat . V� Orawnca 40. 378 -. Page 2 (a) The subject vropert7 is suiulQs for the was p1mitedain the proposed Development District in terms of access. size. and compatibility with eziating land "a in the surrounding' (b) The proposed. Davalopmeat District pre -,=* tti would not have significw adverse impacts on the enairoment, nor properties. and (c) She proposed Development District pre -zone is is Q=fomaoce with the ^_mare, plan - 4. The City Council of the City of Reach* Weamonga hereby spprwes the Appliwtim. S. She Bayor shall dgo this Ordiasnce and city daTU8hal1 }east the sage to ba published within ofeg*n*caldcicirculation peed is the once in The DaUT Loort, a aarapep g of Rancho CwIUMOv e, City of Ontario. California, and circulated in the City California. ORDINANCE NO. 377 All ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE L'ITr OF RANCHO CUCAIONGA. CALIFORNIA, AMOFINC DNMOPMT AGRMDM 88-03 (AHXAHSON DIVELOl'11 MS, INC.) FOR APPRO.[IKAMY 53 ACRES OF VACihT LAND LOCATLD AT THE SOUTBNEST COMM OF ETIi1A1D7A AVLHUE AND 25TH STREET. AND MAXIM FIRDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF m N A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 5f 864 now provider, in pertinent part, es follwat •The Legislature finds and de" tee thatt _4 -r" (a) The lack of certainty in the approval of development Yprojects can result in a waste of rsaources, escalate the cost of housing and othss developments to the consumer, and discourage : investment in and c— Itacmt to caaprahenaivo planning which would wake mssfmm effic.aot utilisation of reaouzcos at tAa leant economic cost to the public. (b) Ausuranca to tho applicant for a dweloment project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project an accordance with emfatirg policies, rules and regulations. and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public PlanaloS process, entourage private participation in comprehensive planning. and rtdute the econanic costs of development. (is) CslaforuLa Government Coda Section 56865 providas, Lt pertinent part. as fellows: Any city .may enter into a Oene7.opssmt Agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the levelopment of aneb property as provided it this article. .e (i.i' California (.cvermeat Code Section 56865 2 provided, in part, as follrvc: -A Deval,pe.enr Agree t shell specify the doraC On of the Agreement, th. penit Leu sea of tuft property, the density or ntenaity of Jae, the mautimum height and size of proposed buildings. and provision for reaon•stion or dedication of land for public purples The Or elop�eut Agreement may include conditions, terms. reatrictioa, and uequirme.to fn rubsequent discratGomap actions. provided test aneb co..ditaoos, terns, restrictions, and requirevents `4 Ordinance No. 377 Page 2 for discretionary actions shall not prevent da:Ielopmeat of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development not forth i in the Agreement ... ° (iv) Attached to this Ordinance, marked as Exhibit els and incorporated herein by thin reference, is proposed Development Agreement 68-03 concerning that property located at the southwest corner of Etivands Avenue and 25th Street, and as legally described in the attached Development Agnament. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, that Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 01" is referred to as "the Development Agreement", (v) Concurrent with this Ordinance approving this Development Agreement, the City Council ban adopted an Ordinance approving Development District Ameadmear 88-07 for the purpose of pra- zoning the property to Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). y (vi) On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of tba City of Rancho Cucamonga bald a duly noticed public hearing concerning the application and concluded caid hearing on that date and recomsendad approval. (vii) Ow November 16, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public bearing concorniug the application. (viii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have ocoirrad. B Ordinance. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rrucho Cucamonga does hereby ordain an follwst This Council hereby specifically finds that ell of the factc set forth in tLe Recitals. Part A. of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. in coojucction with this Development Agreement, an Emironaental Assessment, in corformity with the raquirnmeatw u,f the California Environmental Quality Act, caa been prepared. The Cozmiosion has determined that this project would nct bows a significant adverse effect on the anviroments and hereby adopts a finding of no significant impact on the environment and issues a Negative uaclamoon. 3. Based upon substantial- evidence presented during the above reforencod public hearings on October 26, 1988 and Novenbor 16, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds an follows: (a) The subjett property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Development District in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area: and ^rdiasnce Mo. 377 , page 3 (b) The proposed Development District pro -zone would not have significant adverse impacts m the enviroment, nor- the Burronnd 9 properties; and ".." -1. (c) The proposed Darelopaant district pre -soce is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Council specifizAaly finds chats (a) The location, doaign, and proposed uses not forth in this r Development Agrwreat are compatible with the character of existing development in the vicinity. (b) The Development Agrasamt confor+e to the General Plan of , the City of Rancho Cucemooga. 5. It is Capressly found that the public necessity. gonarsl welfare, and good toning practice requite the approval of the Devalopmnnt Agreement. - 6. This Council approval the Development Agraamant attached berate as ihchibit ale. 7. The Major shall sign this ordinance end the City Clark oball came the sane to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario. California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. California. k. i �� 4 EXHIBIT 'I' ordinance No. 377 y'•: Page 3 RECDRDIRC REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED Wlil TO: Beverly A. Authelet City Cleric City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucaawwcga, California 91730 THIS ACAEEMENT is made and entered into as of the thirty -first day following final adoption of the ordinance approving it (hereinafter, the 'Effectise Data') by and batnaed+ the CITY OF RANCHO MVDW, a Municipal ` corporation. ('City' hereinafter) and AWiANSOW DEMOPMEW7S, INC. (hereinafter r. n referred to as 'Oevelapw'). i WITMESSETM: Tw Recitals. (1) California Government Code Section 65861 provides as follows: 'The Legislature finds and declares that: '(a) The lack of certainty in the approval of developeent projects can result in a taste of resources, escalate tha cost of housing and other developMt to the consumer, and discourage investment to and comttnnt to comprehensive planning which would make maximae efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. '(b) Assurance to the applicant for a development protect that upon approval of the Project, the applicant nay proceed with the project in accordance with existing Policies, - -1- M Ordinance No. 377 ?age 6 rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planting process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce t'te economic costs of development.• • (11) California Governynt Code section 65365 provides in pertinent part as follows; 'Arty city, . . . , may enter into a development agreement with any person havfrg a legal or equitable interest 1n real property for the development of such this article. . . .• property as provided to follows; (fif) California Government Code Section 65865.2 provides as "A development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the raxlMa height and size of proposed tufldfngs, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The development agreement may include conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary action, provided that such conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of land for the uses and to the density or intensity cf development set forth in the agreement. The agreement may provide that constructica shall be commenced within a specified time and that the project or any phase thereof be completed within a specified time." (Iv) Developer owns fee title In and to that real property consisting of approximately 57 acres in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County now proposed for annexation to City. Said property is legally described in Exhibit 'A• attached hereto and hereinafter is referred to as •the Site' -2- so Ordinance Ha. 377 Pqe 7 r (v) City's General Plan Designation for Of Site is Low Density Residential (two to `our units per acre). Developer and City desire to provide through this Development Agreement $pacific develgmftt criteria to be applicable to the Site upon its anrexstfoe to City which will provide for amxiwA efficient utilization of the Site in accordance with sound planning principles. (ri) This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.5 of Chapter 4, Title 7 of the California Government Lode comencing with Section 65864 thereof. (vii) City has determined that he use and intensity of use provided In this Derelapeent Agreement 1s consistent with the General Plan. (viii) As part of the process of approving this Agreement, City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA'), the required analyses of the envlrorwetal effects which wewld be caused by the agreeseent and adopted a resolution dOcLNWting eoeplfance with CEQA. (ix) As further consideration for the assurances provided by this Agreeeeot to Developer that Developer will not be prevented from develeping the Property. City has requested that Developer provide, and is willing to provide, certain additional sues and agr"Wts to construe, and transfer to the public certain additional Improvements. R. A fftmw3t NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The parties hereby agree that Cftl•'s zoning and prezoning designation for the Site hereby is dewed to be Low Residential W subject to the specific talcs and provisions hereof which shall supersede conflicting standards and requirements of the Low Residential W District so long is this agreement is In full force and effect. The duration of this Development Alreement shall be seven (7) years following the Effective Date, that (s, upon _3_ 27 Ordi"bee Va. 371 Pate a J the expiration of the seven (7) year period ceamcing fsediately &fur the Effective (late, if Developer has not then perfoneed construction work on tns Site or any portion or portions thercoo pursuant to a building permit or parwits Issued by City, the Site or any such portion or portions thereof shall then be doomed to be zoned Low Residential W and the develoonst thereof the Site then and thereafter shall be governed accordingly by the then current provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance as to L zoning or the then applicable specific plan and /or zoning category succeeding thereto. For the foregoing purpose, construction work shall not include preparation of plans, engineering work or grading. 2. The following development standards and conditions shall govern t the development of the Site during the tear hereof, subject to the prortsions of paragraph 1 herctnabove: A. City shall allow the Site to be developed to a density of up to two and a quarter (2.25) par acre, calculated in accordance with City's method of eal:ulatfon speeffled In its DevelopWt Code as of the Effective Date. Developer may apply for any density within Residential 'L) zone. the standards of the Low 8. When and if requested by Developer from time to time, City shall use its best efforts to fnftfats and process to comgletfon proceedings Pursuant to the Mallo_Roos COGMfty Facilities Act of 1982, the Mnfcipal Improvement Act of 1911- the IWfcipal Doprovaemnt Act of 1913, the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, the landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, and any and all other available proceedings to provide for public conduit financing for the construction of public improvements required as a condition to development of the Site or an; portion or portions thereof. C. In lieu of the dedication of land located within the Site, Developer shall pqy City's park feet required due to the residential development of the Stem. Said park fees shall be calculated in accordance with standards in effect at the Vale any such fees are due ud-owfng. As to residential development within any final tract, said perk fees shall be Payable for a lot contained within a final tract when City releases utilities Q -4- V ey,r Ordinance No. 377 Paae 9 for occupancy of that lot for residential use. D. Subject to subparagraphs 2.E and F hereinbelow, Developer shall pay any and ail City fees required as A result of drWOPMnt of the Site, or any portion or portions thereof, at rates current at the time PiyaDle, including, but not limited to, beautification fees, park fees, system developeaent fees, building pervait fees, plan check fees and drainage fens. E. Developer any request and City shalt extend to Developer credit against required drainage fete only to the extent of Developer's direct construction costs incurred in constructing parmenent stores drain drainage facilities reyui!•ed by City as a condition of developing the Site or any portion or portions thereof. F. Developer by request and City shall extend 0 Developer credit against required System development fees only to the extant of Developer'•, direct construction costs incurred in eonatrueting oversized facilities (i.e., facilities sized to service areas located outside of the site) with are not located within, the site, or abutting the sita. Howaver, if traffic signals are required by this daelopmont, the Developer shall be entitled to credit against required systems development fees to the extent above the Developer's fair share. G. Developer shall consent to the creation of an assessment district or districts to provide for the construction and saintensnce of any and all lighting and landscaping within public rtghts- of-way within the Site or abutting the Site pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 or, if applicable, Developer shall consent to an annexation or annexations of the Site or any portion or portions thereof to an exfstin3 assusarent district formulated under said Act for that purpose. H. If requirrd by City as A condition of development of the Site or any Portion or portions thereof. Developer shall consent to the application of the Mello -Roos Facilities Act of 1922 thereto to construct and maintain facilities and /or to purchase and maintain equipment reasonably -SQ- Ordinance No. 377 Page 10 necessary to provide fire protection services to the Site or the applicable portion or portions thereof. I. If required by City as a condition of development of the S1Sg or any portion or portions thereof, Developer shall consent to the application of the "@""nos Facilities Act of 1982 thereto, or Deveioper contribution of equivalent funds, to construct regional drainage facilities. Y J. If the City vacates 25th Street, the southern half of the PMIC right -of -way shall revert to the property Oyler and the northern half of the public right- of-way shall be retained by the City for drainage purposes. To factiitatw these changes, the City shall include the entire rfght -of -way for 25th Street in the Afmxation request. K. nt Toper shall ent notice of the potial provide each prospective buyer written Fourth Street R.ck Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a deposit on any property. 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all substantive and Procedural requirements and provisions contained in City's ordinances, specific plans, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, its Development Code, as amended, building code, electrical code, fire code and plumling cede shall apply to the development of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement. Nrthtr, any tams or phrises contained herein for which there are definitions provided In City's said Development Code shall be deemed to be utilized in accordance with those definitions. e. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65868.5, a certified Copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with tht Reco•4er of San Bernardino County, California, faeediately upon effective. this Agreement becoming 5. The partfeo further agree as follows: et 70 O:diaapw Ho. 377 r.ae ii A. Except as expressly set forth 1n this Agreement representations of any kind or character have been Made to one another b , no y any of the Parties hereto or by any of the parties$ agents, afaU: or attorneys with representatives, rolaUa. respect to each subject to Wch this Agreement rel 8. This Agreement contains the entire Agra eme nt of the par•1. with respect to each subject to which 1t relates. v. C. This Agreement can only be amended in writing, must first be exeanted by all of the Parties hereto, which writing writt D. No Provision of this Agreement army be waive( except in ng' which writing must be executed by all of the parties hereto, deliver to the other. The Parties p hereto each agree that they shall execute and and necessary quest so to do, any and all documents reasonable rY to eceapl{sA or evidence the agreements contained in or contemplated by this A9reeemn't. F. 1'' 10 vent that arY partly should default In one or more of its abligatfars proem, in or contemplated by this Agreement, the defaulting to Party enforce pay o the other �il the incurred in connection with efforts to enYOrce such abltgattan, including reasonable attorneys' whither or not suit be conwced. fees and costs, G. This Agreement, all other documents and agreements provided in or contemplated hereby, and all rights and obligations arising therefrom Shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of them parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 6. Annual Review. City and Developer shall review the performance Of this Agreement, and the development of the property, at least once in every 0 days period from the date hereof. As part; of such annual review, within 30 days attar each anniversary of this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to City all information reasonably requested by City (1) regarding Developer's .7. 1 Ozdiuoce No. 377 " Yaae 12 Performance under this Agreement demonstrating that Developer, has complied in good faith with terms of this Agreement and (11) as required by the City.$ Existing Ordinances. If as a result of such annual review, City finds and datermines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not copited in good faith with any of the tern of conditions of this Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement. 7• Covenants Run with the Land. All of the provisions, terms, covenants and obligations Contained in this the Parties and their res Agreement shall be binding upon Or otherwise) and assigns,Padevisees, admi"'c"s O (by merger, consolidation. rs representatives, and all other persons acquiring any rights or Interests nn thepr lessees, any portion thereof, whether by operation of law or to awry canner whatsoever and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwisa) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable :t equlUbl• servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing son: _met on for the Property hereunder (A) 1s the benefit of and Is a burden upon every portion of the propercy, (8) runs with such lands and (C) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownarshfp of such properties or any portion thereof, and each Person having any interest therein derived in any Menner thorough any eweer of such lands, or eny portion hereunder, and each other thereof, and shall benefit each party and its lands Gerson succeeding to an interest in such lands. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing or in this Agreement to the contrary, airy' assignee or transferee or wrtgagee which acqufn3 any right or interest in or right i respect to the property or any portion thereof shall take and hold such s and interests sub -#Oct to this Agreement and shall not have been deemed to have assumed the Developeras obligations or the other affirmative duties and obligations of Developer hereunder except: .8. 5� Ordioaoc• No.'377' Pena 13 (1) to the extent that any of such assignees, transferees or mcrtgagas have expressly assumed any of the duties or obligations of Developer hereunder; (if) if airy such assignee, transferee or mortgagee accepts, holds, or attempts to exercise or enjoy the rights or interests of Developer hereunder, !t shall have assumed the ebltgations of Developer; and (fit) to the extant that the performance of any duty or ' obligation by Developer Is a condition to the performences of a covenant by Developer, It shall continue to be a condition to Developer's performance hereunder. S. Mortgage* Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof, including the lien of any mortgage. Motwtthstandfng the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render fnvelid, dimfnfsh or impair the lien of any mortgage made In good faith and for value and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or 1nUr�st in or with respect to the Property or any portion thereof, by A mortgagee (Mather under or pvrsuant to A mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise), shall be subject to all of the Lena and conditions contained in this Agreement. No mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Developer's affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; except that to the extant that arty covenant to be performed is a condition to the performance of A covenant by City, the performance theraf shall continue to be a Condition precedeit to City's performance hereundar. Each aartgegee shall have the right (but not the obligation) for a Period of ninety (90) days after the receipt of such notice from City to cure or remetj. the claim of default or noncompliance set forth in the City's notice. If the default is of a nature which can only be remedied or cured by such mortgagee upon obtaining possession, such mortgagee shall seat to obtain p0asesstOn with diligence end continuity through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall thereafter remedy or cure the default or noncompliance within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession. If any such default or .9. 93 `:�"^ OrdSur,�a�No: .377 -'C,.. Page 14 noncompliance cannot, with diligence, be re"died or cured within such thirty (30) day perlcd, than such mortgagee shall have such additional time as sy be reasonably necessary to seedy or cure such default or noncompliance if such mcrtgagee commences cure dur;ng such thirty (30) day period, and thereafter dlligeatly pursues and cagletes such cure, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the affective date of the ordinance approving this Agreement. CITY OF R.k" CDCAvAKA Dated: By yor ateo: By er OWNER: AMOWNSON OEfELCPHENTS, INC. Dated: BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 CODNIT OF ss. on 1980, before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and proved to me en the basis of sat evidence to be the person executed this lnstrmaent es ac now a ge mw a suc o cer s au '*JNed to EeYxEI�u S. INC. and such corporation. of WITNESS my hand and official seat. Notary NbTic n an or sa e ' x• {.: -•`K •:fir rti' .- - - .. OCDINANCE M. ft-380 AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COUNCIL OT RAN,80 CDCAMM3A. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DDL 88-04 C.1RYH CDMPAHr. A PR.'-KONE FOR APPROKIW=Y 2B2 ACRES Of LAND LOCATED AT TEE NORTHEAST CORNER Of 2478 STREET (ST114QT AVEMOE) AND YARDMAN BO.i.00K ROAD TO PLAIM7) O)MMNM. AND MAKING FIN)IN33 IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. ,Recitals. (!) The Ciryn Company ban filed an application for Development District Amendment 88-04 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Herein- after in this Ordinance, the subject Developcoat District Amendment is referred to as "the Application". (ii) On October 26, 1988, the planning Commission of the City of Pelcho CLcaaoogs conducted a duly noticed public hearlug on the Application and - oncludsd said hearing on that date, and reeasaanded approval. (iii) nn November 16. 1988. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cutnacnga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application and concl.ded said hearing on that date. (!vi All legs' prerequisites to the adoption of thin Ordinance brio c:tu -red. B Ordin• -ce. KOJ. THEARFDRK, the City Coun,il of the City of Rancho Cuaougm does hereby find, determine, and ordain hP es follonsi i This .Ouncil hereby cpecifitally finds that all of the facts set fo -tb in the Recitals, Part A. of tbis Ordinates are true ones arrant In Conjunction with the Application, an Environmental Assessment, in conformity with the reluirements of the California Em.ironcantal Quality Act has besc prepared. The Council has determited that this p "jtct would not have c sirAM"Pt adverse affect m the a...irOnmsnt, and hereby adopts a finding of no significant impact on the smiroment sad recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 3 BsseJ uvon subetsntial evidence presented during the above referenced public hearings an Oeteber 26, 1988 and November 16, 1988, including writtap and Oral staff "ports, toCpthr_ with public testimony. th1B Council hereby specifically finds as follow at 5�s �.� > •__,. V i 3- • � _� w '.,. +� .YM1t' ry a.. y °`1�..`✓'y= "'�54j�i,'^e'"'.:� =s e L✓ Ordinance Mo: 980" t +• •ys• _ Page 2 '•j� 4> (a) Thu subject property is ouitable for the uses permitted in the proposed davaiopmean district in terns of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use In the surrounding area: and (b) no proposed Development District pre -cone would not have significant adverse m impacts on the anviloent, nor the surrounding propertiest and (e) 1Le proposed Development District pre-zons is in conformance ;,n with the General plan. i °. ♦. The City Council of the City of Rancho C+cuoaga bcroby approves Y the Application. t " S. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Mark shall. "use Y the sue to be published within fifteen (13) days after ite Waste at least once in The Daily Resort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Fa mho Cucenongs, California. W ORDM%NC3 N0. 379 AN ORDINANCE Or TEE CITY COON= or THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DEVII.OPMENf AGRERffiNT 88-02 (CARR( COMPANY) FOR THE ETIVANDA HIGHLANDS FLAMM OGlM1NITT CONSISTING OF APP MMUTELI :46 DWELLING UNITS ON APPROIDWMY 232 ACRES Or VACANT LAND LOCA'T'ED AT TER NORTRPAST COMM OP 24711 STRRET (SUMMIT A"NUE) AND WARMAN SM-LOCK ROID. AND NARDIo rl!OD'GS IN SUPPORT T8fRE0r A. Recitals. (i) Cali.fcrnia Goostment Coda Section 56564 Am pravidea. in pertinent part, as follwat 'The Legislature finds and declares thatt "(s) The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can remit in a waste o! tasouress. aacAIAta the coat of housing and other developments to the eoasuaar. and discourage iwastmant in and commitment to coeprshenaive planning which would maas maximum efficient utilisotion of resources At the least acomosic coat to the public. e(b) Assurance to the Applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the epplicaet may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policiae, rules and regulation+. and subject to conditions of approval. will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, at.d reduce the economic costs of devalopuant.e (ii) California Gwermant Code Sect! m 56865 provides. in pertinent part, as follwat *Any city ... ,7 enter into a Development Agreement with any person Laving a legs!. or equitable interest in real property for the davelopmsnt of such property As provided in this article ... • (iii) Califo=.La uwermwnt Cede Section 56865.2 provides. in part. as follwat •A Developaeat Agreaneut shall Specify the duration of the agrament, the permitted "as of the property. the density or Satenaity of use. tb• mszimtm height and size of proposed buildings, and prwieioo for reaamatioa or dedication of land for public purpases The Development Agreement mny include condition, tans. q1 is Ordinance Page 2 restrictions, and requirements Zor ■uhaequent discrationary actions. Provided that such conditions, taxes, restrictions, and requlrsuts for discretionary actions shall not prevent developasat of the land for the ewes and to the deeaity or intensity of davvlotmeat set forth in the agreement ... • (iv) ).ttacbed to this Ordinance. Barked as Hchibit e1e and !� incorporated heroin by this reference, is proposed Development Agreement 88-02 between the Csga Company and the Litz of Rancho Cucemongs concerning that property located at the northeast corner of 24th Street (Stmait Avon ") and Nardaan bullock goad, and as legally described'in the attached Development Agreement. Nereiemfter in this nrd!s_+se, that agreenant attached hereto as Exhibit Ala is referred to as athe Development Agreement.- (v) Concurrent with thi-- Ordinance approving this Development Agreement, the City Council is adopting an Ordinance approving Dwalopaent District Amendment 88-04 for the purpose of pre owing the property to Planned Community. (vi) Pd Octcher 26. 1988, the planning Commission of the City of Manchu C:cemonpa held a duly noticed public hearing concerning the proposed Development Agreement, concluded maid bearing on that date, and recommended approval of this Ordinance. (vii) On November 16, 1988, the city council of the City of Rancho Cuwaaomga held a duly noticed public hearing concerting the proposed Development Agreement and concluded said hearing on that date. (viii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of thin Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordiarnco. NW. THEREFORE. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain by as follwaH 1. This Council hereby specifies and finds that all of the facts es set forth in Recitals. Part A. of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Inconjunction with this Development Agreement, an Envimmoutal Assessent. in conformity with the requirements of tbs California Eovircaeatal Quality Act, hsa boom prepared. The Council bus determined that this project would not hrie a significant adverse effort on the eav moment, and hereby adopts a fiadiog of no significant impact on the environment and Issues a Negative Declaration. 3. This Common specifically finds thatt 6 Ordininci'Ro. +37°> , Page 3 • r'r _r. ;R (a) The location, design, and proposed uses set forth in the Development dgrewe.t are coeyatihto with the character of existing deaalopaant in the vicinity; (b) The Davalopaact Agreenent will pLndace internally u eaviromman't o.* stable and daninble character; (c) The proposed devalope#nt will be wall integrated into its setting; and (d) The Davalo;m—ent Agreement conforms to the Cenral plan of the City of Rancho Cutazooga. 4. It is rrpreaaly found that the public necaasf7, general velrera. and good aoninp practice require the approval of the Development Agraesant. S. This Council approves the Devalopmene Agreement attached hanco as Exhibit •1•. 6. The N#yor #'hall sign this Ordinance and the City Clark sbaU cause the ease to be publinbsd within fifteen (15) drys after its passage at least ooco in The Daily Repo a newspaper of general circulation published is the City of Ontario. California. and circulated in the City of Reecho Curasongs, California. i j I Y + DWPLOY Wrl 151D)D= Dated as cf January 7, 1989 betvevs Ci•7 of + rxbo Cw•axong,r a wmmdci;al c rycracion r! tLe State 02 Califurnis enJ Gran I)waloyaaot Cooyasf a California coryotatlao /0i - S%•�tiTi _ri i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Ordinance No. 379 t Page 6 Page RECITALS ............................. ............................... 1 1. Definition .............. ............................... ........ 6 I.I. Defined Tome .............. ............................... 6 2. Effective Date: Tom ............. ............................... 9 2.1. Effective Date ............ ............................... 9 2.2. Tom ...................... ............................... 9 2.3, Subsequent Amendments or Teminatim ............ ......... 10 General DevelopiaLt of the Project .............................. 10 3.1. Project ..... .... . ..... ... .. ..... 3 2. Project Phasing. 11 .......... ................ 3 3. P4rcelia8tion of Property ............................... 11 3.4. Bnildiay, - stairs and Other Approval: ..................... 12 3 S. Other Govarnae, tal Pami is ............................... 13 3.6. Pees ...................... ............................... 13 3 7. Review and ProcaWmS of Apprw.l. .................. ... 15 3.8. Effect of Agreesent ...... ............................... 16 4 Specific Criteria Applicable To Development of the Project .................... .. .... ....................... 16 4 1. Applicable Ordinances and Approvals .... ................. 17 4.2. Governing Approvals ............... ..................... 17 4.3. Design kovisn of froject .. ......... .................... 17 A.4. Easements: %bandoments: Dtdieatfo. ................. 18 4.5. Assesmant Districts and Public vinon.ing Ns` hods .... .............. . .. . ......... .... . ..... 19 S. Periodic Review of Cmpllance . . .... . ...... ................ 22 6 Events of Default: Rcredids: Temisation.. ........ 27 L 1 Events of Defs:St.. .... .. .... ....... .. 23 6.2 Resedies. ... ... .... ....... 14 6.3. Neiver: keundiea Llmulative.... ....... 13 6.4. Effect of lamination . ...... .... ... . ...... .. 26 6 3. Effect of Court Action .... .... ........ ........ ... 27 6 6. Estoppel Certificat e ...................... ....... .. . . 28 I� No. 3 79V�WY�t4: Ordinance Fo 979 , Page 7 0 :r 7. Transfers and Aasigemmts. ....... ............................... 28 �! 7.1. Right to As sign i ........ ............................... 1.. 7.2. Release DPon Transfer 28 .................. 7.3. Covaoants Sur With the Land 29 ...................••••.•••••• .. 29 8. Amendment and Termination I.............. ........................ S.1. Amendment or Cancellation } . ............................... 8.2. Recordation of Amendment 30 .. ............................... 31 • 9. Notice s .......................... ............................... 31 10. Miscallanaous .................... ............................... 32 10.1. Negation of Partnership ... ............................... 10.2. Approvals 32 ............... ............................... 10.3. Not A Public Dedication 33 ... 10.4. Soverabiliq........... • ............................... 33 10.5. Exhibits 34 ................................. I............... 10.6. Entire Agreement .......... ............................... 10.7. Constriction of Agreement 34 . ............................... 10.8. Mitigation of Damages ..... 35 ............................... 10.9. Further Assurances$ Covenant to Sign Docum nta.......... 35 10.10 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 35 .................. 10.11 Governing I. ...... 35 ............................... 10.12 Rafersuceal Terminology .....� 36 g ............................... 10.13 Time 36 .... ............... ............................... 10.14 Attorneys' Fees ........... ............................... 36 SIGNATOAEB ........................... ............................... 37 EXHIBIT A - DES=PTION OF PROpEM EXHIBIT 8 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TEXT EXHIBIT C - FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STORH DRAINS EXHIBIT D - ETIWA2DA HIGHLANDS ARm=CIVRAL AND DESIGN GOIDELiNEH EXHIBIT E - METROPOLITAI4 WATER DISTRICTS EASEMNT OF FEE TXTLE /0 w^ Ordinance No. 379 ye Pegs B t v RECORDIM RDQOESTHD BTs N CITT OF RANCEO CDCAMONCA WHEN RECORDED. R=M ltls d City of Rancho Qscswoga 9320 Bass Line Road Rancho Cucamonga. CA 21730 Attentions r, i. i � DEVELOPML'1T ACRSE7ffitT y THIS DE7MOPMRRT AGREBI4W (the •Agrament•) is made and entered into r as of this 7th day of ian"ry. 1989, by and between the City (Lc"onga, A municipal corporation of the Stara of of Rancho California (*City*). and Caryn Development Ccspmny, a California corporative (•Dwelopet *). a RECITAT.Ss This Agroment is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understaodings and intentions of the psrticas A. These Recitals refer to and utilize eo:tsin capitalized te-mu which ace defined in this Agrement. B. The Developceut Agreement Legislation authorizes City to enter into Development Agreements in connection with the development of real property within its jurisdiction by applicants with a requisite legal or equitable interest in the real property which is the subject at • Development Agreement. The Development Agreement Legislation alto authorises cities and/or counties to enact, by resolution or ordinance, procedures or roquirments for the Agreement t �gaaen Agreemante Legislation. , to moat the goals of the Development C. The Proja•:L is a large scale twidantial, phased development requiring major investment in public facilities and substantial front -and investment in on- and off -sits isprwanants in order to make the Project feasible. The Project represents a euater planned project analyzed and rwitwcd through the Etloting Approvals in light of the land use standards and policies "bodied in the City's Wating 02diwaces. /o-3 •� dyi a 'm Ordinance 27o. Page 9 D. Developer bag applied fur, and City and County have granted, the Waring Approvals in order to protect the interests of their citirens in the quality of their community and environment through the planned dNelrpaent process. City has Acrutinizad with particular care the adverse • apacts associated with vehicular traffic conditions within the City and the effects of the Project m each conditions. City and Developer have agreed upon a •cries Of mitigation measures in connection with the development of the Project to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable lsvol tae adverse impacts on City traffic conditions, including, without limitation, developer's share contribution sward off -site improvements. g. Beeauae of these aitigatio'. &"guts&, City has found in connection with its review and consideration of this Agreement that no subsequent or supplemental pwircrosnt l Impact Aeporta ( "EIR'• ") are aecassary or required under the Celifarnia Envizoamental Quality Act ("CEQA ") in ozdsc to enter into or undertake the terms sad conditions tQ this Agroemsae, since they are consistent wSth, and within the scope of, the previous M's for the Waring Approvals and because the mitigation gaasuzas Provided for in those EIR s are implemented and assured of fulfillment by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, gpeelfieally. but without limitiot the generality of the foregoing. City has found and determined that there ate no substantial changes in the Project, or In the carcusatances under vhtch the pre act is to be undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, which involve new "pence not considered in previous EIR's, so that no further environmental analysis in required under CEQA. P. The Bristing Approvalz ispimeat tb.a goals and policies of the City's General Plan and impose appropriate etandaris sad requirements with rasysee to land uses, building heights and densities, traffic improvements, support facilities (such As utilities) as development of the Project proceeds, mad measures for mitigating Adverse emiromentsl impacts in the City and the surrounding region. City believes thnt the orderly devalopment of the project will provide many public benefits to City through the imposition of the foregoing standards and requirements under the tens and conditions of tiis Agreement, including, without limitation, the zatemtion of 37 acres (Flood Control) oyea space, installation of no- and off -site public improvements, and the creation of job and housing opportunities through the construction and development of the project. C. Developer and City desire to Parameters within which the obligations of Developer for public and other improvmants will and othsmisa to preside the final and definitive criteria for the development of the project In order to obtain the foregoing benefits. ` (2�� Ordinance Be. 379 Page 10 H. Per theme rearous, City bas deteralaed that the Project is r tisvdvpaeut for which a Dnelopaent Agremant is appropriate in order to aehieva the gods and objectives of the City's land use planning policies and to provide appropriate assurances to Dwaloper regarding its ability to coa•plete the Project. Shin will in turn eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure orderly development o£'ths Project, assure progressive installation of necessary improvements and provision for public services appropriate to each stage of devalopment of the Project, insure attainment of the madam effective utilivation of resources within the City at this lecst ancnomic cost to its citimeu. and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the California Goverment Code, Section 65864.65859.5 were enneted by the State. Iu exchange for there benefits to the City; Developtr desir a to receive the assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the Existing City Ordimveot, subject to the teas and conditions contained in thin I;reexent, in order to implement the intent of the CLry, I. In order to effectuate the foregoing, the parties desire to enter into this Agrlment. Dsvalopar is the water of the Property described in Exhibit W and is entitled to file the application for and enter into this Agrasnent. J. On October 26, 1988, alter due review of and report on bcvdopsr's spµliertion for this Agretaent by the Manning Director and other City agencies and departments, and consideration of Al other evidence heard and submitted of a duly noticed public 1•earing pursuant to California Government Code .Sections 65090 and 65091, the Meaning Crmaiasion found and determined that this Agreement is comietant with the objectives, policies, gamrsl plan uses end program specified in the General Mang in in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare and good land use practicesg will not be detrimectal to the health, safety and general welfare of the City or the region surrounding the Cityl will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of ;property values within the City and will promote the name; and will promo• :e and encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of certainty with rerpect to much derelopaeet. K. Thereafter, ou Ha mbar 16, 1988, the City Council held a duly noticed public bearing on tUm Agrament, found thre hgrement consistent with the City's leneral Man and introduced the Enacting Ordinance in order to Putt this Agraanent u its legielative act. Thereafter, on December 7, 1988, the City Council adopted the Enacting Ordinance cutting this Agreesant as its legislative act. POD. THEh4PORE, in conaid4ration of the nut", covenants i A promisee of the parties contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as followst a � I Ordinance No. 379 Page 11 1. Definitions. 1.1. Defined Tares. Each reference In thin Agreement to any of the following tarn* shell have the meaning met fortb balm for each such tars. "Approval*" mansa any and all pamits or approvals of any kind of character required under the Ordinanees in order to develop the Project. "County" means the county of San Bernardino. State of California. "Development Agreement Legislative" means Cwermant Coda Sections 6586465859.5. authorising City to enter intn Development Agramentc as therein sat forth. "Enacting Ordlnaaee" means Ordinance No. 379 snorted by the City Council on November 16. 1988 approving this Agreavent. Oftisting Approvals" means those Approvals for the Project obtained or enacted by City or the County u of the data of this Agremunc. With respect to the following iteaa (a). (b), and (e). (collectively. "CVmty Approvals "). "Existing Approvals" also includes such items as adopted red /or approved by the City u provided in Article 4, below. The following specific approvals constitute the Existing County Approvals: (a) Teatativa Tract Mao No. 13564 Approval. Tentative Tract Nap No. 13564, cov!ring a portion of the County Property, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on August 24, 1981, under its Ordinance No. 3174 and reeiamd by the County Plsnaing Caaaiasion on Novmber 17, 1988. (b) Tentative Tract Nap No. 13565 Approval. Tentative Tract Nap No. 13565, covering a portion of the County Property, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on August 24. 1987, under its Ordinate* No. 3174 and revised on July 14. 198E by the County Planning Codissica. (e) Planned Development Testlp" at. 4 Plaantd Development Test/ Plan was adopted by the County on August 24, 1987, by the County Board of Supervisors by Ordinance No. 3174 iucluding the Conditions of Approval, revised by the County Plaaritg Cosmissien on July 14. 1988 and also revised by the County Plsnn'ng Commission on Nevesber 17. 1988. A copT of the Planted Deaelopment Test /Plan ( "Development Plane) is attached hereto as Exhibit "8". (See Contract No. 88199 for Exhibit "B ".) "Existtug Ordinancear nests the Ordinances in affect as of the dace of this Agreement. / c) Ordinaaca No. 379 Page 12 "rasa" seats all esectime, ialiau lees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on- or off -site improvements or construction requirements for public improvement facilities, or services called for in connection with the development of or construction an property under the Ordinances, whether such suctions constitute subdiviaion improveuants, mitigation measure& is com,,ctiom with aarfrooaentel review of any project, or impositions made under other Ordinances or in order to make a project approval consistent with City's Cenral Pine. "Laws" mesas the laws of the State of California, the Constitution of the United States and any codes, statutes or executive "- "tsa in any court decision, state or federal. thereafder. "Ordinances" asou s the ordinaucer, reaolutiona, codes, rules. regnlations and official Pelicias of CLty, governing the permitted uses of lead. density sn't design, eppl£uble to the deve.opxent of the 2ropart7 and all amendments to any Ordinances heretofore or hureaftar enacted, necessary or appropriate to confer the requisite lawful right on Dxeloper to develop the Project. Specifically, but without limiting the genetality of the foregoing. Ordiaaacee shall include the City's Cenral Plsn, the City's Zaning Ordiauca, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, but shall our include the City's Building and Fire Codes or other codes applicable to actual. construction. "Project" trams the residential development and associated ananities, and on- and off -alts improvements, . .-ntmplated by or embodied within the Existing Approvals as the same may hereafter bs furtber refined, animated or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreaent. "Property" means the Real Property described in Echibit "A" hereto. Developer intends to develop the project on the property. 2.2 bales. `Tea" means the Ten of this Agreement determined under Section 2. Effective Date: Tors. 2.1. Rftvcrive Date. This Agreement shall be dated u of the date the Enacting Ordinance was Approved by the City Council as specified in the Recitals above ("Enacting Ordinance Data ") and the obligations of the parties hereunder shall be effective as of the lest date (•Effective Date ") to Occur oft fa) the Eoac'.ing Ordinance Date or (b) the data upon which the Property is annexed to the City in accordance with the tares of this Agreement. After the Enacting Ordinance takes effect pursuant to Goverment Code 36937, and not later than ten (10) days thereafter, the City, by and through its City council, L 07 ordiwace No. 379 page 13 sad Developer shall assents and ackumledga this Agrement, and thereafter the Cit7 council. The cost of recording this ADrament 11all be boma by Developer. 2.2. Tam. The term of this Agreement aball cormance on the Effective Date and aball, unless sooner teuiaatod or exceeded as hereinafter provided, terminate on the firm data to occur of (a) the eighth (Sth) anaiversavy of the date that the first final subdivision tract map for phase 1 of the project g!, have been recorded in the Official Records of the County. or (b) January 1, 1997. 2.3. Subsequent Amendments or Termination. if the patties used or cancel this Agreement as herein provided, or as otherwise provided by the Development Agromout Legislation or -.his Agreement is terainstea pursuant to any provision hereof, than the Clerk of the City Council shall, after such action takes effect, "use an appropriate notice of tenth action to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 3. General Development of thv probe 3.1. Pro ect. Davalopar shall bava the ri {ht to develop the projeet on the property in accordance with the tarns and conditions of this Agromeot. Rod City shall have the right to control development of the property In aecordaoca with the provisions of this Agreement. Ex cept $a otherwise specified in this Agrsrans, the AZaiL!1:iu jL&Lrc4sis and the Existing, Ordinance shall control the overall deeign. dcralopmant w -construction of the project, and all on- Rod off -site i.prwments and apwttenanceN in connection therewith. in the manner spscifind in this Agrtaxont. including, without limitation, aLl mitigation measures required in order to minimize or eliminate material adverse awLroxantal impacts. In the went of any inconsistency between the Waring Approvals and this Agreement, the previsions of this Agreement shall control. 3.2. project phamins. The parties acknowledge the: Developer cant at this time commit. when or the order in vhicb. project phases will be developed. Such decisions with respect to phasing of the prcjeot will depend upon a ounber of circumstances not within the control of the Developer, including, without limitation, availability of necessary infrastructure and other public improvements, market conditions and demand for tie "a or "Go within the project, the condition of capital markets Rod availability of appropriate financing for the development of the project (such as construction or interim and petmennot 104ns, and/or equ1t7 capital) and otter similar factors. Developer shall therefore have thw right to develop the project in phases in such order .nd at such clues as Developer dams appropriate within M Grdinance No. 379 Paso 14 the exercise of its subjective business anelymia of those factors detaruining. in Developer's judgasat, the appropriate course of development of the Project, ass 1009 me the Project is plowed as e reaidentiel dsvelopeMDt as eontenpinted by the Existing Approvals pertaining to the project to date and the provisions of this Agreement and the notancsry infrastructure and other public improveaent• necessary for ouch phone have been constructed. 3.3. PArcelisation of Protect . Davelopar shall have the right, from ties to tine or at say ties, to reconfigure the Property am shown on Twutetivo Tract YAP No. 13564 or Tentative Tract Nap No. 13565, a• may be uace0sa:y in order to develop a particular phase of the k-roject. �r to tall, lase or finsnea a portion of the Property in eo=.,ctlon with the development of the Project. Developer shall inttiate conch reconfiguration through on application under the Existing O:Uuncem. City shall Accept any such application, prwidad it is acccepevied by an •pproprlate utatuaeat in writing, certified by Devaoper that math roparceliaation is uadartaken pursuant to tbis Section 3.4. Bach such application shall be processed in accordance with the Westing Ordinances. and it such application is consistent with, and otherwise comforts to, the standards, teen and conditions coctained in this Agreement, then City shall approve such application. The parties acknowledge that the adjustments contemplated hereunder m an appropriate mans to accomplish the purposes herein specified because the Waring Approvals provide for ali necessary on- or off -site improvements to earvlce the Project. imposed in accordance with the requirements of Laws and Ordinances, as contemplated by goverment Code 66428. 3.4. Building permits and Other Approvals. Subject to any necessary reconfiguration of the boundary lines of the parcels and/or Iota comprising the Property under Section 3.3 above, Developer shall have the right to apply for any 0sceamsry Apprwalt under the Building and fire Codes thou cursantly in Offset- pursuant to which applications are judged solely on the basis of structural and fire safety. as ministerial decisions of the City. city shall issue to Developer, upon such applications, all necessary building Pereira. occupancy certificates, or other required permits for the construction, on* and occupancy of the Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for. including connection co all utility systems under the City's jurisdiction, subject to compliance with this Agreement and City's Building and fire Code requiraonts and subject to Section 3.6, balm, payment of City's gavel and customary fees and charges for ouch applications, permits and certifiates and any such utility - owection, lot split, or similar foes And charges of general application ae specified in this Agreement. In the event building permits are Issued by County for any portion of the Project under the jurisdiction of County. Cin agrees that County any continue inspection of all phases of couarructioo for which such building permits were issued. Amendments to all street and other infrastructure improvement plane originally approved by log Ordinance No. 379 Page 13 County, for soy portion of the project. shall be processed and approved by } County. 2hursupon. City &green that County shall release the ■eeurity posted by Developer for street and other infrastructure improvements constructed by Developer in accordance with conditims and requireaants inpos&d by Couory, and plans, and smendeent& thereto, approved Ly County, upon conplisoce by Developer with County req'tivemants for Such -eleae. 3.5. Other Covernoantal Parwits. In addition. Developer shall apply • for such other -PQ-= c- and approvals as may be required from other governaentsl �. or quasi- goveraaent&i agencies having jurisdiction over the Project (such a p., public utilities or utility districts) as my be requirel for the development of, at provision of services to, the project under the Existing Approvals. 'i City shall cooperate with Developer in its ondeavors to obtain such pewits and 4% approvals. 3.6. Space. City and Developer agrw that the City's pas for devalopmect of the Psoject shall be codified as follows if due and paid before the e:Oration of the Tern of this Agresont. h (a) Suildina Permit and Construction TO a. Plan check and •3'' building and coaatructiou panic tees shall be paid in accordance with the City's tae schedule as it exists at th6 tine Developer submits appropriate applications for building or construction pamito, except for building peits that are iasued w by County in accords' dth Section 3.4. (b) Store Drain 7669. Imwuch se the atom drains required by the Existing Approvals 6rceed the standards of the City, no atom drain teas of any kind will be required of Developar if the project is dwdlopad to the requirnaots of the Existing Approvals. Such atom drains are or will be Oversized in order to news the needs of the neighboring land located to the north Of the County Property. If any portion of such lands is son"Ad into the City, the City &area to enter into a raiaburwent agreamot in substantial) the fom of Exhibit NCR y (sae Contract the costs for Ethibit vet) with Owalapar pursuant to r ch a portion of the costs ineurrod by Developer in constructing and inotalli" such atom drains will be reimbursed to Developer. (c) Recreation and Perk fees. Park fees will be required of Levelopert however, said luas shall only be used for park land acquisition and /or park development within the bonefit area described sa) the area bounded by 24th Streec. I -15 Frowsy, lower Su=it Avenue, and East Avenu•. (d) Road Construction. Upper Svacit Avenue, (24th St=oat) my be improved to scr &ptabla two-lane road standards As detemined necessary by the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cuc6monga from the vast reinforced concrete boo: east to the asst property lion of San Swains Chamal. l(C> Ordinance No. 379 ' Page 16 Developer shall post with the City prior to issuance of building permits 9500.000 a his share contribution toward off -sit& improvements. This cost shall be posted in properties to each phase of development on a permit by permit basis, and for the purposes defined in the conditions of the tautative map &a approved by the County of San Strnsrdino. (a) other Pas. Vith regard to the Property. Developer shall not be required to pay the City's beautification fees or systems development foam. No am fees shall be imposed upon Developer in connection with the development of the Project in accordance with the Existing Approvals foS any of the purposes or services mentioned in this Section 3.6 prior to the expiration of the Torn. m:.ever. use fees shall not include an increase in existing fees, and the Dr,alopet &&rats to pay any such increases. 3.1, Review and Procwin�_of tpnrn als. Mty shall accept for proeesaia& an0 vim- rev w an. u • set c! n in a timely mantes on all applications for further Approval& with -aspect to the Project called for or required under this Agreement. Such application shall generally be processed in general compliance with the Cty'a review process. City shall schedule the application for review by the appropriate reprasatativu of City having jurisdiction in order to achieve the time limitations harein sat forth. Upon request from Developer, idty *ball, in a ciaaly manner, inform Developer of all nacessary information and subaim inn requirements in connection with each application hereunder, and shall review any such application prior to its submission for complateuess. Specification by tht City of the necessary requireeont• and information hereunder shall he conclusive and binding on City, and City shall not have the riabt to require any additional information or impose any additional requirements with ragpect to such application in the ame ms=or as specified in Govarmoat Cods Sections 65943 and 65944 with respect to applications thereunder. The approval of Teatative Tract Nap No. 13564 will expire on August 24, 1990. Upon receipt of proper application from Developer prior to such expiration date. City *gross to "tend ouch approval to August 24. 1992, if found to be in conformance with the local Subdivision Ordinance and Star* Subdivision Map Act, and any or all other applicable State and local Ina. 3.8. Effect of Agreement. This Agreement, and the Existing Approvals. and all plane, specification, schematic drawings and models upon which much existing Approvala are based, shall constitute a part of the Enacting Ordinance, as if incorporated by reference therein in full. To the extent thin Agrommeot modifies any Existing Approval, then much modification small constitute at Approval thereunder as specified by Section 65865.2 of the California Goverment Code. t' iP a'= 4, 8 eci-fio °ra 4,i eel to and tb0 0 A is tb a21 , dtApcc" 2t "able to p do "mom provaid a1 aqd Dpi day Provgiady Save �rSa°ejnt nt tba Pr Sov Inc oaa� eppilr�ereeat 219 do a tnghtheP Oct tBeL°Aaae act. � °rPoaa, teat or bSs to C ^ot a, 1Pp21 p0�ita, 0. is -f the ttng 0 bidt do or �, in c the bias h1 °ebS4 °d use, Ctudta �OPer rdineo got CA are of dory o8e 4��> Interco nder?be rat. eDD it C C r1 l�^a 141 ya 0 _ t dare 4 S Peaar °e2ac� d 1tY a vttA . a a too 0 diq� 0 =Into aaD °perry 8 rose Cho • the Po etuta by and p0v°2op. Ater. G oA qr of tbir ° 6a t ott Ava trod 8sre 4t the 'tgto ^t eat. Public tioono d h ed ua °ya2s, 44der. -forth Pro �Ont, roe pro ens e, C. door o; nd a /tso the op� as oche h•reta or city t 4e ; d tY to e22ocat 4.3• ball 6e those e� °tor oar Aubit�P°°ed b • d.yi •pecirild 5e i pyi r bie A fd LcO� kevloy o -ft Porth in Ch di riot I e ding. td Praia e^attY bo o pR•e2opaa reacted ra lq roe °rby P�r°cedu °rliq• Ia o�ar`oB ApProvai•aLt eDPlicta otP Iddi d el pe 0pol, tbl t•''�a oc8 baiidi oP athe rtad er to in . hie to Of eth to i�t c6 �l�d c 4 hhll9d q D a adissub e ` l So foil Gel CtY. RVO uni to ah a eel $ 1v /oda HtBL1aad Object o d a °! � arroo o6Yds Pr t y •hallp b�Y Q �t Ai C1�tyYe Sul pevNi.pe as"a yi tece Al 309 42,;V, the Cc aaC , Artotr e r 4A Lag Chu a type OR Cores tioo at °rt5t/t ceQnf�tio Aba ^do d peeign and, Piag °0a^t. Nor arro tiv Count, eq oa de 6y 0, vtcy nae eac�ldate atuth a5y t" pfdi °2t ^ee. e d Ir418'e lcn Sir 131 to eb� doo 0 4' tr}r n ages a'Ololm arCbtn a the lo, k4eatato -A Oi tY • °r tb0 GIG eai•tiog faacrp ytr ad d el oe duChe d cogy P a , p h ndr &C rate IV h ®. ae ""8 as ay at the eat ion equl ary or appro,p Viet@ ccau is . /1101L t: Ordinaata No. 379 Page 18 . connection with the devoloptoat of the project. The Developer shall obtain an ,> ssxemsst of fce title to the Metropolitan Nstar District right -ofwry described In Exhibit "E" (sea Cuatract 110. ga-199 for psbU$t "Be), which the Devalopor 'r shall use far road purponea. All improvemants required as pees pursuant to the Existing Approvals shall be constructed by Developer in connection with its davelopmaat of each phase of the project, ca ouch improvements relate thereto Y and are necevary with respect to such phase of the Project development. All r• applicable construction improvement pleas #boll coaply with rity standards and be approved by the City Eoginser. Upon final construction completion and City pp inspection. Developer shall offer, and the Uty •hell major and minor roadway on the Property, and oil other public isprwwan•v. as each is substantially completed by or an behalf of Developer in accordance with the final nap and vimprweft"t plans and the City's applicable public improvement standards and ), regulations in Offset on the date hereof, as modified by this Agreement. y including the fxhibit■ which are attached to it. The City agrees that at any •� and all tines after aeceptwce of dedication, and notwithstanding the termination or expiration of this Agreement. and subject to such guarantees an y are got forth in the City's public improvement regulatious as the awe ezlat a of the date hereof, as modified by this Agreement, including the Mbibita which W are attached to it, the City upon the City Coaaeil approval fall coatructed improvements shall be solely responsible for the maintenance. repair and replacement of all portions of the Property so dedicated and improved by p' Developer. Property dedicated to the City ay be canned to a maintenance district at the direction of city. Except as bersinabove expressly provided, no additional dedication rhall be required to ba made by Developer provided Developer develop& the Property substantially in accordance with the Existing Approvals. 4.5. .teaeeenent District& and Publ!.c FiiUnciax Methods. (a) Mello -Rnca and Liahtina end Londacaolaa Di&ericts. 2t requested by Developer, the City agrees to initiate and use is beat efforts to Pursue to cmplsrion proceedings pursuant to the Mallo-Roos Co ounity Facilities Act of 1992. Chapter 2.5. Part 1. Division 2. Title 5 of the California Cwer went Code ( "Mello - Roos ") to finance the inatallet!.on. maintenance and provision of flood control, fire protectija and other regional facilities identified by Developer to the pity in the request by nwaloper and authorized to he financed pursuant to Mello-Roo&. City and Developer hereby agree to co .e the annexation of the Property co the Lighting and Landscaping District a&cabli&hed and existing within the City no as to provide the Property with all asrvicts presently provided to other properties within the City by such District. The City shall consider annexation to such other special benefit asesement districts as may be requeated from time to time by Deeeloper. The annexation of the Property to each of such districts shall be I�.3 Ordinance No: 379 Page 19 accomplished at the earliest possible time cad abell be on terms mad conditions gsaerally applicable to other properties presently within such districts. The City will Dot &65106 maintenance of any Landscaping and Lighting District facilities until the assessment is It effect. (b) 1913 Act Assesament District. If requested by Developer and found conoiatest with City Comc pal c', the City agrees to initiate and use its beat efforts to pursue to completion procesd)ugs pursuant to the Municipal Imprwaident Act of 1913. Division 12 of the Streets -lid 111ghwsy Coda, to finance such improvement costs as identified by Develops of agreed to by the City in the request by Developer and authorised to be It ad pursuant to such Acts. Developer shall advance all costs, including thorn .,t the preparation, of engineering plans and spaeifdcationa, economic or treaneial studios and feasibility reports. and such other comes as are neceeairy or appropriate for the supervision and aduiniat:ation of tba issuance and saio of suuammnt district bonds, The costs se advanced shall be reixburmed to Developer free the proceeds of the bonds issued. One or mars series of improvements district bonds say be issued to finance such improvement costa. Mnwwer, to bond shall be iuueJ in an amount greeter than (1) the cost of constructing those improvements identified ty Developer to City clue (2) senorita included in the bond issue to cover the Cost of financing fees. discover feu, reserve fund (cot to sensed maximum debt service on such bonds for one year), consulting feu attendant to the formation of the assessment district, bond insurance premiums, bond attorneys' fees, reimbursements to Dwslopers and other costa normally and wanonably associated with the issuance of such bonds, e) NoreRaga Rweaue eooda. Tf the City initiates a progrea to issue mortgage rev -nuq industrial revenue or similar type bonds or noten, the proceeds of whit.. as. legally be used to finance. in whole or to part, the porches: by home buyers of any portion of the development of the property by Developer. or the coaatructioa of such development by Leveloper. Dwaloper shall be allowed to participate in such a progrra. Such participation shall be hued on the rules and procedures of the City applied on a uniform bases to all other developer: within the City. (d) Naintansuce Aaseewan� District, Those portions of the Property to be dedicated by Developer to the LYty •a provided in Section 4.4 hereof shall be maintained by the city through a Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 asuerameat district am existing or hereafter formed. Developer agrees to cooperate in and consent to the ferettion of the anessmaut district (or annezation co an mating district)o for the maintenance of all such ptope -ry, and Snclv.i, .,g all of the Property within the district. t, Ordinsace No. 979 Page 30 f (e) Consultants. City and Developor agree that the following individuals and an t es ♦ be the consultants for say financing referred to in this section 4.5; Underwriter stme i Youngberg Pimacial Consultants Heldman 6 Rolopp Bond Counsel brown i Diven v S. Periodic Rwviow of Compliance. City shall review this Agreement at leatt once wary twelve south pars free the date this Agreement is eaecuted, at which time Developer shall be required to demonstrate good faith complianco with the tame of this Agreement. Lvidance of good faith compliance shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the preparation of improvement piano following the issuance of Approvals, the commencement of coumtructiou upon soy portion of the Property, or the periodic public advertisement for sale of single family residential units within the Property. Developer shall be in dorault under this Agtoemwt if it provide# City with a vcitten notice stating that it does not intend to perform further under it or it City makes a finding and determination following the proscribed periodic review as set forth above and as provided in California Goverment Code sections 65665.1 that, upta the basis of substantial evidence. Developer has not complied in good faith with the tame of thio Agreement. 6. Events of Defaults Remedios; Sermioatiaa. 6.1. Events of Default. subject to any astansions of time by mutual consent an writing, and aubjact to the provisions of section 7.1 regarding permitted delays, any failure by either party to perform any material term of provision of this Agreement shall constitute an Event of Default, (i) if such defaulting party does not cure such failure within thirty (30) days following notice of default from the other party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such thirty (30) day period, or (ii) if ouch failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the defaulting party does not within such thirty (30) day period, commence substantial effects to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to complotim with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure. Any notice of default givnn hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance which the noticing party claim+ constitutes the Event of Default end the mannec in which ouch &out of Default may be satinfcctarily cured in accordance with the tams and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periodo herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any building permit with respect to the Project. 1 I Ordinance No. 379 Pals 21 6.2. Remedies. i; (a) Daveloner'e Brediem. t><nept as provided in subesction (c). balm, this Agraement *hall be tatcrceable by Davc'oper cerwithstandima any change in any applicable general or specific plan, lazing or subdivision regulation adopted by City which alters or monde the -rules, ngulatioes, or j policies specified in CaI_fornia Oovarameat fade Deccan" 65866. To the emtent i paraitted by lw. therefore, it is ezprosdy recognised that specifi� performance of this Agraomat for the benefit of Developer is a proper and A desirable remedy in addition to gay and all other remedies which nay be available to Developer. provided it is further agreed that Developer ')hall i" have no right to damages upon the occurrence of an Want of Default of this Agreement by City. (b) City's Rmedie•, city #ball have no right to any damages or other relief upon the occurrence of an Event of Default bri Developer except that city may suspend its obligation# *no terminate this Agramant. Prwidad, ythis shall not Unit City's remedies under any other agreement with Developer or which would otherwise be available to it in the absence of this Agreement. (c) Actions of Other Asencies. If, 4m a result of the lead, regulstioes, or acti<ona of federal, state or other agencies brriaa suprmry war City, compliance with this Agrsameat by City is prevented cc precluded, the provisions of this Agraement sly be modified or suspended so as to comply with such love, regulations or actions. If, however, much modification or oimpersion substantially deprives either party of the bargained for benefits of this Agreement, such party shall be entitled to terminato this Agreements provided, howavar, prior to any such' termination. City shall negotiate is good faith with Deeelopor to reach a reasonable alternative development that say be undertaken by Developer in lieu of the development or otbervise to provide Developer with the benefit of such covenant by City which is ptwemted or precluded by may leas, regulations, or actions of any federal, state or other agency having supremacy war City. 6.3. Waiver Rmedies cusulativa. roiluro by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the previsions of this Agreement by the other party, irrespectiva of the length of time for which much failure continues. shall not tonstituce a wei:ar of :Ozt party's right to demand strict coprliance by such other parr; in the futon. No waiver by a patty of an Event of Default shall be effective or binding upon such party unless made in writing by ouch party, and at such waiver shall be implied from any mission by a party to take any action with respect to such Event of Default. No "proud written waiver of any Weut of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cwcr any other period of time, other than any Went of Default and /or period of time [ .�T i. tip. Ordinance No. 379 Page 22 spsCified in such express waiver. One or more written vdivers of an Went of Default under any provision of this Agreement shall not b2 domed to b2 a waiver of any subsequent !vest a" Default, and the performance of the asao or any other tam or Provision Contained in this Agreement. Except so provided in Section 7.2 above, all of toe remedies permitted or available to a party under this Agrmiment, or at law or in equity, shall be cumul4tive and not Alternative. and invocation of sty such right or remedy shall cot constitute ■ waiver or election of remedied with respect to any other permitted or avallable right or remedy. in connection with the foregoing provisions, each party acknowledges, warrants and reptesants 'hat it ham been fully informed with respect Co. and teprescnted by coumol of such party's choice in connection with the rights and reaaadies of such petty hereuador, and the waiver4 herein contained, std efter such advice and comult9tIm bas preasatly and actually Intended, with full knowledge of much pattyte rights and rmediss oe2gMise avallable at lw or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies e the mnies iheer rely "teat herein specified aoaelyOn the Comed provided for ri with edpeco anybreachof thin Agreement by the ot"r party, 6.4, pftsct of Termination. If this Agreement in terminated on account of se Evans oP Defavle, such termination shall not affect arty right or duty eaamtiag from city entitlements or Approvals with respect to the property approved concurrently or subsequently to the approval of this Agreement, but the rights, duties and obligstiane of the Nrudes heraundor shall otherwise codas as of the data of much termination. If City is the terminating party, then any and all benefits. inclrAing mm"y or land received by the City, shall be retained by Cityi but it Dweluper is the terminating party, than Developer shall he entitled to all of the benefits arising out of, or entitlements on account of, soy fmactiane paid, given or dedicated to, or received by. City under this Agraameut. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no termination of this Agreement shall prevent Developer fret completing and occupying buildings or other improvements authorized pursuant to valid building permits previously 9pprov4d by City or under construction at the time of termination. As used herein, "constructions *ball 9094 work under a valid building pewit, and "c=PI*titgw shall mean completion for bonefieial oreupanay for Devaloparrs use, or if a portion of the project is intended for use by a lease* or tenant, imps for such portion scwplstiag" shall mean completion except for interior Smprwemonts, such as partitions, duct and electrical rmouts, floor coverings, wall covorin ^,s, lighting, furniture, trade fiztuzes, finished ceilings, cad other impr,a.pnra typically constructed tr; or for tomato of similar buildings. All such moo berenador shall, to the extent applicable, be deemed nonconforming uses, and shall be subject to the nonconforming use provision, of City's planning Coda. 11-7 Ordinance Mo. 979 Page 23 6.:. Effect of Coat Action. In addition, if may court action or proceeding is brought by aq third Peru= to challenge and Approval, this Agreement, or any other permit or approval regrtrei free City, or any other gwarmontal entity. for development or coestructi'm of the Project, or any portion thereof. and without regard to whether or act Developer in a party to or real Part) in interest in such action or proceeding, than (1) Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice in vriting to Cityo given at " time duties the pendency of such action or proceeding, of within ninety (90) days after the final determination therein (including say appeals), irrespective of the sours of such final determination, and (ii) any such action shall constitute a permitted delay under Article 6.1. 6.2c. and F.4. 6.6. Estoppel Cartificata. Either party may, at any ties, and from time to ties. deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party. (1) this Agreement is in full force and effect red a binding obligation of the parties. (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified eitber orally or in writing, and if me emended, identifying the amandaents, std (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the perforwence of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and smomt of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate wltbin thirty (30) days following the receipt thmrrof. 7bo Planning Director of City shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer. hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by tronefe -eos and Mortgages. 7. Transfers and Aasigma tats. 7.1. Ulbe to Assign. Developer shall have the right to sell. assign or transfer in whole, or in part, this Agreement, and all of its rights, duties and obligations hereunder, to any person at any time during the Tom of this Agreements provided, however, is as went shall the rights, duties and obligations conferred upos Developer pursuant to this Agreement be at say time so sold, tranaferred or assigned except interest of Developer in the Property. or portion thereof, transferred. 7.2. Release Upon Transfer. Upon tbs gala, transfer or eesigmeat of Dtseloper's rights and interests under this Agreement under Section 9.1 abwo. Developer shall b2 ralessed Prom its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, so transferred arisitg subsequent to the effective date of such transfer (i) if Developer is rot then in default under this Agrament. (ii) Developer has provided to City notice of ouch transfer, end (iii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a wri:ton Ordinance No, 379 Page 24 \_? agreement in which (A) the stns and addnsa of the transferee is net forth and (8) the traueferea eapreanly and unconditionally utrans ere of the obligstiand of Developer under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion ' thereof, transferred. Developer shall, in any avant, give notice to 41ty ,f i any transfer hereunder, disclosing therein the identity of the transferee mad �{ such transferee's address. Tailure to deliver a written assumption ag Peament , hereunder :hall not affect the running of sty covenants herein with the land, as provided in Section 9.3, balm, nor shall such failure negate, mesh." or otherwise offset the liability of any traufsree pursuant to the pro7isiont of this Agreement. 7.3. Covenants Run wick The Land. All of the provisions, sareemouts. rights, paters, standards, texas, cwaoauts and obligations contained in thin Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heir. successors (by merger. consolidation, or otherwise) and aasigns, devises. administrators, repruvutativos, 1a49ee8. " all other parsons s:quiriag the Property, or soy portion thereof, or may intanat therein. wbuther by operation Of law or in any mntaer whotuowar, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties mad their respective hairs, successors (by arger, consolidation or othe"isa) and sesigus. All of the pr:vieions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covansat■ running with the land pursiaat to applicable law, including, but not limited to. Section 1468 of the Civil code of the State of California. Each covenant to do or retrain free doing ass acc on the Property hursuader. •tr with respect to any City maed property, (i) is for the bonafit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (it) runs with such properties, and (iii) is binding upon each party and each successive Owner during its tvnerohip of such properties or any portion thereof, sad each Person having on. ivtsrest therein derived in any manner turough any mrer of such properties, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit each party and its property hereunder, +red each other Person euecmeding to an interest in such properties. 8. Amendment and Teraiation. B.L Amendment or Cancellation. Eacept an prwidad in Article 5 above with respect io ^Lty'iaannual review thereunder, this Agreement may be uncalled, aodifimd oL• amended only by mutual coonesr of the parties in writing, and than only in the mnuner provided for in Section 65868 of the California Coverament Coda. Any ®aad%%4t to this Aarasneat which does not relate to the Term, parmittQ4 uses, density or intensity of Gas, height or sine of buildiogs, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, tams, restrictions and requirements relating to stbaequent discretionary actions, monetary, contributions by Developer. or any ronditions or covenants relating to the use of the Property, shall require the giving of notica pursuant to Section 65867 of the Devalopmsut Agreement Legislation is apenified by Section 65868. 119 .tea Ordinance Nu. 379 Pass 23 8.2. Racordstion of Anudnent. Any aaeudnent or cancellation o! thin Agrewnt effaeWd by the partise hereunder shall be recorded by the Clark co the Cit7 Cowu:il as specified in Section 2,9 above not later than tan (10) dayfl after the affective date of the action affecting .mach watyant or cancellation, Which amandaut or cancellation shall describe the Property subject thereto. 9. Notic". Aey notice to either party shall be in writing sad Rivas by delivering the sue to such party in person or by flooding the sou by registered or certified mail, cr Uprose Nail. return receipt requoatad, pith pootago prepaid, to the party'• nailing address. 'Ua respective oiling addresses of the parties are, until changed as baroinaltar provided, the follovingr Cityt City of Rancho Cucamonga U20 base Line Road Pont Office emc 807 Nsucho Cucamonga. CA 91730 Attentions Na. I arly Authalot Developore Caryn Development Compaqv Post Office Do: 216 South Laguna, CA 92677 -0216 Atteutioas l4. dosaph N. DiIorio PSther party nay chcnso its mLliag address at any tics by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the Keener provided baraim at lasot tan (10) days prier to the date such change is affected. All notices under this Agre"ont shall be dared given, received, wade or communicated on the dots personal delivery is effected or, if nailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery data shwu on the return receipt. 10. Niscallanaona. 10.1 Negation of Partneashis. The parties apecifically acknwledga that the Proj mat is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect herannder, and that each party is an I odependent contracting astity with respect to the tens, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms tr prwiaieas of this Agroacot shall be domed to create a partnerabip between or among the parties in the businesses of Developer, the affairs of Cdty, or otLervicea nor shall it cause them to he considered joint venturers or ambers of any joint enterprise. This Agreement is not iutandod nor shall it be conatrued to create any third patty beneficiary rights in any Perron who is not a pr ty. uulecs e:preoely otherwise provided. /-J C:i Ordinance go. 379 Page 26 10.2 Apptwalt. Unions otherwise herein provided, whenever approval. so account or matisfactran (heroin collectively referred to as an spp r required of a party pursuant to this Agroemaat. it oball not be'uuraasomahly withheld. Onl.r /s provision i.s made for a specific time period, syprwal shall be domed given within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written raqueat for approval, and if a party oball neither approve nor disapprove within such thirty (30) day period, or other time period an may be specified in this Agraement for approval. that party 0all than be denied to have given its approvul. If a party shall disapprove. the reasons tbstefcre shall be stated in reasonable detail in vritiog. Approval by a party to or of any act or nquewt oy the other party shall not be domed to waive or render unnecessu; approval to or of any similar or aubaequant attw or reques'.. The atandardo. torso and conditions for Apprwaln uudar this Agreement shall matted to and bind the partuors, officers, directors. sbareholderv. trustees, beneficiaries. agents. elective or appointive boards, eanistions. a9loyess. tad otter authorized repreuentetives of each patty. and each such person shall -eke or toter into, or take any action in connection with, any Approval herauuder in accordance with such standordr, terms and condition. 10.3. Not A Public Dedicetiou. Nothing herein contained shall be damned to be a gitc or dadiution of the Property, or of the Project, or portion therest, to the general public. for the gonsrai Public, or for a{ry Public we or purpose whatsoever, it being the inaction and understanding of the parties that this Agrsmsat be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed for the development of the Project as private property. Developer shall have the right to prevent or prohibit the we of the Proparty. or the Project, or any portion tLereof. including common areas and buildings and tsprovesouto located thereoa, by any Person for any purpose inimical to the operation of a private Project as contemplated by this Agreement. 10.4. Ssverability. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agracmaut, or of the application thereof to any Person, by judgmonc or court order shall in no way effect any of the other provisions harem or the application thereof to any other Person or circumstance and the sus shall resin in Lull fore, and affect, unteas enforcement of this Agrament es so invalidated would be uarsaoeoabla or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this A3usesent. 10.3. Exhibits. The, Exhibits listed in the Table of Ccatents, to which referance is "do heroin, ere domed incorporated into this Agteoaant in their :iraty by reference thereto. 10.6. Entire Agreement. Thin written Agr,emant and the Exhibits hereto contain all the repnaautatioa and the entire agreement between tha /J I .'L' ordinance 110. 379 page 27 f ` lrrties with respect to the subject cotter bereot. Except so otherwise ' g' specifi.d in this Agremant, amp prior correopondet.ce, memoranda. agreements. warraaws or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement and tshibits hereto, and each aeaorands. i ' 10.7. Construction of Agtess_ant. The prmisions of this Aarumeut rn and the get shies hero to ibill Lets aowtruad as a whole according to their cccion meaning and not strictly tot or agoinat any party and conalitent vitb the { provisions hereof, in order to achieve the objective and parpoia of the parties hureunder. The ccptions preceding the test of each articla. Section, subsection and the Table of Contents heasot are included only _or conlan£once of reference and shall be disrsgorded in the construction mad inenrpretatioa of this Agremeut. Uhersvor required by the contort, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or router gendera, or vice versa. 10.8. Mitig!tion of Damages. In all situations arising out of this Agraenant, the parties shill attempt to avoid and minimize the damages resulting free the con wt of the other party. each party shall take all necessary measures to effectuate the prrvisiono of this Agremant. 10.9. further Assurancont Cr ammnt to Sign Documents. Gob party coiensnts, on behalf of i�tgelt and its oucceuora, hairs and asaignr. to tahe all actions and do all things, and co uocuto. with acknowledgement or affidavit it required, any and all documents and writings, that may be necessary or proper to achieve the purpooeu and objectives of this Agcseseat. 10.10. Covenant of Loyd faith and pair Dealing. Neither party shall do scything which shall have the eftaee of hnrmiog or injurit :g the right of the other party to receive the benefits of this Agra out: each party shall raftaio f ran doing anything which would rancor its pov'omance under this Agrarent inpcssiblet and each party •ball do everything which th.0 Agreement contemplates that eucb party shall do in order to accreplish the objectives and purposes of ttds Agroment. 10.11. Owerniag_Saw. This Agreement, and the rights sud obligations of the parties. shall be govorand by and interpreted in accordance with the lawn of the State of California. 10.12 Reforenceni Termiuoloyl. Unlass otherwise specified, whaneaor in this Agreement, rof ronce is made to the Table of vontenre, any Article or Section, or any defined tam, such reference shalj be domed to rotes to the Table of Contents, Article or Section or det'_aed r%rma of this Agroment. Ito e.,, in thin Agreement of the words •including," "such sae or words of similar /J t _ Ordiaaxe ltafi379%' r , Fip'28} i import than ZoFYarin� a, construed to limit such autme at, team or matter or matter the dpecific items or matters, vhethur or aot,lang"Se of .:rmlidtatios, such as "Without limitation" or "but not �13mitpd to," 'or words of siailar import, eta used with raferance thereto, but racier shall brdeemed to refer to all other items or utters that could _easoaably fall rithLa the broadest possible scope of such stetusrat, tam or matter. Hafamuce herein to a •party,+ or the !par•10 "," shall rater to City and Developer, or botb,: as the coutext may requiim. 10.13, i_a. itima he eo the essence of this ABreament and of each and wary La and condition hereof. 10.14. Att•orte at lees. If 10801 action is brought by aitker party% against the otheriar breach of this A4mament, or to compel parformanca under reasonable attorneys! �� prevail in8 party shall bs entitled to an award of rays fees and costs. IN WI7WESS WRUWF, the parties hove executed this Agroaoant as of the day and year first above written. CI1'I OF RANCHO CDChMCHOA. a municipal BIN Dyp84UpMSrf COMPANY. • Stataof California Califforrnia� of the California corporation 8y Dennis 6tout Joeepb N. DYIorlo Its Mayor Its President By: "Developer^ Beverly A. Authelat Its City Clerk App -moved an to Yom, By Its City Attorney *city* /_J2 RINDEIT "Ae LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No. 11 Ordinance No. 379 Page 29 The vast 1/2 of the seat 1/2 and the "at 1/2 of the vast 1/2 of Section 22. Township 1 north. Range 6 vest, San Bernardino Base and Meridiem, according to the Official Plat of said land. Exceptin5 therefrom the worth 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the nortLsest 1/4 of said Section 22. Also excepting therefrom that certain strip of land 80 feat in width, as described in that certain grant dead executed by Samuel J. Wages, at tz., to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. A Public Corporation, recorded July 30, 1969 in Boric 7276, Page 60. Official Records. Also excepting therefrom those certain strips of land 330 feet in vidth. as described in that certain grant deed executed by Sasual J. Wages. as Trustee to Southern Surplus Realty Co.. A Csl!wcrnis Corporation, recorded April 27. 1973 Also excepting the mouth 30 feet thereof. Also excepting an undivided 1/3 interest in all minerals, oil, gas and hydrocarbon gam as rerarved in the deed from Alfred D. Davey. an unmarried tun. to Pay Claridge Nair, ma tumarried wcmah, recorded May 31. 1950 in Book 25&3, Page 129, Official Records. Parcel No. 2s ilia north 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the nortbveat 1/4 of Section 22, Township 1 north, Range 6 vest. San Bernardino Same and Heridinn. according to the Official Plot of maid land. Excepting therefrom that certain strip of land 330 feat in vil th lying &crams the property herein described, as described in that certain grant dead executed by Samuel J. Wanes, as trustee to Southern Surplus Realty Co., A California Corporation, recorded April 27.1973 in Book 8171, Page 84. Official Records. Also escepting an undivided 1/3 interest in all nineralmo oil, gag and hydrocarbon gas as r.merved in the deed frog Alfred D. Davey. an unmarried man. to pay Claridge Main, an unmsrried woman, recorded May 31. 1950 in Book 2583. Page 129. Official Records. lJ 4 ORDITNANCZ NO. 371 ,. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OQONCM OF THE MITT Of RANCHO CUC:AlONGA. CALINRNIA. AWWINC 774E N OF THE RANCHO C UCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPrM 9.22 ENTMED "PROHIBITION OF j PACKAGING" (H[•OROPLOOR061RBON PROCESSED 1. A. Recitals. THE CITY CDUNCD. or INS CITY OF RANCHO CDC:AMONGA FINDS AS POLLOWSt r (i) Problems in disposing of solid waste mad a lack of solid wants landfills affect all parsons and all local, County and state governments. One eigoificant source nZ solid seats is discarded polystyrene foam psukeging. >• Manufacture of such packaging creates an additional. significant ewironsentsl C'-`- problem in that chlorofluorocarbons are utilized in their production. �'- (ii) Available scientific evidence indicates a strong probability that the family of substances known as chlorofluorocarbons degrade the earth's protective lsyor of ozone. when discharged into the atmospbeaa. allowing increased ameunta of ultra- violwt radiation to penetrate the atmosphere. Thin increase in ultra- iolat radiation poses an immediate danger to buses bealtc. ' life and the environment. Mailable scientific evidence indicates the strong Possibility that the resulting increase in ultra -violat radiation has contributed to. and will continue -to coutribute to. the iucidancc of skin cancer and other serious illnesses. (iii) One significant source of chlorofluorocarbons currently being released into the atmosphere is the manufacture of certain polystyrene foam Packaging products vbich utilise chlorofluorocarbons as blowing agents. (iv) he People and the Cdty of Rancho Cucamonga support state. federal Cad inTterastional policies banning all nonessential uses of chlerofluorocarhoes. Until such Pulicies berose Mar. responsible action to reduce rho release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmospheres and to increase Public awareness with respect to the pctentW horn ceased s9 these substances. must be undertaken at the local level. (v) It is tba intent cf the City CoustU to reduce the amount of chlorofluorocarb , n processed packaging products '"nufsctured. purchased and used by and within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. in order to reduce. to the greatest "tent possible. the health hazards created chlornfluorocarboos into the atmosphere, by the release of Ordinance No. 371 ' •- • `r Page 2 J.� i.' e� S (vi) be City of Rancho Cucamonga supports and encourages voluntary waste reduction through the adoption of voluntary programs by businesses ' utilizing styrofom packaging as a means to achieve a fifty percent (50%) ;r reduction in the use of norrbiodegradable and rao- recyclable packaging. B. Ordinance. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION is Iitic 8 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby 4 asandad by the addition of a ary Chapter 8.22 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 8.22 "Prohibition of Chlorofluorocarbon Precassed packaging "Sections: 8.22.010 Definitions. 8.22.020 CPC - procssood packaging prohibited. 8.22.030 Penalties. 8.22.040 Civil remedies available. "8.22.010 Definitions. "A. 'CPC - processed packaging' Hems all fume or 'sryrofoom' packaging which utilizes any chlorofluorocarbon as a blowing agent. or otherwise, in its manufacture. "9. 'Chlo_ fluorocarbons'. or 'CPCm', are the family of chemical substances eoamraly referred to as such, and eontalming carbon, fluorine and chlorine, and having no hydrogen atoms and no double bonds. "C. 'packager' moans any storm, shop. sales outlet, manufacturer or other business located within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which packages. bores, coutainerises, or otherwise prepares any tangible goods or merchandise for sale or distribution within the City of Rancho Oucmonga, using, in any fashion, packaging, as defined herein, in connection with any portion of ito business. "d. 'Packaging' means any and all bags, darks, urapring, boxes, containers, container filler material, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups* strewn, lids and any and all other materials utilized in the packaging of any goods, merchaodise, food or other tangible things. "8. 'Packaging Manufacturer' meaus any business which manufactures packaging as all or part of its business. /_j (Sp Ordinance No, 371 Page 3 "P. 'Packaging Supplier' seaas ary business which galls or provides Packaging as all or part of its business. "8.22.020 CPC - processed Packaging Prohibited. "A. packager:, "1. Except as provided is sub- section 9 hereof, no packager shall utilize any CPC - processed packaging, nor shall a% packager : porches*, obtain or keep any CPC - processed packaging for packaging purposes. "2. As to soy packaging obtained after September 1. 1989, each Packager shall obtain frm each of its packaging suppliers a written stztmaat signed by the supplier„ or by me authorised agent of the supplier, stating that the supplier will supply no CPC - processed packaging to that packegor, that the supplior will note on each invoice for packaging supplied to that packager that She packaging covered by the iwOlcs is not CPC - processed, and it shall further Include the idautity of the Manufacturer of such packaging. "3. all contracts between packagers and packaging suppliers thereto entered into after Soptmbar 1. 1989, shall include prwisiona that each supplier will supply no CPC - proceused packaging, that the supplier will truthfull state on each invoice for packaging supplied that avid packaging is not CPC - processed and that each such iwoice shall contain the identity of the anufacturar of such packaging. A failure by any packaging supplier to comply with such prwiaionm shall constitute a material breach of the contract. 04. Packagers shall retain each supplier's written ntatmonta rafetced to above, for am year free the last date of receipt of any packaging frm that supplier. "5. All packagers shall at - agate, in their warehouses or other storage areas, all foam and a ofosa packaging from all other fame Of packaging maintained on the promises. All foes and styrofoaa packaging to be used in connection with each packager's business and maintained on packaSer's promises shall be labeled with language clearly indicating that CPC* have not been utilized in its manufacture. ^6. It shall be unlawful for guy supplier to make any misstatement of material fact to any packager or to any representative of the City of gaucho Cucamonga regerdity the use or non-use of CPC. In "a msoufsctura of any packaging supplied, or to be supplied, to •ny packager in the City of gaucho Cveeaeogs. /..9'7 7i. Ordiwuce Ho. Page 4 "7. Psch packager shall file a Stormont at the time it flat obtains or reams its business license, truthfully declaring that it is in compliance with thin Chapter. "0. All •tatmante and documents required by this Chapter to be maintained by a packager shall be made available for inspection by the City Manager or bin or bar designated representative. It #ball be unlawful for anyone having custud7 of such documents to fail or rafuae tr, produce such docutents upon request by the City Manager or his or her designated representative during normal business hours. "9. The City Manager or his or her authorized representative may ezmpt a type of packaging from the requirements of this Chapter upon a showing satisfactory to the City tanager or his or bar designas that the packaging has no acceptable non -C[C- processed equivalent and thet imposing the regvirmentc hereof would cause undue hardship. said documentation •hall Include, but is not limited to, a list of suppl.ere contacted to determine if nor CPO- procenned substitutes are available. r "1C. Packagers "he have previously entered into a contract for the Provision of CPC - processed packaging which is to be shipped prior to September 1, 1909- are ezempt free the provisions of this Sub- section A. with respect to such packaging. "g Packaging Suppliers "1. It shall be unlawful for any packaging supplier in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to store, sell or ptovide CPL - processed packaging within the City of Rancho Cucmongs. 02. All foan asd "tyrofum packaging stored or maintained by any Packaging supplier within the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be labeled vWx laoguego clesrly indicating that CFCs have not boom utilised in its manufacture. "3. The provisions of this Sub- seetion H shall not apply to Packaging required to be shipped under an ezSating Contract prior to September 1, 1909, "C. Packaging Manufacturers. "1. It shall ae ualmtul for any PAcka91Q3 manufacturer to manufacture or othatviee produce, within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any CPC - procesaad packaging. "2. All foam and atyrofom packaging stored or maintained by a %, Packaging manufacturer within the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be labeled with language cloar17 indicating that CFCs have not been utilized In its manufacture. r Ordinance No. 371 Pala 5 "3. She provialons of this Sub - section C &hall not • ?ply to Packaging manufactured, of to be manufactured, prior to September 1, 1989. "D. She City of Rancho Cucamonga "hall not purchase any CPC . processed packaging. nor shall CSC - procesemd packaging be knneinFly Utilized at any City- spcosored event occurring within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on and after January 1, 1989. "E. The City Manager is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take avy and all other actions reasonable and neeassery to enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, inspection of stay business preaiaea of any packager, packaging supplier and/or packaging manufacturer, during normal business hours, to verify compliance. "P. Voluntary And Mandatory Compliance. "It is the intent of the City Council of the City of P.anebo Cucamonga to achieve a fifty percent (5OZ) reduction in the use of C.vc processed packaging by March 1, 1989, and A nicety percent (90S) or greater reduction thereafter. In order to achieve this reduction, compliaace with the provisions of this Chapter after M on a voluntary Dress vatic September 1, 1989. On and be 1, 1989, the provisions of this Chapter shall become mandatory without further notice. "8.22.030 Penalties. On and after September 1, 1969- it shall be unleeful for say Person, fire, partnership or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter, parson, fie, partnership. or corporation violating auy provision of this Chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of en infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as follosst "A. A fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100,00) for a first violation. "B. A fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.0 0) for a second violation occuring within one (1) ysert "C. A fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500 tl0) for each additional violation oecuriag within sae (1) yemr. deemed such person, ifn, partnership, or corporation shall he guilty of A separate offense for each and eve day portion thereof during which any violation of • wary a of sty this Chapter is roaaitted, continued or ty permitted the psuch person. of fin. partnership, or corporation, and shalbe domed upunishable therafors as provided in tbis Chapter. /j 9 vralm- Pap 6 is e•• Kwu �aorcubili T Conduct ann« _" eibed haratnhaodd shot be °°U-trued as "8.22.040 DPllcabl• :hall larot affect the �._ Clv11 Reredies "A Violation 'ivauable, constitute a auiw of say or Ptoctaa. b1 as Cs and me 7 Reba Provisions of _ of of ...b nalsaeIn aaf othertraaaa�8e= wader a Pralieiury�o�Pgh .1 it by ltr for the ..that section. SLCf�lO =j Th" City batsaaat invalid bf rM Ph. aangcc* r�ror Council declataa that reason of final co d of thin ar - should tai, any PrepPti :t action io a court o di+uaa be render Provision, paragrapba. asap"Oop sad 1+81.1° = ed ar declared and affect. rotda oto this 0 tnaiaia8 Praiisdfztiou. or by SlEnO Ordlntace +hall remain 1A Pull force amass O.C. iq The D it p Published to this ifte �°ance and the Cu tari0. California. ae d cir of as, da %s after tt Q gk Qty of Cu ornla. and circulated al circulation Passage I. the Cit7 Of Rancho i . "Elmo ORDINANCE NO. 384 AN ORDINANCE 01 TJg cm COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, ADDING .CHAPTER 8.21 IO TITLE 8 09 THE RANCHO CUCAHONGA MUNICIPAL ODDS EMULATING SHOEING WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CCCAYONGA. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as f 011MA: SECTION It Chapter 8.21 hereby is added to Title 8 of the Rancho Cumsengo M:nicipal Code to read in words and figures as follows•. •Chaptar.8.21 'SMOKING REGULATED CR PROHIBITED *Saco 8.21.010 Purpose and Findings. *The City Council finds that the smoking of tobacco, or any other weed or plant, is a positive danger to health, one a material annoyruce, inconvenience, discomfort and health hazard to Hasa who are present in confined spaces, and in order to prssswe public health, safety and welfare, the declared purpose o? this Chapter is to regulate the making of tobacco, or any weed or plant, within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. "Sec. 8.21.020 Definitions. *All words and phrases contained in this Chapter 8.21 shell have ascribed to them their common wary day meanings "-- spring only the tea 'smoking', which sball moan the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, or any similar article, or the cmbustion within any pipe or other smoking device, of any form of tobacco or other combustible substance. *See. 8.21.30 Smoking Prohibited - Elevators. "Smoking is prohibited and is umlmful within elevators !n buildings generally used by and open to the public, including alwatom in office, hotel, and multi- family buildings. /31 r 9 _., Ordinance No. 384 Page 2 "Sac. 8.21.040 SLokina Prohibited — Hospitals, Health Cara sad Cbild Cara yatilitfes. "a. Ranking is prohibited and is unlawlul in public areas of health are facilities and hospitals, as defined is the California Haalth and Safety Code, including waiting rows, public hallways, and lobbies. 'b. Every publicly or privately ward health care facility, including bospitjim, shall make a removable effort to determine preference and to assign patients placed in roan to be occupied by two (2) or more patients occerding to the patient'. individual nonsmoking or smoking preference. "c. In rows and areas occupied by µcisuts, smoking shall be prohibited for hospital staff, visitors and the general public. Sigaa readings 'STAPP AND VISTNR SHOKINC PROHIBITED' shall be conspicuously posted in such areas. "d. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in public areas of child care facilities. 'Sec. 8.21.050 Smoking Probibited meeting and coal eerence Rome. "Ercept as berainefter provided, or as provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 25941 or its successor provisions, smoking is prohibited sad is unlawful in enclosed hearing rows, conference toms, chambers, and all other enclosed places of public assembly =-less a minimum of forty percent (402) of the available seating and floor spp.•a is designated as a 'non - coking' ate& Notwithstanding _he foregoing provisions, the muor or manager of such meeting and /or conference roams may designate the entire area to a 'smoking' or 'non- tmaking' area. "Sec. 8.21.060 Smosin& Probibit< Entertainment Pecilitieo. "a. Etcept as provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 25943, or its successor provisions, smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in every publicly or privately owned mumne, gallery, theater, a,.ditorium, or other enclosed facility, the Primary purpose of which is to provide, permit or authorize entertainment of any nature, and/or uhich /3j Ordinance No. 384 Page 3 Is open t, the public, for the primary purpoas of r1' exhibiting any fora of art or motion picture, stage draw, musical recital, or 698 other performance or / want, in All areas eacept that step commonly known as the lobby. and in areas not open to the pu)lic. Every wnsr end /or manager of such theater, auditorium, or other enclosed entertainment faclity as described herein, shall post signs couspituuusly � in the entrance area ststiag that smoking is sprohibited within the theater, auditorium, or facility. and in the cue of motion picture theatars. Keach information shall be shown upon the acraen 11or at least fire seconds before showing motion pictu�aq. 'Sac. 0.21.070 Seeking Prohibited - Public Rawtrcomm. 'Sacking is prohibited and is unlawful in public restrome and private restrom, open to the public. "Sec. 8.21.080 Sacking Prohibited - Indoor Service Linea. "Smoking is prohibited and id 'lawful in indoor service lino in which ante than one person at a time is giving or recaiviag services of any kind. "Sec. 6.21.090 Snaking Prohibited - Pe ring Pstabliah- menta. "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in every publicly or privately weed coffee shop, cafeteria, shcrt -order cafe, luncheonette, sandwich shop, muds fountain, restaurant, or other eating establishment serving food which has an enclosed capacity of fifty or more persons, acludiag frog that calculation of capacity any portion of much facility which is utilized exclusiv,ly for bar purpoa69s provided. Lowever, this prohibition 'hall not apply to coy such establishment maintaining a contiguous no smoking area of not 1069 than forty percent (40Z) of both the sewtiug capacity and the floor apace in which euetmers ere being served, excluding from said calculations any portion of such facility which is located outdoors and any portion of such facility a ith is utilized "elusively for bar purposess further provided, bmwar, that this prohibition shall not apply to areas not open to the public and to any ram which is being used for a private function, but only while such roam is usad for acc.L privste function. Upon request, patrons shall be •mated in a nonsmoking area if Available, /33 Ordinance No. Page 4 "Sac. 8.21.100 Smoking Probildted — Polling _ Places. "Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful in very indoor polling place for soy local, couaq, ■rate or national election, or other casting of votes, when such Polling place is &pan for voting purposes. "Sec. 8.21.110 emokin, t Prohibited — yndoor Officn ■ad Lobby Area e. ._ " Etcept a■ otherwise provided is this Chapter, smoking is prohibited and :is unlawful in all indoor lobbius, reception and /or office areas open to the public. The provisions of thin zcetiou shall not apply to SOY area rhich the owner or anna8er has designated as a 'smoking Permitted' area. Such designation shall only be nude by the Posting of ccnapic7 uz signs reading 'yoking ?emitted', in the size and on :co background described in Section 8.21.160. "See. 8.21.122nn Smoking Prohibited — Retail Food Narketis" Ertablishaenta. "Smoking is prohibited and in unlroful in all indoor rataiJ food marketing establishments, accept in areas not open to the public. "Sac. 8.21.130 Smoking Prohibited — Retail Stores. "Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. smoking is prohtbit&4 and is unlniful in all indoor retail stores, in state Cpon to the public. The provisions of this section shell not apply to any area which the Owner or manager has designated as a 'smoking permitted' area. Such designatiou abail only be made by the posting of conspicuous signs reading '9iokiag Permittod', in the size and on the background described in Section 8.21.160. "Sic- 8.21.140 Smoking Prohibited — Banks and Other Fimaeinl Institutions. -- "Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within banks and other financial institutions in arets open to the public. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any area which the Owner or manager has designated as a 'poking permitted' area. Such designation shall only be made by the posting of conspicuous signs reading 'Smoking permitted' ism the size and on the background deocribad in Sacticu 8.21.160. /3V ,a Ordimnca No: {� Page S' ` "Sec. 8.21.130 Smoking Prohibited — Public guildia•a and •` ftrueturea. "Eteept as otherwise provided in this Chapter or by arau law, wmokiag is prohibited mad is unlawful within all public buildings and structures in areas open to the public. "Sec. 8.21.160 Posting of Siess Required. 3 •Except es otherwise provided heroin, wherever in j this Chapter smoking is prohibited, conspicuous signs containing all capital letters not ices than one inch in theight and containing at least the words ' Saoking Prohibited', or the international No Smoking' symbol fx (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) on a contrasting background, shall be Posted. It is the duty of the owner, operator, manager, or other persons having control of such room, building, or other place whore smoking is prohibited, to post Such signs or cause such signs to be posted. "Sec. 8.21.170 8tructurel Ntdifications Not Required. "a. Nothing in this chapter shell require the Owner, operator, or mamgar of any theater, auditorium. health care facility, or any building, facility. attucture, or bwioeae, to incur any expanse to make structural or other physical modifications to airy area ur workplace, "b. Nothing in this gentian shall relieve any parson I'M the duty to post gig" as required by th`_a Chapter. "Sec. 8.21.180 Exemptions. "Any Owner or mamgar of a business cc other establishment subject to this Chapter may apply to the City JUmSer or his degignca for an exemption or eodificetion to any provision of this Chapter due to unusual circwsteacem or conditions, after which a hearing before the City M&mger er his deeignes shall be conducted. The decision of the City Manager or hie designee *hall be final Unga9a appealed in writing within seven (7) calendar days to the City Council which shall, within a reasomblo time, gchedule a rublic haering. ' /3 -5 Ordiaaate No. 384 Page 6 "a. Such eramption shall be granted only if the City Reneger or•dasignee finds from the evidence presumed that, due to unusual circumstances, the feiluy■ to comply with the provisions for which the e,"pt., on is requested will not result is a danger to lealth or sanoyance, incowanience, or discomfort to canmuoking members of tho public. "b. The applicant for so exrption shall pay tine -cu ° f"i�'i�t7'- gaiis:+---(f•.6s86)- a fr adopted l;r City Council to cover fwastigation and adainfsL•ative costs to bo incurred. "Sec. 8.21.190 Penalties. "A. It shall be unlawful to fail to post the sires required by this chapter within ninety (90) dsye of the effective data hereof, or to wilifudly =athlete or destroy any signs required by this Chapter. "b. It shall be unlawful to sacks in Ray area posted as a nonsmoking area. "c. It is unlawful for any parson, firm, partnership or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requiramenta of this Chapter. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this chapter or failing to caply with say of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and upon cowiction thereof shall be punishable as follona: 01. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation: "2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for - second violation of the eaae Ordinance within one (1) year; "3. A fins Dot exceadivg five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additionsi violation of the seas Ordinance within ova (1) year. "Each Ruch person, first, partnership, or corporationn shall be damad guilty of a Separate offewo for each and Ovary day or any portion thereof during wh ?eh any violation of may of the provisions of this ,e."pter is em=itted, ccatinued or permitted by Ruch person, tics. partuarship, or corporation and shall be deed punishable therefor as provided in this Chapter. /3� :t 5 M, M! Y • "y '1Td Y1 .yfY�4,:[y _ ..r< -. u3 =v ... :,�.'�. i l'_ -. yt 1 ' Ordinrt+ce No. 384—: 84 ,' ^e S.r Page 7'- -1 •= Y rt *Sec. 5.21.200 Civil (Wadies /mailable.+ . "The violation of any of the prwisicns of this Chapter shalt Coast'ituta a nuisance and say ba abated by ' the Clay through civil process by seams of restraitdng order. prslininary or rersauent iujructios or in any other Banner provided by Law for the abatement of such nuisances. " ec.21.210 Snverability. "The City Council *f the City of Rancho Cunasonga hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, word or phrase of this Chapter of the Rancho CL onge Municipal Codn hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of this Council that it would have passed all other portions of thin Chapter independent of the climinetica herefroa of any such portion as nay be declared invalid." SECTION 2. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance arA the City (lark shall cause the aase to be putlished within fifteen (15) days after its pessagr at lust once in The Daily Ra ore, a rwrspepsr of general circulation published in the City of Ontario. California. and circulated in the City of Rambo Cucsaonga, California. ti :a /S7 • - - •Y:,, :. fix? CITY cn AFF REPORT DATS: December 7, 1988 TO: mayor and Ntmbers or the city Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner Scott 1Wrphy. Associate Planner SUBJECT: �n " " °� _ vlanning e aping apresldent /a1 subdivision of 15 Lull Resld1 family lots on 71.33 acres of land in the very Specific (Pl "ell nthe Low pResident Residential r� traliwPl n designation (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located west of Etiwanda Avenue between i�ay' 53a 559 611 andv225e171- ,nu. 725- 161 -35, 36, 01, UV. W. ••• ENVIR0MNTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88 -16 - pULSAR - the to _ng appea ° ann ng ss on s t< s on app 9d4feet and 95rfeeteanintwo�lotstin d th from 100 conJunction with tthe acres of land located west of Etiwanda Avenue, between residential subdivision of 154 single family lots on 71. Su+ait and Ilighland Avenues - . lo. 177. . 36, 37, 38, 49. 53, 55, 61, and 225- 171 -ODI 09, 10, , { RECGWENDATION: The.Plnnirg Lomission recommends appro.al of jz en ve roc 13012. to o receive S input on two appeals regarding the II. BACKGROUND' On October S. 1980, the City faunc11s1ng eucfuatly P° c earing� location of F Streec in relation to an ex sting � residence an19the wJn porteforaanalys required After concludin9(the October 5, the Cfty Council referred the appeals to the public hearing, woalding Cobcksiontfor fur Council and, if necessary, the tams III. ANALYSIS On Novo"" 9' 1980' the Planning or Tentative reviewed an unantnrousiy approved the revised plans for Tentative Tract residence an lot 104 and the 13D11. The pins included the relocation of "F% Street to the east side of the existin@ single family requirement far construction complete dedication 166 feet) and the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Tr 13812, VA 88 -16 - PULSAR pece`ber 7, 1988 Page 2 s: a block will for 'C° Street on the north side of an exlstin of 'C of single family residence located at the southwest corner 'G' (see Exhibit 'A' of ibveaber Planning Street and Street t s i report). In addition, the raved site design Commission staff ei+4inates the necessity fora variance for reduced lot depth. The revisims ap roved by the Planning Commission 3pPear to address and the direction of the ,City s� %• the concerns o? the residents lio letters.9f appeal. however, have not been withdrawn Council . and, as a result, tha' City Council must take action on the the Blanchards (the appeals. Staff has been in contact with 'F' Street location) who have indicated their ?, appellants on the agreerunt with tAe proposed realignment. The Banchards Until are. the applicant. iy however, requesting written documents from the Slanchards wish to keep their 4, - these documents are received, on their appeal active. Tie second appel�tsslone Rusting, (see attached 8 testimony at the Planning osal and stem about the Prof unlikely�to wistill thdrawhave their appeal. Therefore final by o�tsCthe Council difications as approved by Council adopt a peals. Ifgg the Council supp be action the atta hed Resolution approvingTentative iract Nap No. 13812. Re fully fitted, Br d_§u+ e City P nne BB:sm:vc. Attachments: Planing COMisslun Restitution ofNovember rova: with Conditions Pianning Resolution fofRApproval November 9, 1988 /39 i E. in the Yery Low Residential District I (2- adwelli Specific gunitOlpera 4 acre). locate Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 22 and 225- 171 -01, 09, 10, 17. (Referred IYE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR - A am y o s on acres of land 1 -2 dwelling units per acre) of the ,sidential General Plan Designation d west of Etiwanda Avenue, between i- 161 -35. 36. 37, 38, 49, 53, 5S. 61 from City Council October S. 1988.) F. ENYIRON14ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88 -16 - PULSAR - A request o reduce lots in conlunct on with ea residential subdivision of a�154 single familyo lots on 71.33 acres of land located west of Ettwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues 22S-161-35, . l and 225 - 17- 0109,10. 17, (ReferredfromityCounci Oc ober S 1988.) Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report gg and suggested Tentative Tract reimbursement agireement o recover thencostlofithe Improvements to the center line of streets C and G. Chairman McNO1 asked if the Variance was being withdrawn. Ralph eHanson, Deputy of ornenewstated tthe formerly approved Variance would chairman McNiot opened the public hearing. Gary Andreasen, Andreasen Engineering, stated he had been working with. the Blanchards and he presented a letter signed by the Blanchards, indicating their approval of a redesign of the tract. Julie Austad, 12366 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated she had been happy with the placement of Uie road north of her property rather than through the middle of her property, but she felt it was unfair that she could be asked to pay for half of the road improvements bordering on two sides of her Property in the future. Sh if she trying force her to give property easements which she helde felt that Pulsar was o theapropoedsalignment and howtit woulowned ffect hiseproperw it and questioned Mr. Murphy stated that easements were in conflict with 64, reposed Summit and the item was taken before City Council to pursue the .:a of condemnation if proposed ya d to notifinalhas road. et. There would bela9publicohearing road priors to any necessary condecnation. Mr Peterson questioned if he would have to reduce the number of proposed units on his property if any of his property was taken for road. Brad this polint andtnoPla alysissthad dbeen performed as to was conceptual on other parcels of land. Planning Commission Minutes 46 November 9, 1988 Mr. Murphy stated that density calculations are based on net area after dedications for arterial and secondary streats. Because Summit is a collector road, it should not impac• the overall density. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer stated that if Pulsar did not develop Suvit, then Mr. Peterson or another developer would have to build the street; therefore, it was a moot Issue. Mr. Mdreasen stated that Pulsar Development was responsible under the proposed layout to build Streets C and G. In order to qualify for reimbursement from the Rustad's, Pulsar would have to apply to City Council. Furthermore, even if City Council approved the reimburseunt, it would not be made unless the Rustad's subdivided their property for development. He stated that Pulsar had contacted the Rustad's to try to reach an agreement regarding an ingress /egress easement for installation of public utilities. Ms. Rusted stated that Pulser had never offered her anything for her easement, and now they were trying to force her to sign. Chairman McNiel stated that any time streets are developed next to a property, the property owner pays for the portion of street that abuts their property. Ms. Austad stated the developer had first tried to run the street through the middle of her property and she had allowed the compromise of having the street next to her property to avoid having the street In the mlddlo. Wayne Blanton, realtor, stated that the street alignment was decided by the City. He also stated that he had given the Rustad's the right to utilize his property to bring in their water early years ago. go said he was sorry he had allowed the Rustad's water to cross over his property. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Buller stated the Planning Commission was currently consid: ring the street alignment to determine if it was the most appropriate layout. He stated that even if Pulsar had not proposed this development, the Rustad's still might have ended up with the same street alignment next to their property. Ralph Hanson stated that the easement was a private matter between the easement holder and Pulsar Development. Coomissioner Chitiea asked for clarification of the potential roibmursement clause in the Resolution Mr Buller stated that the developer had the right to ask City Council to permit a relmbursement agreement, under which Pulsar would recover the cost of the improvements to the center line of streets C and G upon development of the Rusted property. However, because the Rusted parcel was within the County, the City had no jurisdiction over whether the County would peratt the reimbursement agreement or not. Planning Commission Minutes 10 /- November 9, 1988 Commissioner Chitlea asked if G Street was located farther east if the Rusted Property could take access off C Street where a wall was being proposed, or would they have to provide some other means of access. Mr. Buller stated the City would not allow access off C Street. Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer, stated that if G Street was eliminated it would have to be replaced by some other north /south street, which could be used as a loop street out to C Street. He reaffirmed that the City would not allow access off C Street, because it is a collector street. He stated that If the Rusted property remained within the County, the developer would be at the mercy of the County as to whether they would allow reimbursement. if the Rusted property was annexed to the City prior to subdivision, the developer could request thrt City Council approve a reimbursement contract. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing to ask how many proposals had been worked up regarding the tract layout and street alignments. Mr. Andreasen responded that approximately 12 proposals had been presented. He further stated that Pulsar Development would go on record that if they could reach an agreement with the Rustad's on the ingress /egress utilities easement, Pulsar would not apply for relabursewent of one half of the street improvement costs. Ms. Rustad stated she felt Pulsar was just using the reimbursement cost issue as a ploy to get her easements for free. Hearing no further testimony the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Emerick stated he was in favor of keeptny the street allgrrent as shown on the map. He felt the developer had worked with the Rustad's to build the wall the Rustad's requested &A had avoided encroaching on the Rustad's property for the street dedication, and he felt Pulsar had made a good faith attempt. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the street alignment was the best design. Commissioner Blakesley concurred. Commissioner Chitlea felt the Planning Commission should not be involved in the easement problem She felt C street had been moved north of the Rustad property and G Street was being Installed west of the Rusted property at no cost to the Rustad's Commissioner Tolstoy felt G Street would allow good access for future development of the Rustad property Commissioner Chitlea felt it should be on the record that the developer would waive asking for reimbursement. Commissioner Emerick felt that should be a private matter between the owners. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1988 Motion: Moved by Blakei80-., seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13812 with modification to allow the developer to request a releburserent agreement to recover the cost of the improvements to the center line of streets C and G. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COWISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE , ABSENT: COWISSiONERS: NONE - carried Chairman McN1el stated the appeal process was still available. `r Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that a valid appeal was on record. Therefore, staff would process the item back to City Council unless they received a withdrawal of the appeal. G ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 88 -07 - CITY OF R�C01 - amen —n a Chapter . �, o anc o 1,j<amonga n c pal Code permitting the use of on -street parking for model home sales offices meeting certain criteria. (Continued from October 26, 1988.) Brett Horner, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report along with a modification to item (f) (1) of the Ordinance to prohibit having resident homeowners located adjacent to the gated, secured area o! the street. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he felt staff had done a goad job addressing the previous concerns and he endorsed the amendment as written. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing vas closed. Comaissioner Tolstoy asked if the concept should be restricted to short cul- de -sacs Brad Buller, City Planner, steted that tiro entire cul -de -sac would be used for this purpose, and therefore developers would be inclined to use only short cut -de -sacs. Coemissio,,er Blakesley stated language should be added to state that the entire :ul -de -sac would be fencod uff Cvmissioner Chitiea stated the parking gate needed to be placed at the entrance to the street. Planning Cosmission Minutes -12- November 9, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -167 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANOr,'^..F APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13812, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 154 SIN6'.E FAMILY LOTS ON 71.33 ACRES OF LAID IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (1 -2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE E1'WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE LOW RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGRATION (2- 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HIGHtM AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS iN SUPPORT THEREOF - APR: 225- 161 -35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55 AND 61, AND 225 - 171 -01, 09, 10, AND 17 A. Recitals. (i) Pulsar Development has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13812 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter In this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application'. (ti) On the 24th of August, 1988, the Planning Commissfon of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluaed said hearlog on that date. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission approved said application. (111) On the 5th of October, 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing to hear two appeals on the application. After concluding said hearing, the City Council referred the items back to the Planning Commission for further review. (iv) On the 9th of Noveiber, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearirq on that date. occurred. (v) All legal prerequisite to the adoption of this Resolution have B. Resolution. NOW, 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 to the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Comission during the above - referenced public hearing on November 9, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: 1�( PLANNING CONMISSiO ESOLUTION NO. 88 -167 TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1986 Page 2 (a) the application applies to property located west of Etivanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues, with street frontages of 1,646 feet along Summit Avenue and 659 feet along Highland Avenue and a depth of 2,648 feet. The property Is presently developed with a single family residence; and (b) The property to the north and east 1s vacant and is designated for residential uses. The property to the south is vacant and is designated for the future Foothill Freeway. The property to the west 1s vacant and developed with single family residences and is designated for residential uses; and (c) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and (d) The development of 110 single family lots on the western 31.47 acres of the site is consistent with the Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; end (e) The development of 44 single family lots on the eastern 27.86 acres of the site Is consistent with the very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (f) The proposal, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, 1s in compliance with the Master Plan of Trails and the objectives of the Equestrian Overlay District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Specific Plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Specific Plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, and ids PLANNING COMMISSION. iSOLUTION N0. 68-167 TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1988 Page 3 x idy The design Of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damago and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative health problems; likely to cause (f) onflictiwith oany easementaAcquireda l by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A. Tentative Tract i Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities A. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications Highlandl�A Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole off -site east of the east project boundary to the first oola off -site west of the west project boundary. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one -half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future develoy ent (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of Highland Avenue. B An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecomrunications and electrical) along the west project boundary shall be paid to the City prior to recordation of the Final Map. The fee shall be one -half the Cityy adopted unit amount times the length from the southwest corner of lot 144 to the southeast cr rer of the intersection of Streets 'C' and "G' ,1665 feet). 14(c> t_ PLANNING C"ISSIO ESOLUTION 90. 88 -167 TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1988 Page 4 C. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) to the existing house on proposed lot 104 shall be removed from lot IC4 to the first pole south of 'C" Street upon installation of underground utilities on -site to serve lot 104. 2. Summit Avenue shall be constructed full width, excluding off -site parkway improvesents, from the intersection with 'M' Street easterly to the intersection with Etiwanda Avenue, with Phase I development. The developer may request reimbursement agreements to recover the costs of off -site ipr,vemerts from future development. 3. Two means of access shall be provided to each phase of the development. Both shall be public streets constructed full width curb -to -curb. 4. Perireter streets which are located on -site shall be constructed full width curb -to -curb. Parkway improvements fronting 'not a part' properties on "L" and 'G' Streets may be uaferred until development of those properties. Parkway improvements shall be constructed on both sides of "C" Street. S. In -lieu fees for the future construction of frontage streets which are not currently needed shall be paid to tho City prior to approval of the Final Map as follows: a The south one -half of Sundt Avenue west cf "M' Street to the centerline of the Southern California Edison right -of -way, including landscaping around the Cucamonga County Mater District pump station; and b The north one -half of 'C' Street west of the west project boundary to the centerline of the Southern California Edison right -of -way. 6 Temporary access across the future Route 30 Freeway right - of -way will be allowed as follows: a 'L' Street between 'E' Street and highland Avenue shall be constructed 28 feet wide with - oncrete curbs only (no gutters). The curb returns at "E' Street shal1 heve 15 foot radii. There shall be no sidewalk south of 'E' Street, ani b The intersecticn of 'L' Street and Highland Avenue shall be upgraded to provide right and left turn lanes for both both the north and south fo 1�. PLANNING COIMISSIO ESOLUTION NO. 88 -167 TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1989 Page 5 movements. Transition to er$ an Highland Avenue shall be designed for a 55 mph design speed. The pavement for the turning lanes shall be provided without disturbing the existing improvements on the south side of Highland Avenue; and c. A fee for the future removal of the temporary acceo road and the transition tapers on Highland Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Nap. 7. The portion of the site west of 'N' and 'L' Streets Is subject to flooding from Day Creek Channel. Therefore, final plans will not be eccepted for review and no permits (improvements, building, grading, etc.) will be issued until Phase II or the Day Creek Channel is sufficiently completed to provide necessary flood protection as approved Ly the City Engineer. 8. Interim drainage protection facilities shall be provided along the north project boundary. Tire design shall be ,justified by the final drainage study and approved by the City Engineer. A Maintenance Agreement shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the drainage protection facility but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private maintenance is insufficient, and allowing the City to assess those casts to the developer. 9. The main storm drain line within 'M' and 'L' Streets shall be sized for a Q100. The pipe shall be extert4ed southerly and westerly within a street or public easement to the existing inlet on the north side of Highland Avenue. 10. The design of storm drainage facilities for the portion of the site east of 'N' and 'L' Streets shall be coordinated with the developer of the adjacent property to the east. Pipeline crossings of the future Route 30 Freeway shall be held to a minimum 11 Construct, the portion of the City Master Plan Storm Drain located within Summit Avenue as justified by the final drainage study and approved by the City Engineer. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of the facility and the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of costs in excess of the fees in accordance with City Ordinance 4o. 75. 12. Nritten verificat;on shall be obtained free Caltrans that sufficient freeway right -of -ray has been prov ded prior to approval of the Final Map. t�T pr,NW2NG COWISSIO. 1SOLUTION N0. 86 -167 TENTAT:YE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1988 page 6 13. The developer Shall aNke x good ��tenstzornecessary�i� to the rcquirad otf -s1a property rpVements for 5ymatt construct the required street imp the developer wall, tta Avenue. If he should fall to ei so, at least 12o days prior t n s a9retMntf to ciomplete the at approval, pursuant to Government CodaroSection interests improvements W city acquires the cR agreement shall such time as t� improvements. incurred required for nt by the developer of al ty sinterests prove Ci to acquire the off -site proper for bb the subdivision.fa�xcofia cash required 1n f these el cO t t Shall be in thePPraisal report in a Portion oP e0ount Atthe developer's expense• The deposit i^ developer tha City prior to obtained by the approved by appraiser shall be comnencemant of the appraisal- a Tess and maintenance of 14 The easement for ingress a^western portion of the site public utilities along the approval of the Final N+D- shall be quit claimed prior 15. Local inal Hapeasri&n trail easements shall ba provided on the a. The tra1: easement and property line best to lots 9. 17 and f1d18e s�brthwesthicornero of a C- and line UP with streets. b 191520 and wide trail on 'h ta south side of lots c A 15 foot wide trail on the south aide of lot 13 d. A 15 fo trail shallrabe shifted to the ewustl tract boundary upon removal of the access raid t0 Highland Avenue. tract a A 15 foot wide trail along the south boundary the east tract f a ip tout wide trail along boundary. 16. Heavy broom finish concrete rrossinI shall ossing provided am the street improvement plans and shall or to where brails cross public streets. planner D shown on the City Engineer and City approval by / Final HaP• , / approval of the '-( / M PLANNING CONNISSI(h (SOLUTION 90. 88 -167 TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR November 9, 1988 Page 7 17. The final Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Grading Comm!tt x prim• to approval of the Final Y.ap. 18. The developer shall commence, participate in and consummate, or cause to be commenced, participyated in, or consummated, a ii Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Foothill Fire Protection District to finance a fire station patto serve the envelopment, including Theistation shall bet located, designed, a d built all specifications of the Foothill Fire Protection District, and shall become the 's completion. The equipment Dshallc be selreeted by uthe District in accordance with its needs. In any building of the station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time of recordation of the final map. 19. The Lot "A" 1' wtae (Holding Strip) alony, the south side of street 'C' and west side of street G' shall no: be shown on the Final Nap. The Developer sly request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of the improvements south of the centerline of street "C" and west of the centerline of street 'G" for the portion of the streets fronting the out parcels at the southwest corner of said streets from future development as it occurs on said out parcels. B. Design Review 1. A sound wall, as required by the acoustical analysis, The shall be final design oflthe wallgshall beerevlewed and rapproved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 2 A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels within the residences below 45 CNEL. The report shall be reviewed ano approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. A decorative perimeter block wall shall be required around the western portion of the tract (Loa Resioential), along Summit Avenue, along both sides of "C" Street, and along all corner side yard areas. The design and location of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. . / 5e�s a% 1{ PLANNING COWISSION RESOLITICY,-N0. 88 -167 TEWTATIyE TRACT 13012 - PULSAR MoveKber 9, Page 8 APPROYED AND AICF- .ED THIS 9TH DAY OF MOYEKBER, 1988• PLANIM4 COWILs10N OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA ATTEST: ;n—the gth day of anraarrr, AYES: SOMIsSIONEAS: PfOES: CUM259IOa£RS: A3sEHT: CWWSSIOWERS: of the City of Rancho ,.olution was duly and ,fling Comissi0n of the Planning Comiss10n held a- to-Atr BLAKESLEY, CNn «. «iER1CK, MCNI£:.TOLSTOY NONE NONE /.51 ,4 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 9, 1988 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner Etiwanda Avenue bedreen APR: 225 - 161 -35, 36, 37, 01, 09, 10, and 17. 94 feet and 95 feet f residential subdivision acres of land locateo Summit and Highland Av 38, 49, 53, 55, 61, and BACKGROUND: On August 24, 1980, thr Tan unan mously approved Tentative 16. Following the Planning Coaraiss filed with the City Council by area was filed by the owners of the exis Lot 76 within the subdivision as it i Street between Lot 76 and Lots 105 August 24, 1988 Planning Commission r filed by the homeowners of the ex southwest corner of "C' Street and '( of dedication •vquired for 'C' Street for a block wall along the south s their house. of the Etfwanda i General Plan located west of hland Avenues - 61, and 225 -171- apniny Cornlssion reviewed t 13812 and Variance 88- meeting, two appeals were ddents. The first appeal house to be preserved on ted to the location of 'F" 106 (see Exhibit 'C' of t). The second appeal was ng house located at the Greet regarding the amount the lick of a requirement of 'C' Street to protect On October 5, 1988, the City Council conducted a public hearing to receive input on the two appeals. In reviewing the first appeal regarding the location of F" Street, the City Council noted that the Planning Comafssfon had not addressed this issue becaase the item was not raised as a concern dcring the Planning Commission meetfn9. As a result the City Council referred the location of 'r Street ac o e ann nq emCoifss an or cons era o� --- / �1 4 ITEMS r 6 F PLANNING COJMISAIf TiAFF REPORT TT 13812 S VA 88 -10 - Pulsar November 9, 1988 Page 2 In considering the second appeal, the City Council felt that, while the amount of dedication proposed was significantly more than what would usually be accepted, the safety of the existing homeowners -as a concern due to the collector status of "C" Street. The II ANALYSIS: Following the City Council meeting, the applicant has eel n lcing to revise plans to address both concerns raised in the letters of appeal. "F" Street, between "A" and "K" Streets, has been relocated to the east side of the existing residence on Lot 104 (see Exhibit 'A ") . Py doing this, the owners of the house on Lot 104 will be able to retain the area west of their home in its present condition. In redesigning the subdivision, the applicant has also relocated °C" Street six feet to the north, thus providing the entire 66 foot dedication on their property. The parkway improvements on the south side of "C" Street adjacent t0 the existing residence can be completed and a block wall can now be constructed. With the modifications made by the applicant, it appears that the concerns of the residents have been addressed. Staff has been in contact with the residents and they have indicated their agreement to the concept submitted by the applicant The residents have indicated, howaver, that a few minor details are being worked on with the applicant With the modifications to the tract map, all of the lots conform to the development standards withir the Low Density deoignation of the Development Code. Therefore, the Variance requested for the lot depths is no longer necessary. :,I RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Comaission approve a revised design for Tentative Tract 13812 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. 08 SMfvc 153 PLANNING COINISSI" TAFF REPORT TI 13812 3 VA 88 -10 ;'Pulsar November 9, 1988 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit "A' - Revised Tract Map City Council Staff Report of October 5, 1988 Planning Coaeisslon Staff Report of August 24, 1988 Resolution of Approval with Conditions /n—� Ms. CITY OF FBI RANCHO CUCANKY%A rm E- PLANNING D[Vr3tON EXHIBM_ SoxLE. X55 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA STAFF JF REPORT DATE: October 5, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONNENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE T7ALi 13812 - PULSAR - Appeal of ann ng omission's ec son approv ng a residential subdivision of 154 single family lots on 71.33 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etlwanda Specific Plan and the Low Residential General Plan Designation (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located wsst of Etlwanda Aven-,e, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APH: 225 - 161 -35, A, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55, 61 and 225 - 171 -01, 09, 10, 17, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARI,ME 88 -16 - PULSAR - Appeal o e ann ng omm ss on s eo son app rov ng a request to reduce the minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 94 feet and 95 feet to two lots 1n conjunction with a residential subdivision of 154 single family lots on 71.33 acres of land located west of Etlwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225 - 161 -35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55, 61 and 225 - 171 -01, 09, 10, 17, I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Puu6Trc Tearrng' and receive all testimony on the project. After receiving all input, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal requesting the relocation of "C" Street 6 feet to the north, and uphold the ap ?eal ;egarding "F" Street and direct the applicant to relocate "F Street to the east side of the existing residence, and connect "X" Street with Summit Avenue, subject to Planning Commission review and approval. In addition, staff recommends that a condition be added to the project requiring the applicant to Join a Mello -Roos District for fire protection. 11. BACKGROUND: On August 24, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed anTously approved Tentative Tract 13812 and Variance 88- 16 In reviewing the proposal, the Planning Commission noted that the collector street cutting through the project, C Street, was originally proposed through the middle of an existing lot along the western portion of the site (see Exhibit "D" of the Planning Commission staff report) . After working with the property owners and staff, the applicant subsequently revised the alignment of "C" Street to run along the northern boundary of the existing residence (see Exhibit "C" of the Planning Commission staff report). The Commission felt this would hake for a more logical development of the existing lot at some point in the future. CITY COUKIL STAFF . ORT RE: TT 13812 d VA 98 -16 - PULSAR October 5, 1988 Page 2 Following the Planning Commission meeting, two appeals were filed with the City Council by area residents. The first appeal was filed by the owners of the existing house to be preserved on Lot 76 within the subdivision. It was their feeling that "F" Street should not be located along the west side of their residence due to the large number of trees planted in that area and their desire to retain the property encompassing Lots 76, 105, and 106 (see Exhibit "C' of the Planning Commission staff report). They feel that alternative designs are possible that would relocate "F" Street and preserve the land they wish to retain in its present condition. The second appeal was filed by the homeowners of the existing house located at the southwest corner of "C" Street and "G" Street regarding the safety of a street close to their house and the lack Of a block wall requirement. As proposed by the applicant, 60 feet of dedication will be provided within the tract boundaries for the construction of 'C' Street. As a collector street, 66 feet of dedication is normally required. The existinq residents feel that "C" Street should be located entirely within the tract boundaries and that they should not have to provide an additional 6 feet of dedication when they decide to develop in the future. III. ANALYSIS: A. 'F Street ": During the Planning Commission meeting, no scu 3i scion took place regarding the possible relocation of 'F" Street, between A" Street and "K' Street, to the east side of the existing residence on Lot 76. As a result, no input is available at this time from the Planning Commission The applicant, however, has been working with the homeowners to provide alternatives to the approved alignment. These alternatives have been included in your packets for reference (see Exhibits "B -1" and 08 -20). If the City Council feels that additional review of the appeal request is warranted, the Council may wish to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff can support either alternative alignment. B. "C Street': In discussing whether 'C" Street should be re oca a feet to the north to provide the entire right -of- way within the tract, the Planning Commission noted that, under- most circumstances, the applicant would only be required to dedicate and install a half street along the property boundary. With the development of the adjacent property, the entire right -of -way would then be dedicated and the road would be improved to its ultimate width. The Planning Commission felt that the 60 feet of dedication provided by the applicant, to conjunction with the road being fully improved from curb to curb, was acceptable. The Commission further noted that this arrangement benefited the Rustad's property by 1) requiring signfglcantly less dedication and 2, full street improvements /57 CITY COUNCIL STAFF i ORT RE: TT IJ812 8 lk 88 -16 - PULSAR October 5, 1988 Page 3 fron curb -to -curb. The parkway could be finished off when the ad9dcent parcel is subdivided The issue is further complicated by the fact that the appellant's property is located In the County; hence, the right -of -way cannot be dedicated to the City. This would prevent placing the parkway in the usual landscape maintenance district. C. "K" Street: There was no discussion at the Commission hearing re— �aerr ins connecting "K" Street to Sumit Avenue (see Exhibit °C 1, The appellant has indicated to staff that they are requesting this connection to provide future residents with a second access to Suwait There appears to be sufficient distance for the connection; however, the precise location of this connection would have to be carefully reviewed by the Engineering Division to insure proper spacing of intersections along Summit consistent with the City's access control policies. Condition 2, as presently drafted, only requires the construction of Summit from the intersection of "ii° Street easterly to the intersection of Etiwanda. The portion of Summmit Avenue west of °M" Street was not needed at this tine to service the tract as proposed; therefore, in -lieu fees were required by Condition Sa. If "K" Street is connected to Summit, then the conditions of approval should be modified to require that the full length of Summit Avenue be construction. D. Mello -Roos District: Durinq the preparation of the Planning Commission ResolutTon. a condition requiring the applicant to Join a Mello -Roos Benefit Assessrxnt District for fire protection was inadvertantly omitted. Therefore, regardless of the action taken by the City Council on the two appeals, staff recommends that a condition of approval be added to the project that reads as follows: "Developer shall commence. participate in and consummate, or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello -Roos r•munity Facilities District (CFD) for the Foothill Fire Protection District to finance a fire station to serve the envelopment, including land facilities, equipment and operations and maintenance. The station shall be located, designed and built to all specifications of the Foothill Fire Protection District, and sha I become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of the station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time of recordation of the rinal map." 150 e tiN'w• CITY COUNCIL STAFF k JRT RE: TT 13812 d VA Be -16 - PULSAR October S, 1988 Page 4 Res Ily su d, ra -ii l C,ty er BB:SM:ko Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Letters of Appeal Exhibit 'B' - 'F' Street Alternatives Planning Cowission Minutes of August 24, 1988 Planning Comission Staff Report of August 24, 1988 Planning Comission Resolution of Approval �5 9 Y 'r 1 Aug. 30, 1988 Rancho Cucamonga City Council; We wish to aPPeal the planning commissions decision approving tenitive tract numberA342�J38�3— ZH Ile Hlan and i i a's"`P Etivandar Ca. 91739 (714) 899 -1918 a ' 1, : — fni 0• �. •-o m rte'. ".. , AVON AUG alio 3 P 4-1 4 4 CITYa "C ' • r� SEp 63 ;� b Hr. 61ayor and Councilmembers Mr. & Mrs. Andre Rusted 12366 Righland Avenue Etiwanda, CA 91739 APH A 225 - 161 -57 September 2, 1988 We are herewith filing an appeal to the Planning Commission's de- cission on Wednesday, August 24, 1984, approving item "P" Environ- mental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13812 - Pulsar. As property owners and residents of the immediate area affected by this developmnnt, we are very worried about the construction of a collector street appx. 34 feet from our house. Our biggest concern y is the safety aspect such a street would impose so close to our house, and without the benefit of a blockwall guarding us against speeders % and reckless drivers. toe do not think a blockwall is too much to ask for, since every house in tlis tract adjacent to this road will be protected by a blockwall. We realize there is no provision in the 'aw forcing the construction of bloclwalls along collector streets. However the City has always made the construction of such protector walls a stipulation at planning meetings, as a review of other simi- lar streets in Victoria and other tracts will show. We feel that unfamiliarity of the law concernin city vs. county property compelled the Planning Commission to d smiss our request and vote in favor of the developer. A simple solution to this prob- lem in our opinion, would be to move the collec.or street an addi- tional six feet to the north, sc it is totally on city property. We would keep our prover setbacks (propane tank etc.) as county law stipulates, and be able to enjoy the protection of a blockwall. The City would receive a finished roadside rather %han 6' X 330' of brush and weeds. And the developer would not lose a single lot, since buil- ding sites # 111 through 118 all exceed the minimum depth of 100 feet. We respect!ully ask, that our appeal be granted for the above men- tioned i-eaaons. /( Sincerely, e--�u,.'u'?.'Z �!t'J& N mss. Andre Rusted- r C,rrY STAFF REPORT cn DATE: August 24, 1988 Chaiman and Y,embers of the Planning . 'mission To: FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner Scott pWrphy, Associate Planner BY: E1AoIYE T Y ENViRONpENTALASSE5SNENI A+D TN A - — — SU&ECT e u land in the Very o s on 71.33 acres of {wthesidential Etianda (1 dwelling General Plan District -2 Specific Plan and the Low Residential) rNighloca Destrnation (2 -4 dwelling units tper Avenues Suva and hla Avenues - Etiwanda Avenue. between and 1- 225 - 161 -35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 53, 55, APN: U1, 09, 10, 17. Ul, 09, 10, 1 ASSESgiENT AND VARIXiCE 88 -16 - PULSAR; to ENVIROf ° e�rum -la-� ?o re uce e m ^ morn nowith 71.33 feet 2 10Ingle f=ilyn lots 94 feet nttal dsubdi too of El:twanda Avenue, between acres of land located west of 1617. 36, 37, Avenues 1 -011, 09?21 Summit and Highland a 61. 38. 49, 53, 55, I PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re ested: Approval of the subd,,vision map and Variance an ssuance e e Negative Declaration. 3. Project Cons"' Overall - 2.16 dwelling units per acre. astern por on - 1.58 dwelling units per acre. Western pertion - 3.5 dwelling units par acre. C. Surrounding Land use and Zonin :_ Vacant; Very Low Residential (1 -2 dwelling units per North - acre) and County Residential 3 South - Vacant; Very Low Residential (1 -2 dwelling units per acre) and County Residential 3 East - Vacant; Very Low Residential (1 -2 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant and single family residential; County Residential 3 _1 ITEM E 6 F PLANUING C(MISSIC STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13ai2 - PULSAR August 24, 1988 Page 2 !' D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre and very low residential less than 2 dwelling units pPr acre) North - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space South - Freeway East - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) Nest - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space E. Site Characteristics: The site is located on the north side of - g an venue across from the Windrows Village ;,r the Victoria Planned Cowunity. The project is bounded on the south by the future Foothill Freeway and the north by Suawit Avenue. The property slopes roughly 4 percent from north to south. There is an existing single family residence located at the northwest corner of the site that will be incorporated into the design of the subdivision. I1 ANALYSIS: A. Background: The development of this property is unique in that the eastern Portion of the site presently falls under the Very Lou Residential (1 -2 dwelling units per acre) designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan The western portion of the project is presently located outside the City limits within the City's Sphere of Influence. It is designated by the City's General Plait as Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) but is currently under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant has, however, processed a pre -zone application for a Low Densfty Residential District which was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1988. The application for annexation will be heard by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on September 21, 1988. The original plan submitted by the applicant consisted of 151 single family lots on 64.82 acre of land. The western portion of the site was designed in much the same manner as the current submittal. The eastern portion of the site, however, was designed using the optional standards of the Very Low Residential District, providing smaller lot sizes and two park sites of 3 34 and 3.71 acres. Upon review by the Design Review PLANNIYG COMMISSIO .7A9F REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13812 - PULSAR August 24, 1988 Page 3 Committee, it was felt that the conftguratinn of the site and the collector street bisecting the site was not conductive to the optional standards. Subsequently, the applicant redesigned the eastern portion of the site to provide 44 single family lots, using the basic standards, averaging 27,581 square feet in area. In addition, the applicant was able to acquire is parcel of lard at the northwest corner of th( site resulting in the addition of 28 additional single fanill lots (see Exhibit "D"). Following the review of the revised plans, Staff net with the property owners of the existing single family houses located adjacent to west tract boundary. The residents expressed gg concern about sne single family house. Asna result, the applicantshasoredesigned the plans to shift the collector road to the north of the second singlo family residence. B General: The current proposal submitted by the applicant n ca es lots ranging in size from 7,210 square feet to 56,500 square feet in area. The western portion of the lot, under the Low Residential area. Theneasternnportione size of of the site. under the Very Low designation of the Ctfuanda Specific Plan, has an average lot size of 27,581 square feet in area. To provide a transition between the two density ranges, those lots that front -on nr rear -on to the eastern half of the site have been enlarged to more closely assimilate the larger lots C. Desi n Review Committee: On May 19, 1988, the Design Review project subject to the 'L "t Street connection topthea "C "oStreet connection being resolved prior to scheduling this item for Planning Commission consideration. This item has since been resolved between the applicant and staff and is depicted on the current proposal (see Exhibit "C "). D Technical Review Committee: On July 19, 1988, the Technical ev ew „oraai ee reviewed L e proposal for consistency with all current City standards The majo" issue with the development of the site was the provision for permanent access. Ultimately, the site will take access both from Etiwanda and Jay Creek Boulevard via Summit Avenue and the extensions of "L" Street A temporary access has been provided across the future Route 30 Freeway and is being aliowed at the Locust /Nighlrnd Avenue intersection. This aaess will be reeoved and the land will revert to the underlying lot upon construction of the freeway /� 1 PLANNING COWISSIf STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13bi2 - PULSAR August 24, 1988 Page 4 Over the past several months, however, ouch discussion has centered around whether or not adequate dedications exist to construct Summit Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue. Based upon information provided by County surveyors office, examinatlon of title and deed reports, and the location of structures in line with what was assumed to be precise alignment, it appears that sufficient dedication for Summit Avenue is not available On August 17, 1988, the City Council approved the possible futire use of condemnation action to obtain the necessary off -site rights -of -way for the construction of Summit Avenue from the project site to Etiwanda Avenue. E. Trails Advisory Committee: On Nay 18, 1988, the Trails Advisory oem a rev ewe the proposed development. At that time, the Committee recom ended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot lines and equestrian trail between lots 9, 17 and 18 should be realigned to the west to provided a crossing Lo the ,Northwest corner of the intersection of "C" and "0 Streets 2 The local trail on the north side of lot 18 should be eliminated. 3. A local trail should be provided along the south side of lot 23. 4. A local trail should be provided on the south side of lots 19 and 20. 5. A local trail should be provided on the west side of lot 1. With the removal of the 'L" Street connection to Highland Avenue th's trail should be relocated to the west tract boundary. 6 A local trail should be provided along the south side of lot 13. 7. The local trail 110,19 the east tract boundary need only be 10 feet in width. F. Parlance Request: In conjunction with the subdivision aop�a on, a applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce tN,e minimum lot depth on lots 104 and 105. A Development Code requires that lots be 100 feet in depth. Lots 104 and 105 are 9S and 94 feet in depth, respectively. The Variance request PUNNING COMNI.SSIO' -TAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13b.t - PULSAR August 34, 190.8 Page 5 stems from the shifting of "F' Street further to the west in order to preserve the existing garage locat l on the east side cf 'F' Street. As proposed, both lots 10 and 105 far exceed the City's requirements for lot width and lot size. The lots, however, could be brought into conformance with the Development code by relocating the garage and shifting 'F' Street to the west. Therefore, direction from the Planning Conafssion is requested to determine if the Variance should be granted or if the garage should be relocated and 'F' Street be shifted to provide lots 104 cnd 1D5 with the minimum required lot depth. G. Environmental Assessroint: In completing the Environmental ec s s as entiffed two items that potentia)ly could have adverse impacts on the project - floodi -g and noise. With the land north and west of the project being primarily vacant, staff Is concerned that the project mvty be subject to flooding during extreme storms. As a result, t condition has been added that flood protection shall be provided alono the northern tier lots within the tract or that easements be obtained to provide the necessary flood protection on the properties north of the project. With the south boundary being located adiacent to the future freeway right -of -way, the site may be impacted by noise levels in excess of City Standards. An acoustical analysis has been prepared for the project which indicates that an 8 foot Mgh barrier, located along the south tract boundary, will reduce the noise levels to within the acceptable City range. With the add'tlnn of these two mitigation measures included in the Conditions of Approval, staff feels that a Negative Declaration cei be Issued for the project. III. FACTS FOR FIi9INGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the Varia nte and the subdiv'sion, facts to support the following findings must be made: A. Variance- That etrict or literal interpretation and entorcement of a specified regulation would result to practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in consistent with the objectives of this code; and That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or tandltions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone; and / (,r,( $' PLANNING CDMMISSIO' ;TAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13b.2 - PULSAR August 24, 1988 Page 6 3. thetspeciftcarre9ul tTOninwourldedapriveo enforcement theapD icant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other Properties in the same zone; and 4. That the granting o;' the Variance would not constltut% of specil othera properties 9classifl d in the isame zone;mandtians of S. Variance will welfare• or materially injurious to Properties or improvements in the vicinity• B Tentative Tract: the 1 That 1 an, Oev lcpcent Code, and Specific Plans; he General Plans; and is 2. consistent with hhe or improvements tGeneral Plan, Development Code. and Specific Plans, and 3 is physically and suitable for the type of development 4. The envl ommentalvdamage iandnavoidable injury to humans and wildlife or the habitat, and S The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health em 6 any easements acquired .bye the tract t public atlarge,,c i now Of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 1V newspaper asEa public hearing, the vsite sahas nb been posted, t an notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet. V conCM e- r-- IO- Publicafinput recoamends hearing all testimony. the Coamission has the following options: A. Approee Tentative tract 13812 and Variance 88 -16 and issue a Negative Declaration; or / to 7 9 PLANNING COP06SIC + TENTATIVE'TRACT 1381 August 24, 1988 Page 7 xc 8. Approve Tentative Tract 13812, $sue a Negative 0eelaration, �F deny variance 88 -16 and 'add a ondition on the Tract Map that the garage structure shall be relocated and 'F" Street shall bt i shifted to p:bvide' the minima lot depth of 100 feet. Res ly suboi Br a City Pla er as:SM:mlg Attaclments: Exhibit "A' - Site Utilization Map Exhibit 08" - Conceptual Master Plan ' Exhibit 'C" - Subd' vision Map Exhibit 00" - Previous Subdivisior Map Resolution of Approval for variance 88 -16 Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 13886 /W� , m RESOLUTION No. 8 D - 67 1 - ac�ULUriUR OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CUCARCHGA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP yp, c Mt'- RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 154 S 71.33 ACRES OF LAND IN - INGLE Fa VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL PLAN AND j it -2 DN U UPI oro ACRE) OF THE ETIWANCA 4 HE LOW RESIOE"MAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WEST OF LpCATEp AVENUE, BETWEEN Vlomir am .. _.._ h:'-A'N'D' "N: 225-161 -35, 36, 37, 225 - 171 -01, 09, 10, AND 17 A. Pecitals. (1) Pulsar Development has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map )b. 13812 as described to the title of this request is referred to as Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution the subject Tentative Tract Map 'the application'. City of Rancho On the 24th conducugus a, 1988. no a Planning Caalafa5ion of the application and concluded said hearing on that date. public After considering all Public testimony, the planning ammission approved said application, (iii) On the 5th of October, 1988, the City Council of the City of ° Rancho the aPPlfatlon�ndAfter conclludin3 sa d hearing, Public iethe City Council referred the item back to the Planning COMMission for further review. City of (iv) On the 9th or Noveat:er, 1998, the planning COm"fssfon of the Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed puolir, hearfna on tk.e application an. ccncluded said hearing on that date. After ccnsidering all Public testimony, the planning COM',ssian approved said application. (v) On the 7th of December, 1989, the City Cnuncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted) a duly noticed public baring to hear two appeals on the application and concluded said hearing on that date (vi) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8 Resolution. NON, THEREFOkE- it is hereby found, determined and resolved by th! City Council of the Cfcy of Rancho Cucamonga as 'ollows; 1. This Council horeby specificaliy finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. the above? refer Based enceduPublicbhearinalonvDecembepresented tincludinguwrlttonrand oral staff r_povine to ethrr will public testimory, this Council hereby specifstaif a or as fog own: w.... �.<J -.�Ji- �A:I,�`�:t: i..xx�: -� ,.. `r .. _ -h. � '• -r --� TT 13812 c Pulsar Development December 7, 1968 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located west of Etivanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues, with street frontages of 1,646 feet along Summit Awrnue and 659 feet along Highland Avenue and a depe: of 2,648 feet. The property is presently developed with a single family residence; and (b) The property to the north and east is vacant and is designated for residential uses. The property to the south is vacant and is der4lnated for the future Foothill Freeway. The property to the west is vacant and developed with single family residences and is designated for residential uses; and (c) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and (d) The developeent of 110 single family lots on the western 31.47 acres of the site is consistent with the Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (e) The development of 44 single family lots on the eastern 27.86 acres of the site is consistent with the very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (f) The proposal, with the recommended Conditions of Appro,tal, Is in compliance with the Master Plan o4 Trails and the objectives of the Equestrian Overlay District. 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 paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds end concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Specific Plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and Specific Plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; ana (d) The fesign of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoldatle injury to huaans and wildlife or their habitat, and / 7C> CITY COUNCICAESOLUiION Ho. TT 13812 - Pulsar Development Dceember 7, 1988 Page 3 (e) The tentative tract 1s not likely to cause serious public haaith problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, f, access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. been reviewed Ibis d considered In compliance with the Californ aeUvircnmenal Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 2 Council apt randevery c nditf nsetforth low the attached Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A. Tentative Tract I. Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Utilities A. The existing overhead utilities (telecommuni- cations and electrical) on the project side of Highland Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first ;ale off -site east of the east project boundary to the first pole off Ifte west of the west project boundary. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one -half the City adopte! cost for undergroundfng from future development (redevelopment) as It occurs on the opposite side of Highland Avenue. 8. An in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecoamunicatins and electrical) along the west project boundary shall be paid to the City prior to recordation If the Final Pap, The fee shall be one -half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the southwest corner of tot 144 to the southeast corner of the intersection of Streets 'C' and 'G" (4665 feet). C. The existing overhead utilities (telecommuni- cations and electrical) to the existing house on proposed lot 104 shall be removed from lot 104 to the first pole south of "C' Street upon installation of underground utilities on -site to serve lot IN. (7/ 0 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. TT 13812 - Pulsar Developannt December 7, 1988 Page 4 a 2. Sumnit Avenue shall be constructed full width, excluding off -site parkway improvements, from the intorsection with "M" Street easterly to the intersection with Etlwanda s Avenue, with Phase I development. The developer may request reimbursement agreements to recover the costs of off -site improvements from future development. 3. Two means of access shall be provided to each phase of the development. Both shall be public streets constructed full width curb -to -curb. 4 rerimeter streets which are located on -site shall be constructed full width curb -to -curb. Parkway improvements fronting 'not a part" properties on 'L" and "O' Streets may be deferred until development of those properties. Parkway improvements shall be constructed on both sides of "C" Street. S. In -lieu fees for the future construction of frontage streets which are not currently needed shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Y.sp as follows: a. The south one -half of Summit Avenue west of "M" Street to the centerline of the Southern California Edison right -of -way, including landscaping around the Cucamonga County Water 7tstrict pump station; and b. The north one -ha'f of "C' Street west of the west project boundary to the centerline of the Southern California Edison right -of -way. 6. Temporary access across the future Route 30 Freeway right - uf -way will be allowed as follows: a. "L" Street between 'E" Street and Highland Avenue shall be constructed 28 feet wide with concrete curbs only (no gutters). The curb returns at "E' Street shall have 15 foot radii, n.are shall be no sidewalk south of "E" Street; and 5 The intersection of 'L" Street and Highland Avenue shall be upgraded to provide right and Mt turn lanes for both the north and south movements. Transition topers on Highland Avenue shall be designed for a 55 mph design speed. The pavement for the turn ing lanes shall be provided without disturbing the existing improvements on the south side of Highland Avenue; and / 7,- CITY COUNC:L RESOLUTION N0. TT 13812 - Pulsar Development December 7, 1988 Page 5 c. A fee for the future remrval of the temporary access road and the transii.toa tapers on Highland Avenue shall be paid t•J the City prior to approval of the Final Map. 7. The portion of the site west of "M" and "L' Streets is subject to flooding from Day Creek Channel. Therefore, final plans will not be accepted for review and no permits (improvements, building, grading, etc.) will be issued until Phase II of the Day Creek Channel is sufficiently corpleted to provide necessary flood protection as approved by the City Engineer. 8. Interim drainage protection facilities shall be provided along the north project boundary. The design shall be justified by the final drainage study and approved by the City Engineer. A Maintenance Agreement shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the drainage protection facility but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility if private maintenance is fnsuf+lclent, and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer. 9 The main storm drain line within "M" and "L' Streets shall be sized for a QI00. The pipe shall be extended southerly and westerly within a street or public easement to the existing inlet on the north side of Highland Avenue 10 The design of storm drainage facilities for the portion of the site east o• "M' and L" Streets shall be coordinated with the developer of the adjacent property to the east. Pipeline crossings of tho future Route 30 Freeway shall be held to a minimum. 11. Construct the portion of the City Raster Plan Storm Drain located within Summit Avenue as justified by the final drainage study and approved by the City Engineer. SCa0ard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the cost of the facility and the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of costs in excess of the fees in accordance with City Ordinance W. 75. 12 Written verification shall be obtained from Caltrans that sufficient freeway right- of-way has been provide: prior to approval of the Final Map. 13 The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off -site property interests necessary to construct the required street imp•ovements for Summit Avenue. If he should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the Final Map for approval, enter into an agreement to camp ate the /73 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUiION N0. Tr 13812 - Pulsar Development December 7, 1988 Page 6 m improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for paynent by the developer of all costs incurred y the City to acquire the off -site property interests s required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the fore of a cash deposit in the amount given in +en appraisal report obtained by the developer at the developer's expense. .he appraiser shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 14. The easement for ingress and egress and maintenance of public utilities along the western portion of the site shall be quit claimed prior to approval of the Final Map. 15. Local equestrian trail easements shall be provided on the Final Map as follows: a. The trail easement and propert; line between lots 9, 17 and 18 shall be shifted to the west to line up with the northwest corner of "C" and "0" streets. b. A 15 foot wide trail on the south side of lots 19, 20 and 23. c. A 15 foot wide trail on the south side of lot 13. d A 15 foot wide trail on the west side of lot 1 This trail shall be shifted to the west tract boundary upon removal of the access road to Highland Avenue. e A 15 foot wide trail along the south tract boundary. f A 10 foot wide trail along the east tract boundary. 16 Heavy broom finish concrete crossing shall be provided where trails cross publ'c streets. The crossing shall be shows on the street improvement plans and shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planner prior to approval of the Final Map. 17 The final Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Grading Committee prior to approval of the Final Map. !8. The developer shall commence, participate in and consummate, or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated a Mello -Roos Community Facilities Of5trlct (CFD) for Re Foothill Fire Protection Distr'ct to finance I/ - Pulsar Development 7, I588 .. - a fire station to serve the envelopment, including facilities, equipment and operations, and maintenance. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Ftrethill Fire Protection District, end shalt become the istrict's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of the station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time of reco�hation of the final map. 19. The Lot 'A' I' wide (Holding Strip) along the south side of street "CO and west side of street G" shall not be shorn on the Final Map. The Developer may request a reiahursement agreement to recover the cost of the improvements south of the centerline of street 'C' and west of the centerline of street 'G' for ::re portion of the streets fronting the out parcels at the southwest corner of said streets from future development as it occurs on said out parcels. 0. Design Review A sound wall, as required by the acoustical analysis, shall be installed along the south tract boundary. The final design of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. A final acoustical analysis shall be requires to identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels within the residences below 45 CNEL. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the Issuance of building permits. A decorative perimeter block wail shall be required around the western portion of the tract (Low Residential), along Summit Avenue, along both sides of 'C' Street, and along all -orner side ya -d arens. The design and location of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 17-� Resolution, N00_88 -.699 Page 8 19. The Lot,,wA! 1' vide. (Holding ,6tripp, al the south a"& of atreat !G- and west AL" off street :Cow malls not be Ahwn on. tha Jiaal Nap. ...Syr - D eloper say request.& raimburseaut agreement to re the coat of the improvemants mouth of the seater! "L, strut 3!C* . and wet .of the centerline of ■cras _ w Oar the portion of the streets fronting the onn \parcels at the eouthweat comer! of , Amid stnitm�f. �w future development as it Occurs on said.ogt pamAxv. B. Design Review 1. A sound wall. as ,.xequlrgd by the acoustical analysis, shall ba installed, mien , the south tract boundary. Tho final design of the wall shall be ravieed and approved, by the Planning Came? mine prior to the issuance of building Permits. 2. A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identity neceseary nitigation sea uras to reduce the aoisa levels! witbin,the rsaideneu below 45 •CNEL. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Pleanar prior 'to: the- issuance of building permits. 3. A decorative perimeter block iwall shall be required around the western portion of the tract Q.w Residential). !Song. Sumeitn Avnane. along both sides of *V Street. And along alb corner aide yard areas. The design and location of the wall shall be reviewed and approved by the city Planner prior to the iwuucs of building permits. PASSED. APPBOM. and ADOPTED this 7th day of Dsceaber. 1988. A7391 Alexander. Brown. Baquat. Stout. Wright NUE9t None AB 6e^.C:: Nona Daunia L. Stout, mayor .i .Y k 1- 'W T�.* Lot *As tdde (Holding Strip) '&I_ of 19. strelt *C, and wost side of Watt ShOjm on tht Final — �� 7 t k 7 si 6e cl �Y.3:'� EXHIBIT "A" �'Y 7. <, �+ :• / 60 lQ; kr� 4 / M .rY,{ W1004F 7WOCM'^ -° 72op6r 6zzr(-9r- 100 101 102 103 4t .?1 :1 100 G5 — 10 IF I 1 d �"� �• r�` TO fW M A 1 I 'r 000 1 X r'Li ' G ,. ;1 U% ' 104 i lu I r`. ; I If '� 105 14,00o A 11C Cfl 1 1 T ° 106 48 OOOS F _- • w �. 120 IiI 7115 4`i.F�' 17-00' rr. f 1380yt ®� -107 ' ° 56 21 57 Ill�t 5i��o Y 1672<rF ,. li la r ri g�F6F�i�I cs a ER! R pt F Fz,aoe- YP � R f9fi � L �6s1Y =p FB R I E i c�3B�p rJs aF - F €i error I "a Ufivm �g r W; - F= yy �ligga a6[I " CGp i -4a "sj @s 18i gs. ggf m a �a• FF R 3Ya =wSgY ` = L 4 G e•L i ei i CCCCCC� �_ i g R E;e•E8 all r ;? @ °_eys $-a?c is ERIf i Pc$��FS�i � }F- a�pd�Rar !- Ygr�: -- a�•Yg ��va- r�F?eaF c ga�s�C�fr g ■ It I ^gp Yq• g kag3 Y YY y-. ° jr 1E R is f` =2$ Ft ec - Eng -g B 8c "ic g,4ra ^ %-; [. -F = s! fgc 3 'Yn sF 3a fig,• - gcRr rR. �Sg..�gr �t se °� � eg= Y glz ss=� e9r '1_Yg @ i_F zr'.= as tE s E- 3 ! sra ;eF aMRg- I gE f =} eia Fna = a sa.f c 'a :WIE c- c6 1_0 .13R # fF c SFg� ° s; a`ig st 3Y �� .4g fcR a sn ; inY rn YF s re xs e s "e�ciei c:z "!nr" _gE .ergs :I:gE 'l= Fsfc? N r r Y HE { �3l ;ig— �s cF c, a1:7 S ¢g °y _e dsi . c E3 3fx,f 7g G�gs sR pE PRi� � Bwa �g; �Y s cF Fa . 114.2! Yg cs cs � 3' F 'let E- ya =Z �FY $ =8Y SY r ei cy�g Rg�E" F S8F f y7 �f ~F�eg'i "er C7 S Y �• i'B %F I�f SE4: .acg �Rd, YRE Eg..pp � zwS�C3a �d 4G FO ig6.: p. ^ e E�3 Rc$ tiffs aeF F3 �� a =Rt1=2 °rrE ..r s cj£s spa rqxg 5£ it C2 Sc is gg c ' ca as S :c= iIggss�s f s s E V. E H14 F44 - if _ e p i g =g�J x y s;- Eel rs ga3F ; ag si r n4Fg W SE £SFT :z Jes ss at $ �r ae E3Y Y$ W lit! Se pEp_ ��_P E Rci= s =Eggs 94 X L ]a�yyS r g£a =S iii t �Fiar £ 1 gss it jig - S-Hi RA m CIA'G a p s- R ^EES$$y'Es 1 �a : s g" sa fps %:eS3 "pa xF s g •I�£ a¢¢$ xg....5�F HMI a= �- E Yg ff£a- srs @svee v E m 0 v a, w I- 2. _ a'c �s 'Fv ERRR sgie t E$sF °Rat 4.., C rR ?w` v''a X6ay a "ac �� 3 e_QE y_a t f iE Sin vEli ? RFs �qi 9 �i i aEe :: s ca^ sR ccEE i.-c F:r F 3 ss =F A �Eli; 1 tali; pml 4RFi Hf li y.ri=:c 5 °3'c »fps !8 ?RC 3Fa�F_ c�3'F gM i� ;FsF� R �3eF a 3q;': `QS � ril, fgia + 5s .d IN i tit, R Y .. dR ?BRY � E ca3 -s s ,q &R�GF�x s�'s § ;1=s1e fig? js c se£ ,R � »Y? s�c�S H a G FIE Dgi C c `2C RIP = c lip x =z ific Ft, See 'rf s=s C,. sn, i " C -v �- 2ar �► S4fr4' ^ i EE= Wq a$Y =F sF "e` 4 ;- a RaFR3 r } ?�s sa iR�e €age it t3SeF g} digs f- r Itr f�: f� is 'nY.l RrgO :f -aY Z io E _F tj SC is s c r Y-`_- ;YCgI_ y _f - aY . e P- s scsia f cF f- ''FFc iii; aQRe : Y RY�as i+ Jit 'S} PH s- F?Fs3 EF °a fil- g r- PER!* s a r �£ Y rs Iry S *_5e }as1 1 f Fp Y16�= } �f f f F9 -=.s issx f►� : xa a €k r� s: Ica ;gig etg i ss` std@ Evc s ra Fe ;4 coU Ff'sa c Ft 156 s .22 U • r r � a fq In! ! j F@ = cd $' 'n c c cE g� =P x;f @a refs MCI se 3F $•e £ s $ ac N? 1¢ ° CC a y _ 4 &1 9p si_ a S1 sew n£ 3 3s =a all c' c e =Zgx i I t ;s lfe is 3 eYe °. f F�c EsSFsf R.$ a `R. a`c 3� axzg :Ea ig fE x gF$L s� Sq- an a_E asR c��F� ��g Sri lax"a :s _ " 4 � BEss� 9 a qy g; x Q$ S Ft �6 a sa Es }4= �� 4F• xx P y6 _P FC �x �1 f $g cg c :z P �?e live� Si I R} IF If c ^age c� :fir Ell °£ s y At e" if &scfi ae F § -s "ck •SR e_ z F xe fro �5 Fr• ? s q ^ s c z'3 s s`??e YGF is 53 �ro E 'ns �1 � g [ YSgSa7F -i g �Ec zg dins � •• "4 sjl s3 woe •�,� e'` a6't1'7 u +,tip i Y.'� },'.i�l.��r yp� N r r I KEW r' iSE g- a s" s =� F3� a -!--j asi tae i- s P= r uqf a iff xas +.�c ens gsffs ;d - 51 sacs? 911 ee j! ZE Yc 131 fit ?_ J -Hs H a� 'r. 1' P:! ;t IS �:¢ S :.W "_S E• syi R iP6 _i ss 31 a�� 7pI "4J I iS Y I ! \ � � 00 ( || t �| � PC I ■� �! h4 .i || TA � •� : q� [ § ! ■� # #� A | ! •w } p� } �( \ f |f | �| !� { ' k1 |�� ■ J! � | k � | t || ■ |` ` ��9!HER � �`�,f� �� -!- !_ �_ !\ \ #f pQir qt'= , -; '� it fix !l Id ! \ |t \�_�_ § � : / lit | ■| k| � I tft URI / 23 � |� B Q ■ a 0 zas 'a3 E ipi 111ji,StoR a 10: t: Lc Et aU s� E€ -ysEg sErs' 0 �B:1111F E= h *�L := i �iI --iE : #E= "tRE' .E a =sic jilt U-Sa l'i iE� ;Eil it Z1 is� C11- IRKI gEsrg K P1 =Ss Y. rsL Pit ertE�E ,rE� _��t s^ Ep N Ip. I` IY Ir Ir _ Fit JIM �tt CEl� da Ell- a iJ�=ir P 1E a as RN SKI.- ?s aE FsEq '� F.a j- c -=g =- ar FEEii �}= E�e;4s gr cc is 'r aS ? `Erse �ggE riEi � a3y irSR�� it s3:e E ?gi MQrs_S 1. K, �. cS63aURN °jv% z$s 6EFs r `tE cc sp =E Ep a5 g�3= =c. crei a Ca E- ExSS sag ii Ult I. I. �7Ei' e' -E =EE FdS� Ea 61F� ' =aEt Le "E ' 3ta Esc ch i StFr t.a iiEi � °cER of ^a cBi��ft;yFRde Lk :�•cs c =E sia= seas :aE'� iEca N sazdERa -sx= Gee »Rr,'t s Fri IL I 1Xq .; F =i=E '5:" ESii qjF "Fs- s' dFgs tF xtFi E`4 OR it s ij ISr ��xx� �� t �i!! �� F rw e� i RRi• 8 >� ItsE c ECIft _ gqiEi - �4S 1*1 1� i x F. gE F sE- Fs JESY zi i= x 3 is tg Fill lI i sx t� lit s'- g� �7E Sgi3g 3 cE ac 1 -Es riSFscn !ij �s Fe i c 3 �r sF Fix W 05t JUJINF O-4m E' gpa �i of g`iri ( _ f -� 3 'EdE! 3n *-$ds& �x se's it �._. sid. f Y Y g 6 to cx Falls t :ite= -s "s x? g iF E e3 rLe i� KIN x�.ligiF° a # ir. Ef - •- saE E? _lso@ �ij�g6 =11= '�= o= ee lNg` t gg x Fi' t= ° RB =E lei 3 �c x Ea i Rxq�� eie=xa. EVE ?x is ' s reds ?Es3- sEE$- as ti E U2 i=6dEe Yi st ii a -si.i sI� -t? gp3E iE I F Fq ¢ =f 3.. 8 'Bi6t t.Siratetie aF e s ei etsx Ir -x; i.I I- L B � r � � E ! c� F rye EFi!= it Aa Siff jir E+q? �E sirs _,M `. -fie QE Eq �pR fo 3 "Sa =gt c =vr aB c @i= a , Q R 3� s Raa�M a ;¢ 4 = RK SRS . Ci P'ri iQ E � F, �Bj aj i 5c:R s p.^ aqjYR�P GC= st ?MFR 1.21 -=J= Fps L ' I. £i. jJ Y F � cicF e xgri;�4 's "Lg VE 8 IH az2.3? :E51 `'tip jjW ¢- �E EM2 jR_ : F1£!t [ x UN 3= its ag sE �e "s i 5 t xim V %t at fs Ep 0i BAt ;11! it sin i FE E Er tq Ing + cr pF�£ s d ? C jj<v �3 lifts r£ i U -1 -s c2 csEcx c''f tEi3 c FxpS s Fsf s ix xE ° N w p ij'�; t gp i 11¢j ii r r c c c_ $ c 36 E e 3i e t t t� rfi EsfB=R sc a_ rg a d►x ° cf 4 T p ;wxs! Fma " "• fis rm EN Ek i i E¢a 1ix t! t€ `q§ �® | a= 12 / %2 • �' �� , § # � li # l■� ��si9` 2 � � ` � Jk 2E ' " qI! � ■� !t |# � ■�`/ #yam B ,� | E • , : gyp: / Imo , /| � 11 � � | $ &• �� ! §� % ��\ \ �ql / /i ! ` ■!`` § | ®b f � % ! � � | � / \ /!T � !� I !! \ M te } } � K ■ I [ ~ \I& !s It jilt , @ fit ! 'rill � |q qr i Tf�� }. �S , | � ! pit ! ,.■� § �■ �R ! | |q e � � q ■� � ■ : ■ , . | q # | . � f |� � -. ..b S., ® fi-= •i !s It jilt , @ l ! 'rill � § ! Bq | � ! pit ! ,.■� u £ ! | |q e � � q ■� l � � h � ■� : . �. g f| I i ,2I H- !A. � | •i !s �t � § a 7 � .! ' ■_ R • |t u u� Q is e 1.� r IN;: wt srxi f fF ?sr is i it kC12 ry a 'Rift fi -e` t? s- rtPa t1 j, tf' t i 6H cdfi gig P-f.a s x�t3 '3, .f =fie �f Ora i Ir %1! _:: v s? iEf a fix, . . " f's ! r4[ +• f�f. f�rt=jEFs2 �� gi?fS Ff.3 i�a�s ^l��fc - j R a a R a i� ! 1\ c E r N i . i=\ f R l i` i\ i-\ i� pa:i�- -it 10 i� ljRa � ig gY_ r Eli IM 11 j fs'�E f ssg Eu }i gwi lE a it if l;ss !F i =ss'r rsa�g a eER2 ~ C S "G.. =sF 2 ail =r- 'w rlaitz; � �� Eg�3s% F! la 1 : rr ri�isa 14 ig =F� �Eit s ig3i a. it I E r = dF i Fj •r - gI e? it LIZ aF `iF �F a F -au cE pi SB it ! St- 27 E FrE �EEr�F ;�Efra ,BH HIS i£ 5ii ag € . 4.1 -- � %I - -rift cr i �E a E E iii ��966ri4� rfgy !s If tar% E 'Er ra s�f 2AWN Ir lip (. -_- Jr= r �= iac iE Si �lr _� !c IBFe }rF'f Fri f i `,� ?ia It a �a i- r -cf £f r a. ,e& i; Ra aF r �i 12 Iw I- C�a �� ia•0 -X • Z ��Ei3 eA $F�F aF•` — a F�� a F 'Ea fFai4 i6 =j� Rr�i rZE} +FC. �i � I `I ^`I� w . , -15 H § A �k\ §� f R ®! l \ \ | \ k Ri \� � . I\ ! h k kR :| ! a- : 17. � \ ! J ®E ' GI \ ## | ! _ q �! a§ �� ; ! : !& [ \ I Eff § #�' qI 2 � « � �U` /q f 2 \ -.£�! '§Q: §•r J 9 I ■ � 6 I .i I ,2 Eff § #�' /q 2 \ ! C. ƒ J 9 I qLp 6 I ,2 a =1 % : +a `- t i� s2, c 92,49 ti' s s fc' e. aFFL ?xR : =2,`i £° pi j sif !' E i Sgt 2:c ij ti riie qH ; AI EE�s � c � ? 2,3 tax r SE T� ..! i � C� •.� � p �kt E g5Eq icE gCE t3- iES is EF =E p s£ sEc a sar =g ¢r2,: 1as :: i E s2, =E E I� I S. f a�3F ..2,F ;Srf rE� N E; J � • : =RE a IMIL 14 ;Ir I- t "■ c a p;�E ajati Fs —f C� 3� a EtF e K iasR - DER =�><i_ Eg {fitE fit^ St� a5g E I� I S. f a�3F ..2,F ;Srf rE� N E; IN -ts_ 14 ;Ir I- g t HT 1�at3 at fqq [3 ^ g arc EtF � K DER =�><i_ Eg 2,e_! fit^ St� a5g M� W ' =r'3s ?t5F[i�3 B •s s :3r z�iijr1:- s;sfp f ii E= �' -� v lif � t! I �3Fri F f E g og IrTill t HI i E.: riz- "a = ae IF it 'tt _[s :sEts al Etis r it igfs s iF i is :f w p ;° 4fc E g Q M;JAr ;Fi Im Is EF;i is At N tFIEZ[f Oil fit F=jfj Fft E ti t? is i a1 'S i •aY ;t= -yfF� Ec cs_ ip g pi as f It E Q i i F Lit sit €a in B sE -x - e t [S�Si cc 1 i'r�: s f I ? ?S �rsi[F esF / I ¢� \/i � q2 R�! « • a. | &| � |_ �� . ■� >! � aZ 4 2 &�@ [/ ! \�� |I� i� & �■ R 1 If jr �ifs . Mfg ! | ; . ■ !! ! E ilk \ \I# r, q pkp/ `a�r,2q|£|tlr��'� Ft \f !| / /Ih.�P # | " \ |�\ \ /9I\ -a t R �.q ' . q f �® !d!/ � b. �� - �a \# !\I [! 9 �H �� >j� \E k!!� e� -� _� ®� R j .i % ■ / �f�� ! • r. / !� !\ � | •} � � | / � ƒ \ ;�� f� £ R , ■I! • |!i 9 f . / \ @| Ali §�■ & .� ! - 2�� |�!& 49 fir . G ! | J � \ |�I � {/ ■�� |�t ! \� t/ ! f� � &. /| � ! � | f� I• f � I ( #� q• �! &f k! /_ r G F � \ � q � � . CITY OF RANCIIO CUCAb10NGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROt1: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIROWWAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -03 XMILCK , nnttLCK nm.miccia - Appeal at the Planning ss m s ec son approv ng the development of a retail center and service staVan totaling 4,416 square feet on 0.63 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenge - APN: 208 - 192 -06. m approving a request to reduce the required parking : along Foothill Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feet and the rear property line from 15 feet to 5 feet for a center and service station in the Community Commercial •t (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, I at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and A Avenue - APN: 208- 192 -06. On November 2, 1988, the City Council continued these items to allow the applicant and the appellants to have revised plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. On November 30, 1988, the Planning commission reviewed and unanimously approved the revised plans and applications. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the appellants stated to the Planning Commission that they will be withdrawing their appeal. At this time, however, a formal letter of withdrawl has not been received. It is anticipated that the letter will be received prior to the City Council meeting. If the letter is not received, staff recc mends that the City Council continue this item for two weeks to allow staff to analyze any outstanding issues Re fully to 1 i Bra er City P anner BB:Sl:mlg .r. t• r D a, 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Puller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUaJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEWIT 88 -28 An appeal o a ann ng owe ss on ec son io Benny Co dltional Use Permit 88 -28, the development of a 5,915 square foot retail building on 0.52 acres of land within an existing shopping center in the Cowunity Comercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APR: 208 - 261 -20, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recoatnand_• that the City Council deny the appea an uphold t" Planning Commission's decision to deny Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88 -28. 11. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the November 16, 1988 meeig aE the request of the applicant. Since that date, staff has received a Letter (see Exhibit "A ") from the legal property owner of the site stating his opposition to the development proposal and his desire to coordinate improvement plans for the entire commercial center. For clarification, the applicant (Mr. Perry) does not own the site, but does hold a long -term lease for the property in question. ctfull s a1 , Or e City P anner BB:BH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Property Owner City Council Staff Report of November 16,1988 1 �.�. vV�4'1L4•.iY''- [�I�v` ."."-u ,�; }'t. ..J M ' CHARLES J1 HUGHES - RECEIVED" a INVESTMENTS Q^'0!"""a`DVAMOW w AMINO o1v" r. NOV 16'M 7AIh1 t11XI1I%et41118 1 November Iq. 1968 .. City ^'anning Division 9340 Base Line Road, Unit 0 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9!730 Gentlemen: Regarding Use Permit 88 -28- Perry, I am the owner of the lend at Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue, Including Gimme I's Drug Store, Perry's Market, etc. It Is my desire to have a coordinated Improvement plan. The approval of .52 acres of land that I own and have ground leased Is premature as the overall plan for the center has not been consummated. Sincerely, (y.�a:�A' Charles J Hughes CJH:mgs /9j EXHIBIT "A" i c :r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant planner SUBJECT: ENVIROWWTAL ASSESSMENT AND COWITIONAL USE PERMIT (8-28 appea of a Planning are ss on ec son i:0 UFR—y;nditional Use Pereit 88 -28, the development of a 5,915 square foot retail building on 0.52 acres cf land within an existing shopping center in the Cormminity Coarercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 206- 261 -20 I. RECO'NCNDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appea an uphold the Planning Coaaaission's decision to deny Environv:ntal Assessment and Conditio441 Use Permit 88 -28. II. BACKGROUIW: on September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission voted '177FEMe absent) to deny the applicant's request for approval of a 5,915 square foot retail building addition to the existingg Perry's Market Center. The attached Staff Report (Exhibit 'B'1 fully describes the project. The Planning Commission's decision for denial was based on the project's inconsistency with adopted design policies set forth in the Foothill 8nulevard Specific Plan, the Inadequate Master Plan for the shopping center, and the project's inconsistency with the City's goal of upgrading Foothill Boulevard properties and policy of requiring compliance with the community design guidelines in plans for expansion At their September 14, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern ever the lack of building artirulatlon and architectural enhancements proposed by the applicant. The Commission stated that further upgrading of the facades was needed, especially for a project located along Foothill Boulevard. The project was fount to be inconsistent with the objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan - ; 4 .{src7�,v��s,; •�4;••• ;ku;"f`�'Y'L'.r• � C- �. , - ``•� y" 3 LITY CDUw STAFr'REPORT. _ CUP 88 -28 - PERRY'S MARKET November lo, 1988 " Paae 2 The proposed Mister Plan for Perry's Market Center was also an area of concern. The plan did not propose vehicular access to the vacant corner parcel to the north of the prAlecti- formerly the site of a service station (see Exhibit 'CO). fie Commission understood that there were cartain tease and ownership difficulties inherent with the shopping center- properties, but concluded that the Master ,k Plan was inadequate and should be revised to ersure the viability of that corner site. Further, the Cuawiislon felt that the project represented a short- ;, term solution to the probl2ms associated with Perry's Market Center. The center does not meet various-Development Code and )) Foothill Boulevard Specffic''•Pltn standards with regard to streetscape setbacks and treatment, landscaping coverage, parking :ot layout, and architectural treatment. The Commission also felt that approval of the project as proposed would have extended the current non - conforming situation and might circumvent or delay the eventual upgrading of the entire shopping center, including the existing buildings. As such, the project was deemed inconsistent with the City's goal of upgrading of existing, non - conforming properties along Foothill Boulevard. Staff was directed to prepare a Resolution of Denial with findinas which was adopted by the Planning Commission at the September 2�, 1988 meeting (see Exhibit "D"), Q ly er 89:BH:m1g Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits of September 14, 1988 Exhibit "C" - Master Plan Exhibit 'D" - Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 1988 Exhibit "E" - Resolution of Denial, September 28, 1988 /9� I Format Perry 9180 Orange Street Alto Loma. CA 91701 Septoaber 28, I988 Ilonorsbl• Mayor Dennis Stout And City Council City of Rancho Cucweonge 9220 'C' Baseline Road Rancho Cucssonca, CA 91730 RE: APPEAL Of PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR IWVIRONMENTAI. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88- 28- PEOIIY Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: On September 11, 1988, the Planning Corission of the City of Rancho Cucuaonga directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for this project. By this letter I appeal that decision to you and the Council. I feel the Commission acted ones asonabty and without runsidering all the facts and Holtations concerning this project. In Addition, the Cooissloe Ignored the raeoaeendatlons send approval. of the Design Review Coaalttaa, even though two of thb Coealssloners serve on that Ce"Ittao Please cdaAdbr this utter At your earliest opportunity. Sincerely yours, _FFrrest Perry FP /MEW /js CI 7 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA_ PLANNING DIVISION' l4� ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE: LETTER Of APPEAL EXHIBIT: A J i � 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Stpteaher 14, 1581 10: Chaim:" and I40lers of the Planning COCaission PROM: Brad Buller, City Planner By: Great Wmcr, Usistant Mannar SUBJECT: ONIROMEyTAL ASSESSMOfi RIO COIDITIOMAL USE PERMIT 88-28 e rr oywn o a -Ware w re 1mfTBing on 0,52 etas of tend w+thir an existing shopping enter in the (77munity Coaar. °tat District of the 0 I'm southwest comer of Foothill Specific foothill Boulevard and lbl&CMte AW&AUt APH: 208.261- 20. 1. PROJECT AND SHE DESCRIPTION: A. Ac j grsailgApplanaT Concephul) lands apes Diem, pl and issuance of a Mgative Oecfaration. B. SUrrcundfnd Und Use and Zoning:. NNrth - Taunt; Ctewmiy Cowe"Mial South - Existing at te faefly residence; Low Density Residential (2-! dwelling units per seal. East - Existing office Build'ng; CQwa@K14I/0rfffce Lest - Existing shopping Cater; Cam•unfty Coaenrofal C. General Plan Desfgnatlms: project Site - Cannorcfal North - COaernial South - taw Density Residentfal 12.4 dwelling units per acrel East - Low Dmsity Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per ac") West - Cpsercial D. Site Cheracterfstfes: The site is currardly vacant (asphalt per an es f�lately east of On existing Perry's Martel shopping canter. M alley and two single fatly hones Out Lie southern property line while to the north, a vacant lot exists This unpaved lot was the foner site of a service station. CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMON A PLANNING DIVISION / '�P ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE: .5610 »'O CORM *1 V §TAPE riEV pT EXHIBIT: _8-1 PLAMIRG COWISSIV' CTAFF REPORT COHOITIORA. USE R. .T SC -28 - PERRY Sept -Aber 14, 1918 Pagv 2 E. Parking Wnlatlwns: Mseber of Masher of Type Square Parkl6g Spaces Spaces of Use Footage .Utto Required Provided P'v po$ad Budding 5,915 1/250 24 31 Existing Center 39,010 1/250 155 1S0 TOTALS 180 tat It ANALYSIS: A. oac`- mund_ The parcels comprising Perry's Market shopping ce' n%r en all currently owned by one entity. The applicant, however, retains c lorg tare lase on four of the center's seven parcels. These four parcels contain the existing buildings (Perry's Market and tenants) and the proposed retail building being reviewed dN this application, but not the perking lot area along Foothill Roulavard. The lease allows the applicant the option to use the four properties (and to construct Iep.Ev~ts on thn) up until the year 2058. R. General Presently, Parry's Market Center does not net vaTous DevUCSeent Code and Fwthilt Specific Plan requfreaentf Ths center was built prior to the adoption of these repdreeents, such as streetscapt setbacks, landscaping coverage, parking lot design, and architectural guidelines. At their July) 21, 1488 ewttng, the Design Review COWILtee (M:Nlel, Elakeslty, Colnn) stated that they would have rtcaeendad the tctel upgrade of Ike center based on this proposed expansion. However, the Corlttee understood the ffunclal burden the upgrading weld represent on one developer Cenfttee strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the legal property owner of V4e center as well as with the owner of the sell corner parcel to order to get the shopping center refurbished. Further, the Cowatttes stated that the design of the new retail building should set the tone for future redevelopnnt of the entire center. CITY i OF ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: n AW0111C COMWSS*N BTAFF RE PLANNING DIVISION /raj 7 EXHIBIT: B-2 y PLANNING C"ISSIO' TTAFF REPORT COIOIT1011AL USE PL .T 88.20 - PERRY September 14, 1988 Page 7 C. pest_ gn levier Cait -ea: The Design Re- Iw Cortttee tGerict, FtNIal. Eullor1 r"Tewd rniseb plans at the proposal an Augguust 4, 1931 and recaended approval subject to the falloring conditions: 1. A landscape planter area should be added under the truer at the northwest comer of the proposed retail building Mere the proposed retail building joins the existing retail building. 2. The elevation of the tower at the northwest corner of the proposed retail building should be revind to match the appearance of the tower at the northeast comer of the proposed retail butidlM In the arse below the fascia. III FACTS FOA FILINGS: rho project is consistent with the General an. e D et will not be detrimental to adjacent Properties or cause significant environmental Impacts. In addition, the pro sea use is In compliance with the Foothill Specific Flan, appllubte prorlstons of the Development Code and City Standards. IT. RECOMELATION: Staff recoemands that the Flaming Commission appror -Ti Anditional Use Reran 88 -28 through adoption of the attached Resolution With conditions and issuance of a Nigatim Declaration. Rcsg ' s Ittad Brad r City P1 or 88:014:319 Attachments: Exhibit eAe - Location Kip Exhibit 'B' - Site Plan Exhibit eC' - Landscape Plan Exhibit '0e - Building Elevations Resolution of Approval and Conditions CI t Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION /?8 ITEM: Cep 88-28 APPEAL TITLE: PLANNNNi COMMISSION STAFF ItF.PORT EXHIBIT: B•3 �y J, G1 Y VICINIT'f N\Ar NoT To =,-,.95 NORTH CTI'Y OF ITEM. CUP 8a -28 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:_ LOCATION MAP PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: _A SCALE: none CITY OF R4AYCHO CUCAMON A PLANNING DIVISION / 7 ITEM: CUP 88.28 APPEAL. TITLE: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT: B-4 f' =! Y f I� 1 -T j'. U � NORTH CITY OF ITEM: CUP 69.28 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: DETA° D SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXIUBIT:1_SCALE: norm CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION J oO ITEM. CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE :P -AiMMMG COMM2511,4 STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT: B -s j'. U � NORTH CITY OF ITEM: CUP 69.28 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: DETA° D SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXIUBIT:1_SCALE: norm CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION J oO ITEM. CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE :P -AiMMMG COMM2511,4 STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT: B -s ■ 1 Foowu ti W }i -�f H I �r rr- M.i.: A"tso w N.n>rf..n ..qur.a to ~ city a.,.we. NORTH CITY OF ITEM: CUP 80.28 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:_ G__9CALE: nw* CITY OF ITEM: CUP 8 -28 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:PLANNNIG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION Jam/ EXHIBIT: B-6 NORTH ELEVATION !LOUTH ELEVATION Mo. �M-g WEST ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Jo� EM ELEVATION ITEM: CUP RP -26 TITLE:._ ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT:_!?_ ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE: PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT: 8-7 ✓ 1.? I q J 1 ,rll mr V CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION °3 wI: \lbY; •MW M,rl�� ®_ �•f4r ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE: MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT:_ .. J.. 1. LWI..MNWAt aWSPOENT Aft CDImITIOWM. USI PElMll: 8428 - PURY - no eiF ri%,�on a tgvart oo re a u n nuns 3/ laid wl Mln an uistlot ihoppinl Center In the cossuntq Cororclal District of end Faoth;ll StWiflc pin, locatad an the eoulhmt corner of Foothill Soulerard tad NalschlG Aanw - .VY: 2[N- 261 -ZD. Brett Horner, Asslatent planner, presented the staff apart. 9fG- Chalrttan ChitAe olened the public hearing. Max William, applicant architect, stated they carcurrod with the staff "part. There Who ne further public co►»nts, the public hearing was cloted. rite- Chafroon Chides stated that in looking at the elevations It appeared G be a decorated version of it* existing structure and not consistent with the Foothill Specific plan. She was uncomfortable with the lack of dsslgn eMance"Ats. Commissioner Tolstay concurred that the storstvnt was very plain. IM felt it was flat and uninterosring. He also wanted to know how the former service station site o+ the comer of Malachite and Foothill wauld be integrated, because this plan locked that site without access. he aced If a mater plan waa available for the area. Mr. Hamer showed the Water plan the appticawt suboitt6d. Dan Coleman. Senior planner stated that part of the problem with the drawing submitted was that the building an the corner tot was dependant upon using land an an adjacent parcel for forking, and that parcel is currently under separate ownership. A reciprocal parking agneereet would N needed between the two owners. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 14, 1988 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONG� PLANNING DIVISION Ji> ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL TITLE: PLAMMMIfg COMWS" MWTES EXHIBIT:. o0- _ vice- Chalr "n Chitfea stated It was approprlata that the planning CCwlssfon sake sun an Ingress /, nit condition exists. She further pointed out this was a lsrgqee parcel of land, whldl Is the type of pproperty the Foothill Boulevard Spedffc Plan addmssm and 1304$ to rehabll state. She felt the utln existing Center needed rehabilitation. She felt it neceaeary to be sum COndlbioxs wen 1n PIaCO te encourage proper deatloprnt. Mel- Chalr "n MINA opened the public hearing. Hr. William stated they had discussed the "star plan issues and corns with stiff, he said they were proper--j o rlt addition to a large, old slopping center which Mr. Perry understands 11 currently In mid of renovation and repair. However, he did not fed it WAS fair to put the entlro cost burden of nnavating the 40 000 $plan feat center on a 5,000 square foot addition. He stated they wo4ad with the 0*elgn lutll w Cowtttae during three "etfngs and reached a eovia In wham the Initial davdop"nt would mks a cortributlon to the City by finishing off the east and of the center with a good architectural concept for the short ten, he pointed out that a condition of approval stated W. Porr would upgrade Ws new addition when the rest of the center it upgraded. ltwt proposed proJett weutd not generate emush maney to up ride the entlro center at thfs ties. ib�, Perry had talked Ath the current lease holders regarding renovation, but it is a difficult oreblem because then am dlffennt ground luaus which expire at different As then wen no further corsets, the public hasrfng "a closed YICa- CBafrW Chitfm stated that It has been the policy of the Corhslon to discourage short -ten solutfcns to other projects on Foothill since the Interim Foothill Specific Ran and the Implewntatlon of the Foothill plan In order to prevent people from sponding many on intarim Solutions and encourage Consolidation te upgrade -he area. She felt this gull addition did not appoir appropriate In that It would be adding oft little ama Mich said only Senn to draw attention to the rest of the Carter. Cowfssioner Tolstey felt perhaps coleus could be added and the storefront weld be changed so the project mould not praline such a flat food*. Cmissfoner Fmerick stated he felt then should be added cos"tic Mount. me stated that It we5 unNmtar4able that it might be difficult to upgrade the center because of dfffennt leas* periods for current taunts, and Perhaps they needed to add the renovation schedule to their lease nnevtts. howemr, he fall this SOCtlon should of better, so that It Could be copled by the re st of the center. Ccwfsdoner Btakestey stated It was also Important to sake sun the forser gas station parcel maefns viable in the future and that standards wen being wt. Vel-Chafrman Chltlea stated then ws.y no architectural enhanceunts on the rear of the building and that she felt the People Ilvtny them deserred soothing wen attr„ctfve to view. Planning CowISSICn minutes -9• Septtmber 14. 190 CITY OF ITEM: CUP 88 -28 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE- PIAWOM COUNSSNA k'NIITES PLANNING DIVISION -� O-E EXHIBIT--U- Brad Buller, ticy Planner, stated that Mstpn Review hid looked at these concerns and wnat the Applicant could and could not d0 as an individual vs. to. amar of the property. M pointed out that the current site plan would lock in onl, certain o tfons on the corner parcel. The appifccnt had Indicated th, rro unable to reach cimasent with the Owner of the corner Panel nclude rscalpro ml "Coss. ngress and e9rgAs intathe pmrTtomrly property. to Vice-Chairman C%Itlu indicated she Colt the pe posad parking spaces would treats a dangerous circulation conflict es PeePle tnMr and exit on ralAchlte. Mr. Buller Indicated the Commission MAY with to ask the PPIf".tf to was to go back to 04SISA Review to make major mod ni kProject. yfcoCh+ir"" Chfties owned the Publ ?c hes 49110"t rin2 to aes 1f the rpifcant wished to "turn to Design Revlw. x Mr. Nf:llam asked why they should bother to 90 through Design RAYI". As they had Already do" to, he stated the City's policy was eliminating the local Pbuilding owner and ancoura9ing large corporets absentee Owners. Commissioner Tolstay 1Mlcated the ComelssfOR wI only Asking that tht j additfn be upgraded. yfcadhafrmen CMtfes stated W applicant also ended to address the concern of providing access to the Comte Pdreel. Mr. William spud that if W. Perry had to provide access for the corner panel, the comer of the Coroer lot did net have to negotiate. Forest Perry, owner, stated he had proposed to impro" Mat he owned, he felt that since he didn't own the comer tot, he didn't fell he should bt re ponsible for providing Ingress and ogress. Me also stated than were, five different Property owners in the center. yfc*.Chafrman Chides Asked Mr. Perry it be wen wilting to return to Design Review. �ingesrein Cotai, sli n "a askiable g lfo wouldtcause his nn: •a Ce too high. He felt It would be a wits of time to return to Design Review, Then befog no further comments, the public hearing wa closed. Comefssfomlr gLkesley stated the subject development would preclude bettor solutions and would perpetuate the status quo. Motion: Moved by Elakesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct Staff to Place A Resolution of dnial on the planning Comomissfon agenda Consent Calendar of September 28, 1988. Notion carried by W following vote. ACCT. COMMISSIONERS: &&ISLET, CNITIEA, UFRICR, TOLSTOT NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL <arrled Planning Commission Minutes -30- September 11, 1988 CITY OF ITEM: CUP 8E -28 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: Pr-w r naaarSfif)#I MINUTES PLANNING DIVISION O( EXHIBIT:, D-3 t i RESOLUTION N1. 88.189 A AESOLUTIdi OF THE RANCMO CUCM0M PLANNING COMISSIOM DENYIMG COMOITIOt AL USE FERNIT NO. Will. AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF, FOR A 5.193 SWAE FOOT RETAIL /UILDIMG AOOITIOM WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER LOWED AT THE SOUMIEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BDAEYAAD ND PALACNITE AVENUE COMITY CO M'RCIAL DISTRICT - AM 201.261 -20 A. Recitals. (1) Mr. Forrest Per has filed an a plication for the issuance of Conditional Use Penait No. 81-28 as 4e 28 In the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter In this Resolution, tie subject Ccndltfoul Use Perwit regtest is Warred to As 'the application•. (if) On the 28th day of Sept Meber 19W, the Plannfrg Coeefssson of the City of Rancho Cucamaga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (111) All legal prerequisites to the adoption cf this Resolution have occurred. D. Resolution. ANN. THEREFORE, it is hereby found. detsmined and resolved by the Planning Coewisslon of the My of Rancho Cucaeonga as follows: 1. This Omission hereby specifically finds thlt all of the fats set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence prevented to this Counission during the above - referenced public hearing on Septeeber 28, 1981. Ineluslng written ar4 oral staff reports, together with public testimay, thlc CMIssion hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application appllas to Property located at the souttruest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Averse with a street frontage of 145 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site Is vacant, the property to the south of that site consists of a single fully residence, the property to the east is an esistin9 office building and W property to the west Is the existing Parry's Martst Center. (c) That the project Is inconsistent with design policies set forth in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan with regard to building facade articulation, storefront and window trestaent, ar4 building relationship to adjacent residential properties; and (d) That the vaster plan sa%itted wltn the application does not adequately address the circulation, parting, and access issues for the parcel to the north of the proposed project; and CITY OF ITEM: CUP 88 -26 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL PLANNING DIVISION -,) ° % EXHIBIT: E-1 6, Y' PLANNING COINISSI RESOLUTION NO. CB -189 CUP 811.28 - PERRY F SopueBer za, 19110 Page 2 •.� (e) That the project Is Inconslstant With the City's goal of upgrading Foothill Wulward prepartaas and policy of requiring compliance wlth the eoemelnity, design g0delfnes In plant for eapansfon. 7. gaud upon the substantial evidence pntantad to this Comelfctan &-Ing the above-refereaced public Nearing and upon to specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Corlsolon hereby fads and conclude$ as follows. (a) net the proposed use Is net In acccrd with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of tie district In which • the site Is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with to eondltisne applicants uente, will be detrimental to the public realth, safety, or melfan, or wterlally Injurious to properties or taprovowts in the vicinity. (cl That the proposed use dots not comely with earn of the appllablo provisions of the Development code. a. Used upon the findings and conclusions set farm in paragraph 1, 2 and S above, this Comoissien hereby denies the appllcstfon. S. The Secretary to this Coglsslon shall certify to the adoption Of t"A Reaelution. APPROVED AND AOOFTED THIS 211th BAY OF SEPTENIX 1958• PLANNIN^a COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUAMMA BY: �C Larry amen ATTEST: n u 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the planning Comelasion of the ^Ity of Rancho Cucawn94, do hereby certify that the foregoing 9uolutlon rss duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by to Planf ing Coomftslon of to City of Rancho Cucaven9a. at a regular meting of the Plannlny Comisslon hold on the 28th day of SeDtaaber 1988• by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIOWERS: OLAKESL €Y, CNIIIEI, NUI(EL. TOLSTOY NOES: COIM2I41ONENS: NONE ABSENT: C"ISIIONERS: MUCK CITY OF ITEM.. CUP 88 -28 APPEAL RANCHO CUCAMONGti TITLE: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL' PLANNING DIVISI011 EXHIBIT: E-2 J wrhr, DATE: TO: FROM: BY: r SIRiJECT: I. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAhtONGA STAFF REPORT December 7, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Alan Narren, Associata Planner sist in Identirying ling range, area mulative impacts of individual protects in an ere &. city Council affirw certify Draft Ma Impact Report for General Plan TecnnlcaI upoara. .n' nam..ny -.. -. -- recommends adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. II ABSTRACT: The City Council will Fold a public hearing to consider U-e-ffrafE Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Technical in the Draft MEA %EIR anddreviewsof public comments l on the document. III BACKGROUND: n -T-51 and administrative ulpdategof itheiCity'sgaGeneral Plan. project would involve an update of the document to reflect all policy changes and decisions made since its adoption in 1981, and removal of superfluous language. In addition, an update of the General Plan EIR was anticipated to give the Ci'y a more meaningful document which could serve as a Faster Environmental Assessment (MEA). The use of the document as a MEA would help eliminate the need for at least some future EIR's associated with the individual projects or decisions, and would simplify the environmental review process in general. a UPDATE The proposed General Plan Technical Update co:,stituus a "project' as refined by state law and also requires a discretienarl action by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which is the "Lead Agency . Because the City must take a discretionary action to approve or deny the Update, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the action be reviewed to determine the potential environmental impacts which would result if the project were carried out. The purpose of this EIR is to inform the public and decision makers about the nature of the General Plan, about the kinds and extent of impacts which the Plan and its alternatives are expected to have on the environment. The document is reflective of the community as of 1487 conditions. On October 26, 1488 the Planning Commission, after reviewing the draft MWEIR and hearing public testimony on the document, recoaaended certification of the draft report. IV. DISCUSSION: This Draft MWEIR will serve to update the City's axr5' nl g lienerdl Plan EiR and Technical Appendices, and will address with particular emphasis the following z etc of unmet: as they relate to the updated General 'ian gals, policies, and objectives. LAND USE HOUSING POPULATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION PUBLIC FACILITIES NATURAL RESOURCES HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMUNITY SERVICES With the exception of air quality (NATURAL. kESOURCES), all of the environmental impacts of the General Plan are either beneficial or can be mitigated so as not to be significantly adverse. Special study or constraint zones exist within the City due to concerns about geology (seismicity), topography (slopes), soils (windblown sand), and hydrology (flooding). Highlights of the analysis includes the following: Ina report rotes that the most serious threat to City residences is the seasonal flooding along several unimproved creeks or channels. The report identified a number of biologial resources In the sphere area north of the City limits which should be preserved. d �� CITY COUNCIL STAFF REFORT MEA/EIR GENERA). PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE December 7. 1988 Page 3 The transportation section discusses the critical part the cnnstruc :ton of a freeway /expressway iu the pnposed foothill Freewyv Corridor has on the future traffic circulation system. Build out of tbfs City to almost 59,000 dwelling units will effectively double the level of urban infra;tructure and service needed afi r the feet 2010. All utility and public service providers in the 0ty should evaluate their expansion plans relative to this assessment. 01th sufficient long range planning, pruvisions for adequate libraries. parks, trails and possihly sctuols should keep pace with development. At presunt, most sdrvfce expansion plans appear adequate to accoemodate growth if sufficient funding is provided. The City also has signiffcent scenic and cultural resources the. should be protected as development occurs. The cotryosition in growth of population, housing and employment within the City appears to be healthy and should remain so as the City builds out according to the General Plan. As the City grows traffic, noise, air pollution, waste water and solid taste will increase in amounts similar to other Southern California suburban coaanities of sim11Ar size and diversity. The development of eoe City's sphere of infPeenee according to the General Plan, could add up to 8,500 units in this area. This level of development wvu'd place additional requirements on City utilities and services which will be comparatively greater than the impacts of development within the Cfcy limits. This is due to such limiting factors as vehicular access, elevation, slopes, sensitive biological resources, tnd other physical constraints. Draft document has been circulr.ted to the State Ilea ^ing house and intere sted agencies for a 45 day review pariod. Comments were received from the following organizations: San Bernardino Cnuay Transportation/Flood Control Department Foothill Fire District California Regional water ruali +.y Lontrol Board Chino Basin Municipal water District Californit Departaent of Forestry and Fire Protection California Department of Conservatfon California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation City of Ontario City of Upland Cucamonga Elementary School District -it/ 7 , M CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NEA/EIR GENERAL PI NI TECHNICAL UPDATE December 7. 1988 Page 4 Central School District Etiwanda School District The environmental consultant has drafted appropriate rc,ponses and additions which are contained in the 'Response to Comments' section which is attached to this report and will be included as an addendum to the final MEA/EIR text. At the October 26, 1988 meeting, the Planning Ceamiseion voiced concarn regarding the Water quality Control Board's comments. Since that time, the environmental consultant has been in contact with the CCWD which has provided additional information as indicated in the Planning Network sea, November 1, 1988 (see 'Response to fooments4). The water district representative stated that one of the OBCP levels was incorrectly listed, and the district has taken corrective action to lower the DECP level at another well site. Further, it was indicated by the district that the high readings at the well (/17) in question was an isolated incident due to agricultural activities and that it is located some distance rway from the other wells. In addition, the Planning Commission indicated an interest to study the possibility of requiring sewer connection of all new projects and retro fit of existing developments on septic systems. Again this concern was the result Of the Water quality Contrcl Boardb such comments. study on the�.xt sCorimunity DevelogmentlDepartment Pa work program. Also updated is the Parks d Recreation Plan, Figure III -SIL to reflect the most recent Park and Recreation Carcilssion policies included in recently received fromrtheP,Army update. orps of�Eng1 were responded to at the public hearing. Several alternatives including "no project' were examired. Development within the City is related to but dees not actually cause growth- inducing impacts and will require the cowitw -nt of irreversible and iretrievablc resources, as well as produ . many significant accumulative envir. mental ispacts. The environmental assessment matrix (see EIR executive summary) suiwarites the _ nvironmental impacts of the City's General Plan. As mentioned previously air quality impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through the measures suyaested in the EIR. The major reason for this is that air quality Is a regional oroblem and vehicle emissions and stationrry source controis are primarily the responsibility of the federal and state J% i CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPOk,'; MEA/EIR GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATC Detember 7. 1988 , Page 5 govermeats. The area will still experience poor air quality because the majority of pollutants are produced outside of the City and beyond the control of the City. As a result, the Planning Cosmissfca after considering all the project alternatives, included a statement of overriding considerations to be a part of the document's certif!cation. Y. ACTION: After reviewing the responses to ccsatnts and taking p= testimony,' if there are no additional unanswered environmental issues raised, it it appropriate that the City Council certify the-Master Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Environmental Impact report by the adoption of the attached Resolution and statement of overriding considerations as recd mended by the Planning Commission. Res fully u /C u e City wooer 88 AM:js Attachments: Draft MEVEIR (Under Separate Cover) Response to Coamments (Under Separate Cover) Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 1958 and October 26, 1990 Planning Commission Resolution of Certification Recommendation City Council Resolution of Certification Letter from Aroy Corps of Engineers <3 0 AYES: HOES: ABSENT: f f f f f CWSSIONERS: BLARESLEY, MCHIEL, TCLSTOY COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK 9:15 P N. - Planning Commission Recessed 9.35 P.M. - Planing CcemissIOn Reconvened - carried Vice Chairman Chitiea announced that Chairman McNiel would be rejoining Lhe meeting at a later time. L. WASTER ENYIRONNE)ITAn aascccrrwr rvv.i ..,,. °-_• _._ -.. c arac er'isl c� and, consttra constraints the tGeneral Plan aria. AsaanrMEA,nthe document will provide a central source of current environmental Information to assist in identifying long range, areawide, and cumulative impacts of individual projects proposed in the General Plan area. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice- Chairman Chitfea opened the public hearing Jeff Zwack, City Of Upland Planning Department, stated he felt the docMent traffic impacts. eimpacts. Hef e felt the comprehensive. expressed report should address the adverse iimpact gional the Foothill Freeway is not completed and also address the future role of mass transit. He also wanted to know haw the proposed circulation element com to the regional transportation plan. pared Douglas Yoeman, representing the taw firm of Parker and Covert, presented a letter to the Cenission on behalf of the Central and Etiwarda School Districts stated City both trele t chivcl ipIworking wi h the to insure that adequate oolfaiitiesand financing are met. He stated that traditionally the State does not have adequate funds to finance the demands of the school districts. Therefore community facility districts are set up to offset the shortcomings. He stated the City Redevelopment Agency should share some of the increased property values with the school districts. He felt the almost doubling of the student population would create a massive impact of hundreds of millions of dollars. The school districts were concerned with the lack of analysis in section III pertaining to schools with no projection past 1990 and the only reference to financing stating developer funds should mitigate the school needs. The districts felt that developer fees would not be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes 11 Lfl/ September 28, 1488 d� Commissioner Tclatov requested that. the item be continued to October 26, 1988, as he would not be present at the .ktober 12 meeting Vice - Chairman Chitiea thanked ?Jr. Zwack and sated she appreciated his comments regarding the report and expressed hope that both cities could work cooperatively appreciation fain She future or Joint traffic issues. She also expressed + r Mr Yoeman's input and sated Mr. Yoeman's concerns should be addressed to the final report. Mr. Buller responded that saf" would work with the consultants and respond. The Master Environmental Assesneent (NEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan }ethnical Update were continued to the October 26, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. r f,t • r M. GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ The project is e prepara on, rev ow, n a Plan consisting of statistical pinformation and implementation the measures, and revisions to the Coemunity Dosign Development Element. section of the Land Ilse and Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the item also be continued to the October 26, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Vfce- Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Commissioner Talstoy stated he especially liked the new general design principles section and the proposed design guideline book. He hoped the pCommission would push for the guidebook and provide enough time in the work urposes he and to further Plan feltetheraforimat fshouldu Ira ive reviewed Motion Moved by Biakesley, secconded by Tolstoy, to continue the General Plan Technical Update to October 26, 1988. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMISSIONERS: EMERICK, KNIEL - carried N ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30547 _ WESTERN su r.s on o acres o +n n o Terra s a Planned Loomunity located on the southwest -ornerea} Church Street and Terra Yista Parkway - ApH: 1077 - 421 -06, 09, 10 Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 28, 1988 Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by B%kesley, unanimously carried to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (MEA) AND c arac er s cs and constraints of the General Plan area. As an "'. the document will provide a central sourcs- of current environmental intonation to assist in identifying long range, area -wide, and cumulative impacts of individual projects roposed in the General Plan area. (Continued from September 28, 19883 Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's comments regarding possfole loss of wells caused by unacceptable water quality. He asked what the City could do since it did not have any jurisdiction over water problems. Mr. Warren stated the City had contacted Cucamonga County Water District and supplied them with a copy of the responses for their comments. He stated the City had asked the Water District if a proper mitigating measure would be to require that all new developments be hooked up to the sever system. He stated the City's response in the EIR is that the City will consult with Cucamonga County Water District. The City had not yet received a response from Cucamonga County Water District. Commissioner Emerlck asked about the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's letter which stated that ground water wells exceeded drinking waver allowable limits for various chemicals. He asked how much imported v er was being used to lower the concentrates. Kent Norton, Planning Network, stated that blending was very minirxl He stated Cucamonga County Water District had developcd a master plan for water and sewer treatment within its jurisdiction. He stated that plan addressed how the District would meet drinking water quality objectives and it did not indicate any probler. in meeting the standards. Commissioner Emerick stated he was concerned because the California Regional water Quality Control Board's letter stated the water supply already exceeded allowable limits on two chemicals and he wanted to know how this was being mitigated. Mr Norton stated there miglit be isolated problems now, but the plan addresses how it will be mitigated in the future to bring water quality into acceptable standards He said he would clarify with Cucamonga County Water District. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if current General Plan language forced Cucamonga Water District to supply sewers to all future development on half acre or larger lots. P.anning Commission M nutes 1 -/2- October 26, 1988 l f� Larry Henderson, Senior Planner, stated that the current Gerh;al Plan does not require sewers. The August 25, 1988, letter from the California Regional Quality Control Hoard recommended that %ewers be requir--d on all new construction. Mr. Henderson recommended that. Cucamonga County Water District, the However. then PlanningrCom issiondhid the right to to recommend to they concurred. that the General Plan require sewers. Commissioner Emerick questioned what proposed use changes the Department of Fish and Game referred to in their August 24, 1988 letter Mr. Warren responded that they were referring to the difference between the County and City plans. A chart had a misprint which showed 1,000 units for the County vs. 8,500 units under the City Plan. The 1,000 figure was incorrect and did not include total County projected buildout for the Sphere of Influence area. Chairman McN1el opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel asked if any comment had been made to require sewer hookup of existing structures. Mr. Henderson stated there had not. Chairman McNiel stated he felt that it should be looked at in the not -too- distant future even though it would be expensive. He felt it was important to act before facing a crisis. Commissioner Emerick asked if the Plan could take a look at the water quality impact if bull /ing out the alluvial fan in the Etiwanda area. Mr. Henderson stated that the plans currently for the Sphere include water recharge areas as a flood control mitigation measure. The existing General Plan tries to preserve natural creek areas wherever possible. These natural creeks could be used as temporary retention and recharge areas. The Water Quality Control Board was going to start requiring the City to monitor some locations in the future to make sure that some mitigation measures are being taken to improve water quality. Mitigation measures might include siphoning off nuisance type water flows from car washing. Motion Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, corried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Master Er.eirarmrental Assessment (MEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Technical Update. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLkKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, HCNIEL, TOLSTOY HOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 26, 1988 RESOLUTION No. 88 -213 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF-THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT Tr,E * CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND MAKING FIIDIWS THEREOF. IN SUPPORT A. Recitals. (i) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adopted the General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81 -40. (ii) There has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with this Coemisslon's consideration of the recommended adoption of the General Plan Technical Update, a final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report. (iii) On September 28, 1 ?88, the planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the above mentioned General Plan Technical Update and Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Technical Upda.a. (iv) The final Master Environmental Impact Report referred to in this resolution u dated July, 1988 entitled "City of Rancho i Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impaci that draft report and written responses thereto City of Rancho Cucamonga and testimony present recommended adoption of said General Plan Techi testimony pertained to environmental matters mentioned documents will be referred to as "the of the final MEA /EIR hereby is incorporated reference. Assessment and Environmental nsists of that draft docuaent ucamonva Master Entromental Report`, written comments on submitted by the staff of the d during the hearings on the ical Update insofar that the Hereinafter, the above - final MEA/EIR ". Tne entirety In this Resolution by tl:ac (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B Resolution NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1 The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Rancho cucamonga take the fotlowt:,g actions with respect to the final MEA/LIR- -:, pLANNIMG,c01MISSIiNi RESOLUTION N0. 80 -213 ( fr MU and EIR for the General Plan Technical Update R; October 26, 1988 Page 2 ~ (a) Certify that the final MEA,1EIR has been prepared on the General !• Plan Technical Update to accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21030 et seq. and 1n accordance with the regulations promuJ6ated thereunder. Further, .i' EIRMEA in TCOnsidertngttheeadoptioniof the sGeneral plan Technical Update: find (b) Find that the General Plan Technical Update project is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amendments to the General Plan of measures gin .lus on Update provisionssoftthe SurfacefMinin9oand Reclaratton ^Actiof +•v 1975, aad revisions Lo the Community design section of the Land Use and Development Element. (c) Find that the final MEA/EIR does identity Physical -' environmental impacts inherent in the project and that changes or altrrattons have been incorporated in the project which litigate or avoid all significant r environmental effects thereof other than a cumulative contribution to the degradation of air quality; ° (d) Find that notwithstanding the unmitigrated adverse 5 and socnialLconsideratio ^secmakeeunfeasibleraN project alternative specified to the final EIRMEA and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; and + (e) As to those impacts identtf +ed to the Yinal M- eA /EiR which cannot feasibly be avoi4ed by mitigation measures and project alternatives, forth ins Exh Exhibit 'A' heretodand substantial form to that set reference. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i BY: arty . ATTEST• re y a u ,�-a 19 trt�Ti � f ' ' m41:�, ?r�'._ .�.4.ee :_,'•.`.�, _'�' •' -:c a?i•� ,, ,,, :_�.��w�,��rs •w t: DUd111ING LOIMIION R %SOL67ION'R0. 88 -213 �5 yF KEA and EIR forrthe General Plar'E^rhnical Update iac October 26, 1988 " Page 3 _ I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Co®t2sion of the City 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held l; on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote-to-et: AYES: COlMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CNITIEA, EY.ERICK, MCNIEL,TOLSTOY _ NOES: LOIMISSIONERS: NONE AUSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE a�. e >:a r• r ti f l r � F u EXHIBIT `A• STATEMENT OF ovERRIOING CONSIDERATIONS The final Paster Environmental Assessment and General Plan Environmental Assessment identifies an impact which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures. That impact consists of a cumulative contribution to the degradation of sir quality as a result of increased population, commercial and industrial growh Notwithstanding these impacts, the Project was approved based upon the finding that specific economic and social considerations make tefeasibte any project alternatives specified in the final Master Enviror.vental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report, including the No Project and Land Use Alternatives, and accordingly constitutes an overriding basis for project approval. Those considerations are that the General Plan Technical Update is itself a measure to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community which would otherwise occur without a planned and comprehensive approach to future development. The General Plan Technical Update includes current statistical information on the Community and reflects changes in development �nticies as well as established policies incorporated in the General Plan at its adoption in 1951 The General Plan provides appropriate guidance for the rstablishment of zoning and development regulations to mitigate growth induced impacts Consequently, the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update will result in potential environmental effects that are substantially less significant in scope than would occur without General Plan guidance, including each alternative analyzed in the Final Paster Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report 4-1 � RESOLUTION 90. 6g'?06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE MISTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MO ENVIRONMENT. IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERA PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (1) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adopted the General Plan and certified the Environmental impact Report for the General Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81 -40. (i1) There has been presented to this Council in conjunction with this Council's consideration of the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update, a final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report with, a Planning Commission recommendation to certify the environmental findings. (iii) on September 28, 1988, the Planning Commis ,-,on of the City of Rurcho Cucamonga conducted duly noti cod public hearings on a Genoral Plan Technical Update and Muter Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Pitport prepared for the General Plan Technical Update. (iv) The final !aster Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report referred to in this resolution consists of that draft document d.tted July, 198B entitled "City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Enirormental A:isessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report ", written comments on that draft report and written responses thereto submitted by the staff of the C•ty of Rancho Cucamonga and testimony presented during the hearings on the recommended adoption of said General Plan Technical Update insofar that the ce stimogy pertained to ironmental matters. Hereinafter, the above - mentioned documents w(1 referred to as "the final MEA/EIR ". The entirety of the final MEIVEIR here., is incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. (v) All legal prerequisites prior 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. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby tare the following actions with respect to the final MWEIR: 101 1� Q• v`,f; <i :"p,v :. "' *v,p:: `V `'t ?_�%�;;�+�?.yy; %i. ._ -. w s' . - _•i,s' y.. `,))�vv,,,,��11wwi ._ CITY IL icsoi:viloR ia:t _;� ,. •- - y• MEA/EIR GeneraltP-lan %. Aica1 Update December 7; 1488 Page 2 (a) Certifies that the final NEVER has been prepared on the $; General Plan Technical Update in accordance wish the provisions of the California Enviremental Quality Ac:, California Public Resources Code t Sections 21000 et seq. and in accordance with the regulations p, lgated therwinder. Further, that the Council certifies that it considered the contents of the final EIR/REA in considering the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update: ' Y (b) Finds that the General Plan Technical Update project is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amendments, to the, General Plan consisting of the update of statistical information and implanentation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of =' 1975, and revisions to the Community design section of the Land Use and v Development Element. (c) Finds that the final MEA/EIR does identify physical environmental impacts inherent in the project and that changes or alterations ;;. have been incorporated in the prOvet which mitigate or avoid all significant environmental effects thereof other than a cumulative contribution to the degradation of air quality; t,• (d) Finds that notwithstanding the umitfgrated adverse environmental impacts specified in paragraph b above, that specific enonomfc and social considerations make unfeasible any project alternative specified in the final EIR/MEA and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; and (e) M to those impacts identified in the final PEA/EIR which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures and projv:t alternatives, adopts a statement of overriding considerations in substantial fore to that set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated by this reference. f a EXHIBIT "A" STATEIENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The final Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Environmental Assessment identifies certain i*P"ts which cannot feasibly be avoidad by mitigatior measures. Those impacts consist of a cumulative contribution to the degradation of air quality as a result of increased population, commercial and industrial growth. lbiwithstanding these impacts, the project tws approved based upon the finding that specific economic and social considerations make infeasible any project alternatives specified in the final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report and, accordingly constitute: an overriding basis for project approval. Those considerations are that the Gene al Plan Technical Update is itself a measure to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community which would otherwise occur without a planned and comprehensive approach to future development. The General Plan Technical Update includes current statistical information on the Community and reflects changes in development policies as well as established policies incorporated in the General Plan at its adoption in 1981. The General Plan provides appropriate guidance for the establishment of zoning and !..?lopment regulations to mitigate growth induced Impacts. Consequently, tha adoption of the General Plan Technical Update will result in potential environmental effects that are substantially less significant in scope than would occur rnithrIt General Plan guidance, including each alternative analyzed in the Final Master Environmental Assessment and Environcental Impact Report. '�J 17/ DEPA7MEM OFTFiEtpMY an.n.car.n u, u.aais, 49v*ue ewu an„m a mbor 16, NOpQ 1988 Offl:e of the Chief Emiro:u'ental Resources Branch Nr. Larry Henderson Sailor Plannar C'tY Of Rancho C Poet Office 80,8077 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr, Hemdersont — RcC41. _ p- an pAA'•r.M �rtnnii: Nov 23 1388 pu We awe rralepla then waft Ewlronmontel Impact Report for the Rancho Cncemoeg4 Can nevi Plan, July 22, 1988. 9umsted in a letter Prom your office, t dated Work In waters of the United State. might to 606 of tte Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the •camOt data _ 1nFo quite a permit older Section Jurisdiction omen,. Sonwthat ndBtPm]ec�ttndaase give our Rivers "tent Lnr, 6e � ��, We doc In waterccurses aweaOI ly describe, the a Sulstory 8'anch adjacent wetlands to area and extent of a� proposed cork If rho P °0 mNco that detacminatloa, Proposed pro]act involves soy Federal aasistamca thin or permltn, c� 1lance with Section 106 of tho N Act of 1966, ad.o uqh fundtng 8(+n. „111 be required. (16 O.S.C. 670f) and nai Histatic P 9uf tad. ImPlemanel reeorvatlon n8 r'Qgiiletlane, 36 CPH The first p p Other Page 49 rtfers to t Federal h rys[em under stud u funds for other fap o�nts were cosCs rhare ad In n h.mP ova DeCu ..O g, an The s 3eTmyon for the oPPOrtul C s,mo ty to review and comment on this document. Sincerely, Robert S. Jae Chief, Plannjag Oivl.10. d dS !°tii - -�a .. . � ^.ve :;1;r: i >C °cca. •Y's; .x� _Y � ..rr�s y,- .� - r. , - "K -r:•; s. "iti 'ir "�. ,,�s�. as �.'.: s��b ;. ,•�'�,¢ x `��; 7.. • aC 1l �'• UNITED STATES DEPAR: Af£NT OF THE ARAl y. CORPS OF ENGINEERS Letter dated November 16. 1988 from Robert Joe. Chief of Planning. Comment: (1) 9york in watsrs of the United States might require a Permit under Stall on 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Riven and Harbors Act. We einnot determine from the submitted informatiow the extent of the Cords jurisdiction over this ' r project. Please g:ve our Regulatory Branch lacumcalation that Nearly discribes the area '9 and extent of any proposed work in waterccu.;es and adjacent wetlands to help'us make v; that determination' r, Response: (1) This EIR is for a General Plan techcical update and does not propose any Wines in waterways in and of itself. At the tlm: that any specific projects or actions use undetmken that affect 10ca1 waterways or wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers will be contacted during the appropriate Permit process. Comment: (2) 'If the proposed project involves any Federal assistance through funding or Permits, compliance with Section 10i of the Natlonol ti)storle Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.0 470f) and implementing regulations, 36 CFP. 800, will be required: Response: (3) Comment noted.d Comment: (3) Tne first paragraph on page 49 refers to Federal funds for other systems. Ther arc no other systems under study with Federal funds. The same paragraph gives the wrong years for creek Improvements; Cucamonga Creek improvements were completed in 1981 and those for Deer Creek, In 1983.' Response: (3) Comments noted. .gas R 20 CITY OF $yyi,HO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Senior Planer Alan Marren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: BENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL araA on,Crely ew,RanCHa oPCAon!!�A a The pro e- s e D eD of Technical update of the General Plan consisting statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Community Design section of the Land Use and Development Element. i. RECOR47Eh'DATtoN: The Planndlantge as teirevisedededitiondoft of the Up the Rancho nera .an e Cucamonga General Plan. I1 ABSTRACT: The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider e nc o Cucamonga General Plan Technical Update. This report outlines the administrative, technical and statistical updates proposed for the General Plan, as well as significant changes to the Commmity Design Element. III. BACKGROUND: The technical and administrative updates to the City nera an were first !'-cussed in 1986 and were included as a The objectives o the update 987/88 slfollows: nnin ivision work program. A. actions uand allojolicy cF,angesland all General Plan s .e adoption of the document in 19x1. B remove eflu language vi overall clean of the docuenctomakateflec, eof thecommunityas o 1987 conditions. C To include a tignificant revision of the design section to reflect the substantial expansion of the communities' development s'andsrds. Also, as required by the California Environmental pualitY ht (Ef ))were de tinithe form of aPAastcrvEnviironmentalDAssessment CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE December 7, 1988 Page 2 (,4EA). Such an update to a MEA would simplify the environmental review process and could eliminate the need for at least some future E*r -R's associated with individual projects IV. DISCUSSION: The update of the General Plan text can be divided n o areas. First is the technical /administrative cleaning up process which involves no major policy changes except as required by state law. Second is the revision to the Community Design element which does contdin significant modifications based an existing Planning Commission policies and further staff recowendatlons. This report will divide the discussion between these tvo area;. The changes have been indicated in the draft update as strSkeouts for deletions and bold type for additions with brief explanation notes in the margins. The original text format has been used for the draft, but staff is planning a complete reformatting for the final document. A. Highlights of the Technical Administrative portions are as Touows• - -- 1. Format consistency has been improved. Pro.islena of some sections did not follow the format of the majority of the document. Goals, policies and objectives were not easily evident in scee sections and rephrasing and rewording was needed to clarify the text. 2. The Summary was expanded to include some policies not previously included from the main body of the plan. 3 Ail maps and charts were updated with the latest available statistics and information. 4. Out of date information, programs and policies (City and other agencies) were deleted. 5. The expansion. of Chapter IV, Land Resources section Included the addition of the Identification dnd protection of aggregate resources for potential future mining. The Inclusion of this Item is required by the State Mining snd Reclamation Act MARA) which resulted in the additional policies and objectives which are Included on pages IV-7. 11 and 46 of the Technical Update 6 The State requires the amending of the Housing Element by mid 1989. As a result, staff determined It would be more aporopriate to withhold any changes to his section until the full amendment process later in this fiscal year 3J7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE December 7, 1988 Page 3 ;a 7. The Public Facilities section contains revisions requested by the Parks and Recreation Commission as a rest of recent polity determinations 7 B. Caweuntty Design - The most significant changes to the City's � development PhlJoSop hy have been in the area of design. As the L'amaunity matures, it's goals and asppirations for it's future character have expanded to reflect a high quality theme. With this in mind, staff has formulated numerous rhangey to the design element for the Comatsslon's consfdaration which are as follows: 1. General Design Principals have been added (g. III -125) to provide non - specific guidance for "quality design.' ' 2. The Natural Environment section (pgs. III -130, 131) contained policies on 'clearly defined edges' which staff felt were In conflict with other design policies which encourage the natural blending and softening of the planted landscape. As a result, many of these policies were ` replaced vith ones which encourage natural transitions between design elements. 3 The design features of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan were incorporated into varfnus sections to reflect activity center and special landscaping concepts. 4. General planting criteria was included (pg. III -152) to give guidance on the appropriate use of plant materials. Also, the use of drought tolerant plant material has been encouraged (pg. III -137). 5. A special Ilan for "old tam' Alta Loma is called for (pg. III -161) with recommendations for features to be considered to such a plan. This provision follows through on a suggestion for such a plan which is in the present document (see pg. III -159) of the draft update). 6. Provisions for "vista points' in the foothills are included (pg. III -174) 7 "Centers' concepts for haven Avenua, the regional mall, and activity center intersections are included in the Pattern and Scale of Building Forms section (pg. III -178). 8. Residential policies used by the Planning Commission In design review process are included throughout the element. d_J 8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT: GENERAL PL/A TECN.�lICAI. UPDATE December ' , 1988 Page 4 9. Signing criteria is introduced into the General Plan (pgs. III -189, 190) with design policies already provided in the Sign Ordinance. ° C 10. Some design standards were determined to a too specific for the General Plan. These included the plant materials list (pg.' III -135) and tree planting guidelines and standards which were deleted. A design guidebook is being developed for these hod other specific development standards, since this prcject was also a 1987 -1988 work program item. In addition, it is recommended that the graphic work portion on the guidebook begin immediately after approval of the General Plan Update. A portion of the Community Design Elegnt work was to include expanded graphics, but staff felt it would be more appropriate to hold off graphic production until the guidebook graphic work was Initiated. This would allow for the coordination of upgraded graphics in both docuwents. The Planning Commission strongly recommended that the final form of the General Plan includes upgraded graphics. IV. ACTION: If the City Council concurs with recomsendations of the ann ng Commission and has certified the General Plan Technical Update Master Environmental Assessment /Environmental Impact Report, approval of the General Ple9 Technical Update by adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Qe lv it er ner 88:LN /AN:mlg Attachments: Dratt General Plan Technical Update (under a seyarate cover) Planning Commission Minutes of September 28 and October 26, 1988 Plannirq Commission Resolution No. 88 -214 City Council Resolution of Approval i l 2 0 .s Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the item be continued to October 26, 1988, as he would not be pres•_nt at the October 12 meeting Vice - Chairman Chitiea thanked Mr. L1+ack and stated she appreciated his comments regarding the report and expressed hope that both cities could work cooperatively in the future on joint traffic issues. She also expressed appreciation. for W. Yoeman's input and stated Mr. Yoeamn's concerns should be addressed in the final report. Mr Buller responded that staff would work with the consultants and respond. The Master Envirormental Assessment (MEA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Technical Update were continued to the October 26, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. M. GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RfNCHO CUCAMONGA - The project is c prepara on, review, a a p on of s ec n ca u ate of the General Plan constztfng of statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Commnity Design section of the Land Use and Developmant Element. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the item also be continued to the October 26, 1988 Planning Comnission Meeting Vice - Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he especially liked the new general design principles section and the proposed design guideline book He `sped the Commissicn would push for the guidebook and provide enough time in the work program. He further felt the General Plan needed graphics for illustrative purposes and to enhance appearance. He felt the format should also be reviewed. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue the General Plan Technical Update to October 26, 1988. Motion carried by the following vote- AYES: COR41SSIONERS: BLARESLEY, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS EMERICK, MCNIEL - carried N rnurtn11c4 - n aauw,no -nu, v, AW a JG4 V1 .o61m 'w - r-••• -• errT 9isfr Planned Cocmnity located on the southwest corner of Church Street and Terra Vista Parkway - APN 1077 - 421 -06, 09, 10. Planning Commission Minutes -:0- September 28, 1988 _iii Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff would pursue development of a work program item to m dress sewer installation for all new and existing development and could report back to U.e Commission. f f f f C. GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMGA - The project is e yrepara on, rev ew, + adoption o a ec n ca u ate of the General Plan consisting of statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Community Design section of the Land Use and Development Element. (Continued from September 28, 1988.) Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hoped that the new format would be approved by Planning Commission and would includo new graphics. text Wand prioruto Dprintingnthe PCloniisnsi oCommission woulddh ve ao opportunity to look at format. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed Motion: General Plan Technical Update. Motion carried by tim following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: f f f f f D. COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EYERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE as FQ-n Tpal Code permitting es offices meeting certain - carried DOL IMMMM atl -u/ - 6. hap ter "-U4-o'__68 of on -street parking for Brett Horner, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea felt additional temporary landscaping had been requested and sae asked that the requirement be added. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Fred Deaux, 11036 Shay Street, Rancho Cucamonga, strted he saw no reason to make the change for one developer, as history had shown a great success rate by using off -street parking to avoid traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes 4- October 26, 1958 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -214 )s A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ;- RANCHO CUCANANGA, CALIFORNIA RECOMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND HALING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. ' A. Recitals. c' (i) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in conformance with the requirements of State Law, adopted a complete General { Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Re T. for the General Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. l31 -40. (ii) On September 28, 1988, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty noticed City initiated public hearings on the General Plan Technical Update and final Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and, on October 26, 1908, the Planning Commission reconmended to the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga certification of the above mentioned final MEA /EIR. (111) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. " B. _Resolution. now , THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rarcho Cucamonga as follows: I The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions with respect to the 'lenerai Plan Technical Update: (a) Find that all environmental concerns hale been addressed by the final MEA /EIR as recommended for certification by the Planning comrission; (b) Find that the General Plan Technical Update praiect is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amen, invents to the General Plan consisting of the update of statistical inforuation and implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and revisions to the Community Design se:tion of thr Land Use and Development Element (c) Adopt the General Plan Technica'. Update, as drafted, as the approved General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1!0. '88 -214Y 1988 R � 1 APPR01'ED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH nAY OF OCTOBER, 1908. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a ll a rKn ` 1, Brbd Buller, Secretary of the Planning Comission of the City of Ran ha Cucamonga, do Siereby 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 Comission held on the 26th dAY of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: s AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, ENERICK, MCNIEL,TOLSTOY s NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE `dy RESOLUTION NO. B S -70) i' �. A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL. UPDATE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in conformance with the requirements of State Law, adopted a complete General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan an • April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81 -40. (ii) On September 28 and October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed City - initiated public hearings on the General Plan Technical Update and final Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and, on October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga certification of the above mentioned final MEA/EIR and General Plan Technical Lydate (iii) Ail legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFCAE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Council does hereby take the foilowing actions with respect to the General Plan Technical Update: (a) Find that all environmental concerns have been addressed by the final MEA/CIR as recommended for certification by the Planning commission; (b) Find that the General Plan Technical Update project is the preparation, review, and adoption of technical amendments to the General Plan consisting of the update of statistical informtion and implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and revisions to •`e Community Design section of the Land Use and Development Elament. rc) Adopt the General Plan Technical Update, as drafted, as the approved General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ,J3`{ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Myyor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVA, WNTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT ad-U/ - Lily OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment o i e ap er , o e Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code permitting the use of an- street parking for model home sales offices meeting certain criteria. I RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of s Ve opment Cods Amendment. If the Council concurs, the attached Ordinance should be adopted. II. BACKGROUND: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission 3i e- efa sstaff to prepare a Development Code Amendment which would permit the use of on- street parking at model home sales offices. The requect for the axndment stewed from a Variance application which was filed by a developer proposing to use on- street parking on a cul -de -sac to satisfy the requirement of two parking spaces per model home. The Commission could not make the necessary findings to grant the Variance but concluded that in certain situations, on- street parking would be acceptable for model home sales offices. The Commission concluded that the Development Cade should be amended accordingly. The Commission felt the use of on- street parking could be permissible if the following conditions were met: 1. The model home sales office was located on a cul-de -sac street. 2. The entire street was secured w!th decorative fencing, including gated access to the street. 3 Temporary landscaping was installed both within the street and the off - street overflow parking area. The CevaisAcn reviewed these and other conditions on two seoa ^ate occasions. The attached Commission reports of October 26 and November 9, 1988 contain more detailed Information. In addition, Exhibit 'A" (attached! graphically depicts how the on- street parking would function under the proposed Ordinance. ,�?3S -ITY COU.4CIL STAFF REPORT DCA 88-07 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 7, 1988 Page 2 III. be revfsed to read as follows: f. spaces per model ^shalidbe�completedatoi the at a rate Of satisfaction of the Lity Engineer and City Planner prior to coaencement of sales activit4es or the display of model homes. The parking spaces shall be located pff-street e thelfollowing on- street parking mall conditions: (I) shalisales locatedoffice, att thesendand of on-street cul-de-sac kstrreetaand coordinated with construction phasing such that there are no resident seo tme dnarealivithein homes located adjacent to the (2) The r parking City is shall be adequately striped and shall home (7) ales office, and eon- street street, including beesecumd with decorative non operati g business�hours. street that is kept (4) to area the for overflow shall y City Engineer off-street and City Planner. Said parking area shall' be located a4acent to approprialtet� signed, and iprovided outside with A driver approach constructed to City standards. (6) Parking shall be permitted only within and on the project site. Parking along adjacent or perimeter streets (public or private) shall not be used to satisfy the model home sales parking requirement. (6) Temporary landscaping, includiig minimum 48 -inch box shall be provided thon-street larksare (cul-de-sac). oary landscapinshalalob provided within a planter area surrounding the overflow parking area. 9 All fences propot.0 in conjunction with the mo% ' homes and sales office shall be located outside of the public, right -of- way except where approved by the City Planner and City Engi neer for security. � Attachments Planning ACommission Staff aReport l Man ! October 26, 1988 planning Commission Staff Report (if November 9, 1988 Initial StuQv Part II Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1988 Planning ther�r paoedsed Amendment Approval X37 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DCA 88-07 - CITY OF RANCHO COQ December 7, 1988 Page 3 r5- i; y V'M lly ttted, v 'w Ay er ;• ner BB:BH:mlg Attachments Planning ACommission Staff aReport l Man ! October 26, 1988 planning Commission Staff Report (if November 9, 1988 Initial StuQv Part II Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1988 Planning ther�r paoedsed Amendment Approval X37 I"% S u CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chapman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Alb DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT - 6a., ur N__ nu uWRIV A - An amendment to TitTe Wap er , o e nc o Cucamonga Municipal Code ei itting the use of on- street parking for model hone sales offices meeting certain criteria. BACf.GROUND: On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission rec a staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment which would permit the use of on- street parking at model have sales offices. The request for the amendment stemmed from a Variance application which was filed by a developer proposing to use on- street parking on a cul -de -sac to satisfy the requirement of two parking spaces Per model hare. The Commission could not make the necessary findings to grant the Variance but concluded that in certain situations, on- street parking would be acceptable for model home sales offices. The Commission concluded that the Development Code should be amended. II. -YSIS: The Commission recommended establishing the following iequ rm ents for use of on- street parking at model home sales offices 1 A cul -de -sac location. Through street and stub street locations were not deemed acceptable because of potential conflicts between parking movements and through traffic. 2 Appropriate striping of parking stalls to conform to City standards. 3. Provision of a parking overflow area should a buyer camp -out situation exist. 4. Where appropriate, security fencing may be required. I I PLANNING CONNISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 88 -07 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40MGA October 26, 1988 Page 2 In order to permit the use of off- street parking, Development Code Section 17.04.07OC7(f) and (g) must be revised. Based on the Comission's direction, staff would recommend that these sections be revised to read as follows (changes are shown in bold): Section 17.04.07007 (f) Street improvements and temporary parking at a rate of two (2) spaces per model shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to commencement of sales activities or the display of model homes. The ppaarking spaces shall be located within an off- street facility, except on-street parking W be Permitted subject to the following conditions: (1) The sales office, models, and on-street parking spaces shall be located on a cul-de -sac street. (2) The parking stalls shall be adequately striped and shall conform to City standards. (3) M area for excess parking shall be provided off - street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. (4) Parking shall be pertained only within and on the project site. Parking along adjacent or perimter streets (public or private) shall not be used to satisfy the model home sales parking requirement. rg) All fences proposed in conjunction with the model homes and sales office shall be located outside of the public right -of -way, except where approved by the City Planner and City Engineer for security. The City Planner and City Engineer may also impose other conditions as necessary to ensure such things as traffic safety and circulation, security, and neighborhood compatibility. 0f major concern to the Commission is the compatibility of the sales office with the surrounding homes. Ideally, the models should be located in an area designated as the last phase or phases of development, thus eliminating a situation in which homebuyers are parking in front of a new resident's home Through the Temporary Use Permit process, the City P ?anner verifies that the models are properly sited. ,J `(r_> PLANNING COWISSION STAFF REPORT OCA 88.07 - CIT" OF RANCHO CBCANONGA October 26, 1988 Ptga 3 II. EAUVR IEHTAL REYIEN: Staff has completed the enclosed Initial u an en a� no adverse envtronaental impacts which could result from this Amendment. Therefore, She issuance of a Negative Declaration is recomended. III. RECOWENDATION: The Commission should conduct a public hearing and cons er pu c convents. Adoption of the attached Resolution recommending approval of the Development Code Amendment to the City Council is recommended. Res ully fitted, Bra e City F anner BB:BH:te Attachments: Initial Study, Part II Resolution of Approval Draft Ordinance '4 l( ti, mz i, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 9, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Cawission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner SUBJECT* ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT By 6 amendment to TWO :> Chapter I.U4. or ne anc o Cucamonga Municipal Code permitting the use of on- street Parking for model horse sales offices meeting certain criteria. I. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 1988, the Planning Comissinn directed s ar o revise a proposed Development Code Aaeudamnt regarding the use of on- street parking at model home sales offices. The Commission directed staff to address the following issues: 1 Ltndscaping within the cul -de -sac street and off - street overflow parking area; 2. Location of the modals in relatior to adjacent homes; 3. The provision of decorative fencing to secure the street at night; and 4. Location of the off- street overflow parking area. Based on the Commission's direction outlined above, staff would recommend that Sections 17.04.07007(f) and (g) be revised to read as follows (changes are shown in bold): Section 17 04.07007 Tu— ree mprovements and temporary parking at a rate of two (2) spaces per model shall be comple,_d to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to commencement of sales activities or the display of model homes The parking spaces shall be located within an off -street facility, except on- street parking may be permitted subject to the following conditions: (1) The sales office, models, mud on- street parking spaces shall be located at the end of a cul -de -sac street and coordinated with construction phasing such that there are no resident homeowners on the strent who have street J `/J lTEi1 G J3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 88-07 - CITY OF RANCHO CBCMomGA November 9, 1988 Page 2 parking spaces in front of their hones striped for use by model home sales office visitors. (2) The parking stalls shall be adequately striped and shell conform to City standards. (3) The model hone sales office, including on- street parking, shall be secured with a decorative fence and gate across the street that is kept locked during non - operating business hours. (4) An area for overflow parking shall be provided off- street to the satisfaction of the Ciu Engineer and City Planner. Said parking area shall be located adjacent to the model home sales office, outside the secured area, appropriately signed, and provided with a drive approach constructed to City standards. (S) Parking shall be permitted only within and on the project site. Parking along adjacent or perimeter streets (public or private) shall not be used to satisfy the model home sales parking requirement. (6) Temporary landscaping, including minimum 48 inch box trees, shall be provided within the on -street parking area (cul -de -sac). Temporary landscaping shall also be provided within a planter area surrounding the overflow parking area. (g) All fences proposed in conjunction with the model homes and sales office :hall be located outside o" the public right -of -way, except where approved by the City Planner and City Engineer for security. The City Planner and City Engineer may also impose other conditions as necessary to ensure traffic safety and circulation, security, and neighborhood compatibility it ENVIRONMENTAL REYIEN• Staff has completed the enclosed Initial u an en a no adverse environmental impacts dhich could result from this Amendment. Therefore, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended. III RECOPWENDATtON• The Commission should conduct a public hearing and A ar pu Pic comments. Adoption of the attached Resolution re^ommending approval of the Development Code Amendment to the City Council is recommended. .J q3 0 °9�cT, j.v i�; �. i V��va �aY�. .�, • PLAYING C0611SSION STAFF REPORT DCA 88-07 - CITY OF RA.YCHO CUCAWAGA November 9, 1988 Page 3 Ale, lly ne 80:811:mlg Attachments: Staff Report of October 26, 1988 Resolution of Ap;roval Draft Ordinancr jqV t� i C , CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIROMIENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ October 1? 1988 APPLICA.YTt City of Rancho CucOmaa FILING DATEt�n peih r 74. iq o LOG hMSER: ofA RR-n7 PROJECTS npvnlnnawnt fnd.. a / AA n7 n t t^ 'king for ` PROJECT LOCATION: —Nn♦ ann =del hom sales Offltes ll�Ahlp I. EMRO NTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of 411 "yea" and 'maybe" ansveri are required an attached shoots). YES NATRE NO 1. Soils and Geoleev. Will the proposal have iigniticaac reaulca in: a. Unstable ground cOCditionsor in changes In geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, eoepaCtlan Or burial of the e011? — c. Checks in topography or ground surface Contour intervals? _ s/ d The dsstructlor., covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Y s/ e. Any potential Increase in vied or water eroalOO Of 40112, affecting either on or off Sits conditans? I Changes in erosion siltation, t: deposition? e% g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, aud- slMa, ground failure, or similar hatatds? _ ✓ h. An increase In the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Nvd Ioay. Will the proposal have significant results in: 1) t4 A. Changes in currents, or the course of direction Of flowing stream, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes In absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and axunt of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? s d. Chan3e to the amount of surface water an by body of water? e. Diocharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. change In the quantity of groundv, tars. alther through diracc additions or with- , drawals, or through interference rich an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction In the "aunt of water Other- wise available for public water supple -s? 1. Exposure of people or prop-rty to water related hazards such as flooding or selches? 1. Air Quslltv. Will the proposal have significant results Sa= a. Constant or periodic air c%Issioos from mobile or indirect sources? Stationery sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or Interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Blots Flora. Will the n- epaJS1 nave significant results Flo a. Change in the characteristics of species, Including diversity, distribution, or number cf any species of gel. acs? b. Reduction of the numbers of any n14, rare or endangered species of plants? page 2 YES MAYBE CD — Z V __ ___ tole __ _— — Z ti/ Page 7 I YES MAYBE NO C, Introduction of new or disruptive spec,,, of Plants Into an area? d. Reduction in the Potewtial for agricultural production? Von Fauna. Will the prnposal have sl;nfficaat results In: C Change in the characteristics of spac,�s, ineluding diversity, distribution, or aunbers oI any species of animals} b. Reduction of the ambers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals} r c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals} s d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat} S Poavlatinn. Will the proposal hove significant results in: •. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the h=am Population of an area} b Vill tha proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing} 6. gocfo- Eeononte Sactora. Vill the proposal have significant results ins a. Change In local or regional •oclo- economic characteristics, Including economic or en®areial divetaity, tax rate, and property values} b. Will project Costs be equlcnbly distributed among Project beneflclaries, I.e., buyers, tax payers or project users} y 7. Land Usa and Plarnina Considerations. Will the __ proposal have significant results in} a. A substantial ulceration of the presser or / Planned land use of an area} b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, _V Policies. or adopted plant of any governmental entitGes} Vol e. An Impact upon the qulatty or quantity of _ existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreacipnol opportunities? q 4/7 I Page i ti YE'. HA_AHE NO S. Sransaortation. Will the proposal have significant results iet ^ a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular 5- mvsamt? V b. Effect& on existing streets, or demed for nev street conattwetion? C' Effects on exfating parking facilities, — — or dscand for new parking? ,' d. Substantial Imptct upon existing transporta- — ^- tion system? - e, alteratioma to present pattern„ of eircuix- ticn — -- or sm•emenc of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and Potential poten wntsr- borne, call, mass transit or six tial �t S. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists — -- or pedescriana? tololl 9. CulturAl Resources. Will the proposal have algniticant result& In: a. A dlsturbacce to the integrity of archaeological, palecntologiul, and /or historical resources? .--� 10. Naaleh. Sa[ec♦ end Nuisance Pastors, Will the Proposal have &ignifi•ent results fns a. Creation of ocv health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ t/✓ C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances In the event of m accident? Wool d. An increase in the number of individuals or speciss of vector or pathenogenic orgtniarw or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Inerease In existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? S. The creation of objectionable odors? — - h. An Increase In light or glare? ✓ /�� U. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant reaulta it: A. The obstruction or degradation of any scsuit vista or view? b The creation of an aesthetically offensive dta? C. A conflict with the objective of designated or pot social scenic corridors? 12. Uti?itias and Public Services• Will the proposal have a signlficaoc need for nw systems, or aha:ations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? Q. Wastwater facilities? f. `loud control structures? a. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I. Police protection? J. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? ■. Ocher governmental services? 17. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant resulte in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, vhen fsaeible renewable sources of energy ate�vailable? "i,i, 1 Page S YES NAYBE NO f _ _VV010 Wool V r to a, Subat.ncial depletion of any noarenevable or stores natural resource? 14. Mandator, Findings of Sia.1lfxunee, a b. C. Does rho project have the potential to degrade the gaulity of the enriroment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife spool.., cantle A fish or wildlife population to drop belay golf sustaining *vale, threaten to elisdmto s plant or animal community, reduce the number or roacrict the range of a rare or audnngered Plant or animal or eliminate lnportant examples of the major periods of WAfornis history or prehistory? Doug the project have the potential to achieve short -cam, to the disadvantage of long -corm, envdrenment4l 901327 (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defialtive period of time while long - tam impact.: will endure wall lard the future). Boas rho project have impacts which are Individually limited, but emulatively considerable? (CL,ulstlmly considerable means that the increzaatal effects of am Individual project era considerable when viewed in connection with the efieets of past projects, — -- / sad probable future project,), t/ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? � f/ II. DISCUSSION OF EN71RONMENTAL EVALUATION (Le„ of sfflk=tive answers to ti the above quesons plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). 7b The Oevelopment Code Amendment (DCA) as written, conflicts with Section 17.04.07dC7(f) of the Development Cude. The conflict will be resolved, however, with adoption of the DCA, which revises that particular, section of the Code 8b The DCA may affect existing street: n that potential home buyers may decide to park on existing perimeter (public) streets rather than or to addiLion to the cul- r+..saC spaces Th Impact ill•rW1"t2ga�ia%1 U„cogcS1 .,'saf spaces hItuations, for another Parkin' on OfgtheaCode '--quieter streets. Also, amended secti area be provided to accomodate excess Parkingtdemand overflow 8e The DCA would alter vehilcle circulation and pedestrian movement around model home sales offices. The alterations cannot be considered significant enoug measures h to warrant any mitigation Page 6 YES PAYEE HO 60010 I/ J Sd ■v .A(Y��. , T, l..�u 'Rri. ua.X Y'1U�_ya'•I�•kY'` •/ .r . �L A'll` lC �..l��.i�Y (. ^I;y .�_Y Faso 7 . lIT. DETSLYINATION 's �, .f ',�••- On the bola of this, I- evaluation: Ef I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a algniflcant effect : on the etvirorowt, and A NECATIVE DECLAAATION will be prepared. ♦: I find that although the proposed 7 r,� project could have a algalfleant ` LJ rffact on the eevlroment. there vi21 not be a eigniticsnc � t affece In thin eau because the sittgation �earuras described on on attached sAntahave baa¢ added to the project. A NECATIVE ' ' �'0 s DECLARATION HILL jr ISETA=. ;i I fled the grepoeed project MAY have a alguilieaat ettaer on the anvircment, and an L7VIRONl1M INFACt RMORT is required. Date nrtnbar 17. 19a ` Si Brett Neragn Attlstant planner Title -�5f • , «�rr;;,t 1. Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Emerick, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13812 with *edification to allow the developer to request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of the improvements to the center line of streets C and G. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried Chairman Mclliel stated the appeal process was still available. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated that a valid appeal was on record. Therefore, staff would process the item back to City Council unless they received a withdrawal of the appeal. i G EYYIROWIENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMcMD11E9T 88 -07 - CITY OF y' aae n�i o ap er , o nc o ucamonga n c pal Code permitting the use 'o on -street parking for model home sales offices meeting certain criteria. (Continued from October 26, 1988.) Brett Horner, Assistant Planner, presentee the staff report along with a modification to item (f) (1) of the Ordinance to prohibit having resident homeowners located adjacent to the gatad, secured area of the street. Chairman McHiel opened the public hearing. Fred Oeaux, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he felt st'yf had done a good Job addressing the previous coacerns and he endorsed tbo amendment as written. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tols'oy asked if the content should be restricted to short cul- de -sacs. Brad Buller, City Planne•, stated that the entire cul -de -sac would be used for this purpose, and therefure develope^s would be inclined to use only short cut -de -sacs. Comissioner Blakesley stated la.iguage should be added to sVte that the entire cul -de -sac would be fenced off. Commissioner Chitiea stated the parking gate needed to be placed at the entrance to the street. Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 9, 1988 dri 0 Cawissioner Biskesley stated that once development was necessary on the col- de -sac street, the mcdels would have to be closed. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, suggested adding language to section (f) (3) to require the entire cul -de -sac be fenced off. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 88-07 with modifications to prohibit having residents living in adjacent homes and to require that the entire cul -de -sac be fenced off. following vote: Motion carried by the AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAXESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLS'OY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: C01`71ISSIONERS: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS H. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW B8-01 _ SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY HGSPITai E eve oilmen 1 :11 a me 11 ca I can r cons s ng o a . s oars o0 ambulatory health care facility and 82,932 square feet of medical offices on 10 acres of land in tine Mixed Use (MHO) District withir the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Mi iken Avenue and Church Street _ APN: 227- 151 -13 and 14 Steve Hales, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea asked if Design Review had approved the metal roof. Mr hayes stated that Design Review had requested that the applicant present a the roof comparison for Planning Commission consideration. Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing. Ron Mesa, project architect, stated Design Review had requested they look at a the roof He stated they looked at a ceramic the roof from the standpoint of design and aesthetics, maintenance, and cost . require a redesign of the structure, which wo The weight of the lile would uld affect their building schedule. They felt that by utilizing a ceramic the roof there was a strong possibility of leaks from moving tiles and their contractor would not guarantee he would be able to install a leakproof roof. They also felt it would be difficult ur impossible to get in to repair the leaks. Because the general illiken and the ile roof woulaleost ancadditio additional Otl0e he requested the Planning Commission allow the metal roof. Chairman McNiel asked how .aany square feet of roof would be involved. Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 9, 1488 .� 53 7—,7 j RESOLUTION 00. 08 -230 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMEhDMEk"f TO TITLE 11, CHAPTER 17.04, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITTING THE USE O� ON- STREET PARKING FOR MODEL HOME SALES OFFICES MEETING CERfAIX CRITERIA AND HAKIRG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, on the 26th day of October, 1988, the Planning Comission held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of tie California Goverment code and continred said public hearing to Rivember 9, 1988. SEC found tha �'TFION aendaantRwillo notacreeatepa signifiocaantsaduerse effect on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Oelaration on November 9, 1988. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That pursuant to Section 65650 to 65855 of the California Government code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of this amendment. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council apprDYO this amendment to the Hunicipal Code per the attached Ordinance APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY ATTEST- 1. Brad'Oui.er, Secretary of the Planning Commissicn of the Ctt4 of Rancho cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Reshlutiorr was duly and regularly introduces, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coh:misston of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning COmissicn held on the 9th day of November, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: r.'.1iK lt'P��y Cil AYES: COMMISSIONERS BLA�ESLEY, LHITIEA, EMERiCK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES COMMISSION:RS NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS NONE i a: ORDINANCE 110. 3 O5_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RA' 10 CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1 34, OF THE RAHCHD CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERMITTING THE USE OF ON- STREET PARKING FOR MODEL HOMES SALES OFFICES MEETING CERTAIN CRITERIA C WHEREAS, on the 2 th day of bL)C , 1988, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to e3 ctioon 65864 of the California Government Code. foilows: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as SECTION 1: Section 17.04.070, subsection 7f of Chapter 17.04 is amended to rem as ollws: F. Street improvements and temporary parking at a rate of two (2) spaces per model shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner prior to comencement of sales activities or the display of model homes. The parking spaces shall be located within an off -street facility, except on- street parking may be permitted subject to the following conditions: (1) The sales office, models, and on- streot parking sp; -es shall be located at the end of a Cul -de -sac street and coordinated with construction phasing such that there are no resident homeowners living in homes located adjacent to the gated, secured area of the street. (2) The parking stalls shall be adequately striped and shall conform to City standards. (3) The entire cut -de -sac street, including the mode, home sales office, and on- stroet parking, shall be secured with a decorative fence and gate across the street that is kept locked during non - operating business hours. (4) An area for overflow parking shall be provided off - street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. Said parking area shall be located adjacent to the model home sales office, outside the secured area, appropriately signed, and provided with a urive approach constructed to City standards. (5) Parking shall be permitted only within and on the project site. Parking along adjacent or perimeter streets (public or private) shall not be used to satisfy the model home sales parking requirement. F-� ORDINANCE 90. •`�_ - �;.�y,4,��._, DCA 88- 07;,n: Page 2 , - (6) Temporary landscaping, including min;mua 48 -inch box •' trees, shall be provided within the on- street Parking area (cul -de -sac). Temporary landscaping shall also be provided within a planter area surrounding the overflow parking area. SECTION 2: Section 17.04.070, subsection 79 1s amended to read as follows: 9. All fences proposed in conjunction with the model homes and sales office shall be located outside of the public right-of- way, except where approved by the City Planner and City 5nglneer for security. SECTION 3: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely a e� -E —iFe envfronment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. J 5(c> CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 AUf TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Richard R. Cota, A;socfate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Public Hearing to receive input regard ig the proposed intention to construct the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1 and award of said contract. RECDNEiWTION: It 1s recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolutions for A) Ordering Certain Changes and Modifications in the York in a S ecial of District a the SpecialacAssessennt Dist District; Improvements being the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1. BACK 6Rglip /AKM. YS I S This report presents the Enylneering Staff's intent and recoaoendation to the City Council on October 19, 1988 for the construction of additional storm drain facilities within Assessment District 82 -1 (A082 -I), to be funded from remaining Assessment revenue. AD82 -1 is bordered by the following approximate boundaries: Arrow FWute on the north, Deer Creek Channel on the west, Fourth Street on the south end Rochester Avenue on the east. The proposed store drain facilities wall supplement and provide =nsfstency with the now existing original caster Planned facilities. Said master planned facilities were designed for Q100 Year flows to be contained within the right -of -way and Q25 year flows to be ccrrfed in storm drains. The first additional facility to be addressed is the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue. It is proposed to construct a 394 storm drain in Jersey Boulevard in order, to mitigate potential QS year `lows which are presently projected to flow bppeyond the right-of-way. This ed proposed of Stormr Jersey Boulevard interconnect an active Mrs drain Pipe and inlet fac111tfeI at Jersey Boulevard and Utfct Street with a presently existing Avenue.,e storm drain pipe and Inict facflftles at Jersey Boulevard and Red Oak CCSR December 7, 1988 Page 2 It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing for protesu or objections to the said proposed storm drain improvements as said hearing was published as required by law. It is also recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Resolutions ordering said changes and modifications to AD82 -1 and award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Laird Constructton Company, Inc. P.espec ^ u fitted, RHM:RRf:pac Attachment Y�,�itiln a �t %:iin'•yr):': �;i�.ii`�s Td>�!6'yt � \' `f ^�,a i °: � r.iXypti. - �%L,M, -t �Y- 4��i�i`t ORDER Or PROCEDURE •1" yy „- cln or RANalO cuCAMONGA ; y ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. e2-1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) DATE Or PUBLIC NEARINOt DECEMBER j, lgas 'j MAYORS Announce that this in the time and place for hearing ' protests or objections to certain pt, +pond changes and modifications to the work in the Aeseesswnt District. i; CITY CLEM Announce that notice of the pubic hearing was published T as required by law, and an affidavlc of p,blication is on file. x; STAFF, Generally discuss proposed changes and Mcdiflcations to > the work. Announce that no assessments will be ima�sased by roasrn of the proposed chuv7s. Report on percentage of written protests received )% of assessable area). Explain alternates, it any, in proceedings. Repcct on results of construction bidding. END OF STAFF REPORT - OPEU Punic H.Wxa FOR DISCUSSION IAYOR, Ask to hear from anyone who wishes to speak for and /or against the proposed modifications 4r the work CITY COUNCILS Declare Public Hearing CLOSED IT YTS LEOIEIATM BOOT IIISBSS TO PROCM CITY COUNCIL, Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES ALJ MODITICATIONSt rm=al action ordering chanUss and modLfications to the work in the Asseeamert District CITY COUNCIL, Adopt RESOLUTION AWARDING COMMUCTION CON'"PACTt formal action awarding construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder RESOLUTION NO, 99- " 7 Dp2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ORDRAINO CERTAIN CHANCES AND HOOIFI- CATIONS IN THE MORE ID A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, has adopted a Resolution pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4.5 of Division 12 of the Street, and Highways Code of the State of California, had specifically Section 10353, (the - Municipal Improvement Act of 1413•), declaring Ltd intention to order certain changos and modifications In tbo proceedings and the barks of improvement, and did, pursuant to 1, +, het forth a time and place for a public hearing on said proposed changes and notifications in a special sausament district known and dealgnaced as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0. 82 -1 (6TH S -REST INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the - Aan*scment DLetrictryi and, WHEREAS, at this tire, notice of the roblic hearing on the proposad Chang,, and modifications has boon given in the manner and form as required by lave and, WHEREAS, this legislative body has heard the presentation and testLaony as It relates to the proposed changes and modifications, and this legislative body In nw raady to procend to take action on said proposed 3hangas and modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1 That the above recital, are all true and Correct SECTION 2 That this legislative body heresy orders than* changes and modifications es not forth In a Resolution of Intention to order cald changes and modLficction,, said changes generally described ea follows, The construction and Installation of additional storm drsln facilities and appurtenances ho dome all proper- ties within the boundaries of this Asaaesmsnt District. SECTION 3 That the above referenced changes and modificatione, as ordered, do not cause any increaso In any aeuesmenta se previously levied for thin Assessment District SEcTIom J -hat the decisloro and dstorminatlons of this legislative body ordering the above- reforonced changes and modifications ,hall sae final and conclusive upon all persons entitled to appeal thereon. j3 ,cs 3iyS4•v _ � wC .:� S[!TIOH S. Shat the Engineer's "Report ", the Assessment Roll, and all related documsntatloo, As heroin mrdLtled, are Tor the be interest ot.,the ' .Y, prop art y owners' eithin the Assessment District, and uid "Report' shall stand Do the Engineer's •Report, for �modSlled all subaequent = paocwdings relating to this Assessment District. (� APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of A988. , Y MAYOR CITY or RANCHO CUCAMONGA ., STATE OP CALIFORNIA ATTEST, CITY CLEAR CITY Of RANCHO CVCAMO G.A STATE Or CALIFORNIA J W/ I c RSSOLUTIOM NO. 7o 3 �r AESOLUTTOM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY V, Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. AWARDING It THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Or It �t CkRTAIN PUELIC HORNS Or IHPAOVElRNT IN A l SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT e' t WKWUhS, the CITY COUNCIL Of the CITr OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, did publicly open, examine end declare all ■paled proposals or bide for doing certain of the works of Lmprovement as sat f"th and shown on the plane and apuciftcations which were approved for proceedings In a spacial assessment district, said proceedings being taken pursuant to the provisions of the -Municipal Improvement act of 1913•, being Division 13 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said spacial assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 834 (6TE 37PZZT INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Asa seamen District') NOW, THEREFORE, IT It HEREBY RESOLVED AS rOLLOWS, SECTI3N 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 1 That thin legislative body hereby rejects all of Bald proposals or bids except that herein mentLoned, and does hereby award the construction contract for doing said work and making improvements in the Asseosment District to the lowest responsible bidder, to -wits LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. at the prices named In the bid of said bidder on file with the tran- script of that* proceedings and open for public Inspection. SECTION 3 That the works of improvement @hall be construct" in the manner and form as act forth in the plane and specification* as previously approved for theme works of Lmprovement SECTION e. That the Mayor and City Clark arc hereby authorized to execute the Agreement for the works of improvement relating to said Assessment District, and a copy of said agreement shall be on file with the transcrlre of these proceedings SECTION S. That all monies to pay for the costs and expenses of the above referenced Assessment District @hall L• paid free the funds as deposited in the Improvement Fund, including any Interest earned thereon. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of _ 1989 ATTEST, CITY CLERK CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE JF CALIFORNIA MAYOR CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE Or CALIFORNIA i W'c a- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cynti0a S. Kinser, AssistAnt Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENi REVIEW 87 -71 - C'JMIERCIAL CARRIERS. INC. �n aP7ea o e n cns o Approval or m gra Tng and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for outdoor storage within the Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APN: 209 - 143-7, 8 and 9. I. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council deny this appeal reques an uphold the Flanning Commission's decision for Minor Development Review 87 -71. If the Council concurs, adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial would be appropriate. iI BACKGROUND: On November 19, 1981, the property owners filed an appT - c-aUon for a Minor Development Review requesting to grade and pave approximately 12 acres of land. The applicant proposed to pave the existing site which is utfliz-,d for truck parking and storage On July 7, 1988, the City Planner, reviewed and approved Minor Development Review 87 -71 subject to conditions. The Conditions of Approval and Standard Conditions were placed on the project in order to bring the legal non - conforming lot into confonoance with the City's current development standards, such as landscaping and screening. On July 18, 1988, the applic_nt appealed all of the Londitions of Approval to the Planning Commission. At its meeting of September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission determined that the Planing Division conditions should be retained: however, that the Engineering Division conditions should be modified in relation to the number and location of driveways. This item was therefore continued in order for staff to work with applicant to modify the Engineering Conditions of Approval CITY COUNCIL ST4T'REPDRT MDR 87 -71 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS, INC. Decemter 7, 1988 Page 2 On October 26 1988, the Planning Commission approved modified Conditions of Approval for Minor Development Review 87 -71 (see Exhibit `A'); by this action, the appeal request was effectively denied In part. On M,vember 4, 1988, the applicant appealed the Planning CaIMIS -lion s decision to the City Council (see Exhibit "8'). III. ANALYSIS: A. pplannln issues: The subject site consists of three legal url'dells ingwannd aameetai warehoouse Improved building t(seesExhibitt -C�). The remainder of the site is utilized for truck parking and storage. The site is enclosed by chain link fencing. The site's 814 feet of frontage along Jersey Boulevard currently has substandard parkway landscaping with parking SpecificgPlan�(Subareain9) strip. Tile Jersey Boulevard have an average landscaping setback of 35 feet and a minimum 25 foot parking satback, as measured Oran }ace of curb Further, the site is enclosed by chafe link fence The Industrial Specific plan storage (Subarea 9) requires that outdoor within 12n feet of a street frontage shall be screened. Storage area screening may include masonry, concrete, or other similar materials. Rather than deny the project for non - conformity, the City Planner approved the project subject to conditions requiring landscaping and parking improvements to meet Cude Standards. The repentant never applied for variance from these Code re The saents. 8. Engineer_ iissues: The site currently has four (4) existing drlvewrys onto Jersey Boulevard. Two of the driveways provide access to the main the parking the the streettparkway.to As discussed earlier, the Planning Division Is requiring that this area be landscaped. If the Council sustains that requirement, then there will be no need for these two driveways. The site driveways are shown on Exhibit V. d I4 Y k CITY COUNCIL ST►fF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - cpWRCIAL CARRIERS, INC. December 7, Page 3 The City has established an access policy for Essentially streets to minimize Potential traffic conf licts. policy states: 1. Driveways shall be separated by 300 feet. 2. Driveways shall be aligned with those on the Opposite ano n side of the street if they are within 235 feet of onother; and mint" 100 feet from an 3 Driveways shall be a intersection. one Based upon these becriteria d stfthensltelY Ffiowever. after the driveway lanning Commission hearing, it was site. d that an additional drivewal' was necessary for the site; , The two Exhibit D are, to 'approved driveway locations shown oh staff's upinion, the Dest lodrlvdaYsoondthenopposite sirdenof presented by the existing Oak Street intersection. Jersey Bout evard and the Red ►dditlenai access may be obtained through shared access arrangements with adjacent properties. Furthermore, the installation ul vardtto bring hthe street Sidewalk were required along e ;It City standards, as required by Ordinance No. Minor Development Review permit process sail Iv FACTS FOR FINDINGS- -tryst such limited projects camp Y n en a The City Plarnrotal applicable City Standards and OrdineNe< authorized to impose reasonable conditior: 'Ieoi, an t consistent with this purpose•i.sionen the CitlrPlanner�coulbenot approved by the Planniing Coma ' have approved this permit finding swiisted below could tnot shave approval because the requisite been made in the affirmative: 1 That the proposed project is consistent with the GRneral Plan. the 2 That the proposed pr'ajiv:t is in accordance wit' of the district in which the site Specific loca Plan. the P 1� (D5 Cm CWK16Si,AFf," PORT Decaber 7; 1988, MDR 87 -71 - c0KgACIAI� CARRIERS, INC. s; Page 4 3. That the proposed project together with the condltfens apP7tccblO, thereto, M11 not be detrfN*ntal to the public health, safety, or relfare or arterially injurious to properties or improveaents in ,)e Wcinity. 4. That the proposed project will coaply wit" each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. Re t "Y t i` a er City P' nner 88 :CSK:mlg A:tarhaents: Exhibit. "Aa - RESOlutton of Approval wit) Conditions Exhibit "84 LetLer from Appfiant, November 4, 1988 Exhibit C - Sits Plan Exhibit "D" - Driveway Locations Exhibit "E' - Planning Comission Staff Report, October 26, 1988 Exhibit "F" - Planning COmission Minutes, October 26, 1988 Exhibit "O" Planning Coaisslon Staff Report, Sepptember .:, 1988 Exhfbft "M - Planning Coifssion Minutes Se teaber 14, 1988 Resolution of Denial `C It r� RESOLUTION NO. 88 -224 % A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CUMISSION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NT). 87 -711 AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRADING AND PAYING OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF LA:A FOR TRUCK PARKING AND STORAGE LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT /HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING F11I0INGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APR: 209- 143 -7, B. AND 9. A. Recitals. (I) Cnmeercial Carriers, Inr,. lies filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 87 -71 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as 'the application". (ii) On July 7, 1988, the City esubjectheto eight i i Rancho Cucaonga reviewed anJ appi. ed the application conditions. were timeiyiappe ladCto this CC^--- issiani On July 18,19841 for the application iiv) On the 14th of rotpteeber, 1988, the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ewducted a meeting on the application and continued the item until October 2G, 1988. (v) On the 26th of October, 1988, the Planning Comission of the City meeting uti to the conducted of eeting on the application and concluded (vi) All legal prerequisites to the, adoptin of this Resolution .lave occurred. B. Resolution. NON, 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 subst4ntial evidence presented to this Commission G„ring the above - referenced meetings on September 14, 1988 and on October 26, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, this Cootaission hereby specifically finds as follows: IM EXHIBIT "A" PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION W. 88-224 MDR 87 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard, an irregularly- shaped parcel with a street frontage of 814 feet and an average lot depth of 673 feet and is presently improved with an office, warehouse, and parking lot; and (b) That Jersey Boulevard is classified as a secondary arterial street; and (c) The property to the north of the subject site is a multi - tenant industrial park, the property to the south of that site consists of warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is warehouse; and (d) The application applies to a site that is currently improved with an office building, varchouse building and parking lot and is considered a legel nc,..conformIng lot; and (e) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.8 authorizes the City Planner to impose reasonable conditions upon a Minor Development Review perwit approval, including requirements for landscaping, street improvements, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress and traffic circulation, establishment of development schedules ar time limits for performance or completion; and (f) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.A states that the purpose and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process is to assure that such limited projects comply with all applicable City Standards and Ordinances; and (g) The site plan submitted in conjunction with the application, does not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standard of a 35 foot average landscape setback and minimuma 25 foot parking setback, as measured from the ultimate face of curb. Further, the site plan and existing chain link fence improvements do not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standards for screening outdoor storage of vehicles within 120 feet of a street frontage with masonry, concrete or other similar materials; and (h) The site currently is improved with four driveways within 820 feet of street frontage. The City's access policy for arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 300 feet apart. Therefore, only two driveways would be allowed on this site. Further, driveways should align with driveways on the opposite side of the street or by off - setting a safe distance to avoid conflicting left -turn movements. The City's access policy also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet from intersections; and (i) The applicant has not filed ary application for variance from the Industrial Specific Plan Standards and requirements. _J CoF PLANWIMG COWISSI, RESOLLMOR Mo. 88 -224 MDR 87 -71 - Cosmertial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 3 tl. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Coemissiun during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts s`r set forth in parcgraph 1 and 2 above, this Condssion hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That tho proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be datrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or lmproveaents in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conc 'isions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Coemission hereby ap ;r. +es the application subject to the following conditions: Planning Division 1. Construct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage. a. Streetscape landscaping at an average 35 foot setback from curbface and a minimum 25 foot parking setback from curbface. this will require remcvai of existing paved parking areas within the setback areas. b. A screen wail at the back of the ctreetscape landscaping setback, to screen the storage area from view from the public right -of -way. Screening shall be masonry, concrete, or other similar materials, 2, due to the removal of existing parking areas for landscaping, new parkings areas shall be striped per City Standards. Submit parking site plan within 90 days. 3. Parking lots shall be planted with 1 tree per 3 parking stalls ane a 5 foot planter is required around the perimeter. JG9 PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. 88 -224 MDR 87 -71 - Commemial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 4 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans, including screen wall design, shall be submitted and approved within 90 days. S. All improvements required by conditions of approval shall be completed within 12 months. Engineering Division 1. All existing driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 2. Two drlvawys will be allowed onto Jersey Boulevard. One shall allgh with the eastern driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. The second shall be located 100 feet west of the westerly back of curb return for Red Oak Street. Both shall conform to City Standard No. 306. 3. Additional off -site access locations near the project's east and west property lines may be granted subject to approval of the City Engineer if shared access agreements can be obtained from the adjacent property owners. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMIONGA 6Y: 1)f U i,<, - I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1988, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,J7 C� )ZC, � ( � ]@7! }#t� , \| � � q !! ! |� \! *j ` q!! . ! � |! #� ! §! \ #� r. � PSf !!! t '2r f !� ƒ � | � | Ell r #£� �f I| ! & � ■ �7 ' .!9 f R !!gy ■ ■ �� ! -= | ■ ■ � ( � ]@7! }#t� , \| � � q !! ! |� \! *j ` q!! . ! � |! #� ! §! \ #� r. � PSf !!! t '2r f !� ƒ � | � | Ell r #£� �f I| ! & � ■ �7 ro I_ PG i I I I it Her ..__ i q � R. r= ifr is= at I= = Fa : lot _ t fstj f cclFF1 all !-a jRts Erg Er =p!s tFcF{jc� it r; it Full •�! ;i><fg=f ti {fiti ps`1'F 21 1� cjasit� _r cs r��s fill Itur s� f ;>�t`c EEi f s - - me. .RCfe :g; !.=I',? f; E: fa fF_If � c zn 7i fit I II . r I fill p f Ex 71 rS nigt ec E ;,.� act jE S :``-1 �CjC •�iiR �:� C= g'Sg It ttQ j�C rlty OE c; c a Aar �c! Zz c °aE t Ei2 Fz s� e� I .r� I I �3• ejrl�tE ��i! f�gr t:gc �tf C Egg ;! s_ cg Of ?!£3 tR�s Bgg ixsd I is E g 2 co . e- \ �s\ �� Rai , lit |l..�! |��■ - • \! ,_ ��..r. . E ! � X. �= §• . #- ! 7 e ! .! ■ £ • �� | I # f td /� / %| ` f 2 ' q/ : 1 !Iq | I � ` ®® ; ■ : �: - �'� r., - �.�% f \!r, &! |": |i \ ! ff 5i . ! » # a i.� R� @I It I lot � SggqoI q/ ` f St ` 1112, Sim ! \§ Oil J1 �= i % | .FE �f .x E10 # i ; E ■ a om _ - (E x IE! #: r- �\ @Y §#b § 9\ f q / ! ; (t fr ; § « § | } | ■ ® w it. Ir S E f , 'z c , \ y ., .,. \Pat Iv Z4 r =ii ■n • E'- \ �•q �� a�� !�9 \!£! -� \! �- .. � . , •:... ! , 2 t -If /!4 lit / �h ` 4� � �_ ! ■�! |�' � |_, � �! p fit : |! !' '! | -: ®B | | ■ 1 - �. q |�, !f |s! �_ � � � �# ��'� |•!� �� !|� r�If�lIN fl � | if-if ` �'4 $ Fil. Z. \ a #a I | | r! \A #� t f |! �!. ! .�& �ƒ � |q �f Elf fill !! a! � \{ i /- Wit WEI § / / � !Ir i| I I #ref §j#' � �� B §r / V% |�§ ■ i� • � f x - ! �■f = � f � k ! . ■■ if FEE k I W fid r €� �2 |� \� [� ��■ , / •/ � s�z { s � . ! � � | � r& (q/ � � .� ( # /s e � � � a k q � � R # � � ! Ir | & � . s a ! | � # ! � )f R ! � � | � r& (q/ � � .� ( # /s e � � � a k q � � R # � � ! Ir | & � . s a ! | � # ! � ! � � | � r& (q/ � � .� ( # /s e a F e r 41 : f{r w t PUF -Fi f s� `! a _is_� III IF= -siL i" f r i F3 3x fs tic r? f ms �si to ss,,g k s I Fa jr � € f rr" �= IF If r: N�E- 1Fi f `is ` F3 ci Eac'r E! wt c F § f !c C :r vS ^i P ¢ g�� s s £r e- r i Ei fig, ;SFr s# It a 1 ; ir;;3 ,s g the ie Ff ;I _ _ , fp t j[ £r� � is i "! •�Sr _ a6 '!R 1• P.N c - s 8 c car 4 s al3 1a j= ^ _r - Sr -� S t cscjE FE � �Fc .T =jic E .cS cr jc :s cxF l P - r Fsr >i r F ,id3 f; laic �S I, y ,- \ #E ] ! § \� 4| 4:11 r |- r |' q| � ■ =•.&: Elf _| fill ® � G � & � -.. ƒ!! E ■ :! �| J I � \ f fir �I t/ ,- \ #E ] ! § \� 4| 4:11 r |- r � |' q| � &f Elf _| q � }! G �! & � � } � 1� �\ � A f � ; � a . |' q| � &f Elf _| q isjt G IF; �| q :! �| J t 1� �\ � A f � ; � a . `�,OA`9_�L'1;1 CUOK'8'BECKLUND ONE Civil Engineering a Surveying a Structures a Environmental a Planning 4 November 1988 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attut City Clem Be: Minor Development Sevier 07 -71 5 1 a S I V E I OR( ADM NW CC NAOWA NOV 071988 t� f j,*AAZ s P- r• A'4 f Gentlemen: On behalf of Commercial Carriers, wa_wiah to.mppecl the decision of the Planning Commission to deny our appeal 'of the Conditions of Approval for tbin project. This site has been used an a storage and repair facility by Commercial Carriers since their purchase of this facility in 1985. Commercial Carriern +voided in 1986 to -plaus 1 1/2 Inches of an oiled chip goat .urface on the existing storage areas located at 10807 Jersey Luclevard to aemist in controlling toe duet generated by ltp.;_utipaved condition. This surfacing required that some grsdimg•.bV�#iis to prepare the subgrade for placement rf the chip' coat -tlpT a grading permit was applied to do this work 8ubavquent to the grading permit being issued and work started, this firm received a letter from the Planning Department on October 14, 1988, requiring that an application for a Minor Development Revieu be submitted for Planning's review. This requeat was honored and resulted in the Conditions of Approval dated July 7, 1988, which were then appsalled to the Planning Commission. The Conditions of Approal for MDR 87 -71 would require that Commercial Carriers expand approximately $250,000 to compete the following: I Tear out the existing street improvements that preaectly do not match recently constructed improvementa on the north side of jersey. 2. Renove the existing parking lot and aln entrance to the office building with landscaping. J7St py EXHIBIT "B' 647 North Main Street, Suite 11, Riverside, Calif. 92501 Telephone (714) 7888092 Ut Civil Engineering *Surveying a :structures a Environmental d" Planning ; 4 Eorenber 1988 Appeal of MDR 87 -71 Page 2 9• Remove from. existing usable storage areas approximately one earn of land to construct now parking areas and Iandscaping. 4. Construct now driveways, sOdoralks and street ligh on z, Jersey Boulevard. t S. Con •:.vct landscaping and reroeatig` raps ileac Jor'a,�'} Bot,l•verd. �• to fool that thua roq,ciressatr are ozoaswile -la •botk- ezponao: ( =.:,, ,,; _• pre4eat area lost for the cou•tructica o•S"Lbose" Yaproyonanta .wy',•• -rr, light of what Sa Using. - proposal, i.e.', ohl1 coil coat- oa a:1e1�^ storage area. SY•refere, re wish to tppsa }.;all` of tYe Condit T��i - ,•t.•- • of Approval for this. Eisor Loielopm•mt It"w.C- Enclosed in the requirU app •ta a,.aizi}Zi:GO::' "ours' 'ran have may gaestiea■ or 'te�aira addil(i�rk1t.iifii'><srctica, .,�lsus do iot besitata to mall. •'�f rr.•.0 'Y- 5�`- `',"�'�,`,K,�- - ' R•spectfally, - Gabel, Coo[ d Beckluad,.Saa. Cr -nt Becklund Ci♦ 1 Engineer!"• J Enclosure �4 647 Norih Main Sheet, X79 I-D, Riversldo, Calif. 92501 Tatophone (714) 798.8092 fn - — --� .,�., • ate_,— - - -- - - - -- -- -- - - i " -- `,• \ I AREA �n CITY OF j;EM :_M �� RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'PIPLE: SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBM loci soALE: _ ai -_ QrF -SITE d AvAL RltiiuiReA 0 L� -�I .G$7 ED OAK__ ?' i � 'F .-- -•��rnHb�RweAVAy t _ � "r•- 's �— APPROVIED i"' PRIVE1..fY • I I ' � �A°,eavED L:t�1noAJ Ir .L . N � nAt4%: ¢wa t jltEkovAL .CEy+J/REQ 1 1 1 Z V A '•� REMOVAL AEyORED •AC[GA77(3LE V ! i e -- O — _ orF -5/iZ ...= SNA2E0 ACeE SS � ►�+ y L � J = a= •2�/ V a w CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1968 TO: Chairman and ;;embers of the Planning Commission FRCM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 - C"ERCIAL CA""I ni INC. An appeal o e con . ons o zpprova of r iFe —gr�3T and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimum Impact /Heavy Industrial District of the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenues - APN: 209 - 143 -7, 8 rid S. 1. ABSTRACT: The applicant is appealing the conditions of approval or a grading and Paving of approximately 12 acres of land on an existing non - conforming lot at 10807 Jersey Boulevard. 11. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1968, the Planning Commission heard s appea . There was a consensus of th mm e Commission that all of the Planning Division conditions be retained; however, that the number and location of driveways could be modified. The project was continued in order for staff to meet with the property owner concerning the driveway issue. 111. ANALYSIC: The original conditions of approval proposed limiting e pro ect to one driveway on Jersey Boulevard. During the appeal hearing, staff modified its position to allow a second driveway (see Exhibit 'A'). The property owner did not agree that a second driveway was sufficient for him to withdraw that portion of his appeal. Therefore, the Commission directed staff to meet with this property owner to further discuss the driveway issue. Staff made several attempts to meet with the property owner and his engineer Finally on October 12, 1988 a meeting was held but only the engineer could attend. He was not able to cemait for the property owner, but felt that two driveways as discussed at the previous Plannirg Commission meeting were acceptable. The Engineering Division has revised the original special conditions of approval to reflect this additional drivel -av The revised special conditions read as follows: EXHIBIT *E* PUNNING CONMISSIi -STAFF REPORT MDR 887 -71 - Comwtr lal Ca�rfers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 Engineering Division_ ` 1. All existing driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter, ; 2. Two driveways will be aiiowed onto` Jersey Boulevard. One :hall align with the astern driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. The second shall be located 100 feet west of the westerly back of curb return for Red Oak Street. Doti: sh:li conforr to City Standard No. 306. 3. Additional off -site access locations ntar the project's east and west property lines smy be granted subject to approval of the City Engineer if shared access agreements can be ootained fror the adjacent property owners. Refer to the attached staff report of September 14, 1988 for discussion of the entire appeal. As indicated at that meeting, the Planning Commission had a consensus that the Planning Division conditions of approval would not be modified by the Commission. As directed by the Ccaission, staff has worked with the developer and modified the Engineering Division conditions as stated above. IV. RECOMNERrIATION: Staff rec~ds that the Planning Commission approve nor Development Review 87 -71 through adoption of the attached Resolution. ResD ull fitted, /Br ter / City Planner BB:CK:vc Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Driveway Constraints Exhibit '8' - Piannin8 Commission Staff Report of 9 -14 -88 Resolution I)f Approval rr aaT L•t LIED E E-- oy� -srrE p 5NAt6D RcrESs W _ LJ ttWY a s , s � � I c!� §r C A�°KOVED 7 I CAGA�y 4J G• Jj r ^- jL i7 i 2 4 E AfClf+YigLC ... oFf -SnE _ a-. _- ^SMRLEp Aree sS ' M C 0 G v �a � 8 Z a J .c Vl (j x A�°KOVED 7 I CAGA�y 4J G• Jj r ^- jL i7 i 2 4 E AfClf+YigLC ... oFf -SnE _ a-. _- ^SMRLEp Aree sS ' M C 0 G v �a � P MINOR DEVELOPMEMr REVIEW 87 -71 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS INC - An appeal of e Conditions of Approval or a grading a paving o approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimum Impact /Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APN: 709 - 143 -7, 8, and 9. (Continued from October 12, 1988) Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Mc Niel opened the public hearing. Grant Becklund, Civil Engineer for the applicant, stated that Ryder Trucks had purchased the site in 1985 and had been using the property since that time as a vehicle maintenance faciliy. In order to control dust, they last year put down a 1/2" layer of gravel and asphalt emulsion. 'hey did not feel it was fair to require them to spend approximately $250,007 and lose some of their parking area and disrupt their administrative center because of loss of parking area ,lust because they had tried to control dust. As the company did not have the money to do the required improvements, if the Minor Development Review was denied, they planned to tear up the asphalt. Chairman McNfel asked for clarification of what had happened to the appeal. ns. Kinser responded that if the Commission adopted the Resolution approving the minor Development Review with its new conditions, the appeal would be negated. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that if the Commission approved the Minor Development Review with its new conditions, the applicant had indicated they would return the site to its prior condition, and the City would have no recourse to force them to meet current standards. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if grading was done at the time the asphalt was put down and if the yard had previously been used for veh•,cle storage. Mr Becklund stated the yard had always been used for vehicle storage and minor grading was done in order to provide for drainage. in addition, two concrete structure footings were removed. Commissioner Emerick stated that it was clear from the Development Code that this project would require a Minor Development Review, and he supported the recommendation of staff. Mr Hanson asked if there would be a way for code enforcement to force the applicant to stop usirg the lot for storage if the asphalt was torn up. Mr Buller responded that if there was a period of 180 days of non - storage use, then the applicant could be forced to cease using the lot for a non- conforming use. Planning Commission Minutes -1s- October 26, 1988 `d �s EXHIBIT "F" ' Mr. 3ecklund stated that it would only cost $40,000 to tear out tha asphalt as opposed to the $250,000 to perform the changes being required in the Minor Development Review. As this property was not being used to its ultimate use and would probably be developed in about five years, they felt they would be throwing away the $250,000. 11: stated that when Rvder bought the parcel in 1985 they submitted a Minor Development Review, but they were told by Planning that there were no requirearnts to upgrade, as the property was a conforming use at the time. He stated that the City recently told him that if they tear out the paving, they would apply to the County Agricultural Department to get a permit to put down emulsion to control the dust. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Minor Development Review 87 -71. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: CCMMISSIDNERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried • � : t r Q. ENVIROMIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88 -14 - NK ARCHITECTS - 33,238 square feet on 2.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 8th Street - APR: 209- 031 -78. Steven Hayes, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chttlea asked to see the color sample board. She asked If the pink color had been discussed. Chairman cdiel opened the public hearing. Greg Sir -.otf, NK Architects, stated he wanted to clarify that items 2, 3, and 4 of the staff report had already been accomplished. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the parcels were individually owned, or under single ownership Mr Simonoff confirmed that it was single ownership Fred Deaux, 11036 Shaw Street, asked if the tenants were already lined up He expressed concern with the quality of businesses, amount of business turnover, lot maintenance, and local traffic impacts. He stated the parking lot should be made of concrete, as asphalt would tend to look shoddy from oil leaks Plan ^.fng commission Minutes -16- October 26, 1968 CITY OF RA,IICHO C1ICAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 14, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cynthia S. Kinser, Assistant Planner T� SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -7I - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS. INC. - M appear or the Conditions -Of- Approval or the grading and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimm Impact /Heavy Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APR: 209 - 143 -7, 8 d 9. I. ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Conditions of Approval for the grading and pav ng of approximately 12 acres of land on an existing non- conforming lot at 10807 Jersey Boulevard. II BACKGROUND: On November 19, 1987, the property owners filed Minor Development Review 87 -71 requesting to grade and pave approximately 12 acres of land. The applicant proposes to pave the existing site which is utilized for truck parking and storage On July 7, 1988, the City Planner reviewed and approved Minor Development Review 87 -71 subject to conditions (see Exhibit "A "). The Conditions of Approval and Standard Conditions were placed on the project in order to bring the legal non - conforming lot into conformance with the city's current Development Code. On July 18, 1988, the applicant requested that all of the Conditions of Approval be appealed to the Planning Commission (see Exhibit "B'). Iii ANALYSIS: A. Planning Issues: The subject site consists of three legal parcels which are currently improved with a single -story office building and a met31 warehouse building (see Exhibit *D"). The remainder of the site is utilized for truck parking and storage. The site is enclosed by chain link fencing. The site's 820 feet of frontage along Jersey Boulevard currently has substandard parkway landscaping with parking begfining directly behind the parkway strip. The Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) requires that properties fronting Jersey Boulevard have an average landscaping setback of 35 feet and a minimum 25 foot parking setback, as measured from face of curb. EXHIBIT "G" PIJWNIAG COMMISSIf AFF REPORT MDR 87 -7a - Ccaaur6,al Carriers, Inc September 14, 1908 Page 2 Further, the site 1s enclosed by chain link fence. The Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) requires that outdoor storage within 120 feet of a street frontage shall be screened. Storage area screening may include masonry, concrete, or other similar materials. Rather than deny the project for non - conformity, the City Planner approved the project subject to conditions requiring landscaving and yyarking improvements to meet Code Standards (see Exhibit 'A'). Tie applicant never dpplied for variance from these Code requirements. B. Engineering Issues: The site currently has four driveways within UZU feet o street frontage The City's access policy for arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 300 feet apart. Therefore, two driveways would be allowed on this site. Further, left turn conflicts shall be minimized by positioning new driveways opposite existing driveways or by off - setting the centerlines by at least 235 feet. No driveway may be closer than 100 feet from the back to the curb return at an unsignalized intersection. There are, however, some existing limiting factors (see Exhibit 'E°): 1. There is an existing driveway five feet from the property tine on the adjacent westerly property; and 2. There are two existing driveways on the north side of Jersey Boulevard; and 3 Rzd Oak Street ends In a 'tee' intersection opposite the existing office building on the northeast corner of the subject site. In regards to the above conditions and constraints, botr• of the existing driveways for the existing structure in the northeast corner of the site are too close to the Red Oak Street intersection (see Figure E). The westerly of the two cannot be moved further west and maintain 300- foot spacing from the primary driveway. Moving 100 feet east of the intersection would work, if the access could be located oft -site on the vacant property to the east. The City is willing to require a shared access easement of the property to the cast at such time as a development proposal is submitted for that site. If this developer wishes to obtain secondary access sooner, he will need to acquire the off -site easement privately. IV. FAGS FOR FINDINGS The Minor Development Review permit process is Intended to assure that such limited projects comply with all applicable City Standards and Ordinances...'. The Li Planner —W PLANNING coiviSSIf AFr Pea. - NOR 87 -71 - Commerual Carriers, Inc. September 14, 1988 Page 3 au,._rizcd to impose reasonable conditions upon an approval consistent with this purpose. Absent a variance request being approved by the Planning Coamissicn, the City rlanner could not have approved this permit roquest without the conditions of approval because the requisite findings listed below could not have been made in the affirmative: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives if the Industrial Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which the site 1s located. 3. Tnat the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vic'nity. 4. That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny s aifii —ppT —a the Conditions of Approval for Minor Development Review 87 -71 through the adoption of the attached Resolution. If however, the Comotision determines that the proposal is acceptable, then direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at your next meeting. Re ally ubmitted, Br•e�4...f er City anner BB:Clf:vc Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Letter of Approval Exhibit "8' - Letters of Appeal Exhibit "C" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit 'D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Driveway Constraints Resolution 'J�9 �S 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cr®a.µ. Cw ,iiw ni.i „v 16.1 July 7, 1988 Gabel. Cook a Becklund 647 M Main Street Suite 1 -B Riverside, CA. 92501 SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 Dear Mr. Becklund: The Minor Development Review process for the abova- described project has been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review process. We sincerely hope that this process has been a positive experience for all involved. Findings A. That the proposed project is consistent with Ale General Plan. B. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which the site is located. C. That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimentvl to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. Conditions This project 1s approved subject to the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: Planning Division 1 Construct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage: a. Streetscape landscaping at an average 35 foot setback from curbface and a minimum 25 foot parking setback from curbface. This will require removal of existing paved parking aress within the setback areas. Deena N Lm / n 1Mrc7 xW ee r..w. Oren, L Seem Cenwt 1. a� "r. 11 Pmt, 1. WntlR Vurce M WU:,rm,a 4 e s MINOR DEYE.lDPNEU' 'LIEN 87 -71 GASM, COCK : BE -490 July 7, 1988 Page 2 b. A screen wall at the back of the streetscape landscaping setback, to screen the storage area f -om aiew from the public right -of -way. Screening shall be massonry, concrete or other similar materials. 2. Due to the removal of existing parking aress for landscaping, new parkings areas shall be striped per city standards. Submit parking site plan within 90 days. 3. Parking lots shall be planted with 1 tree per 3 parking stalls and a 5 foot planter is required around the perimeter. 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans, including screen wall design, shall be submitted and approved within 93 days. S. All improvements required by Conditions of Approval shall be completed within 12 months. Engineering Division 1. All existing driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 2 A single driveway is allowed on this parcel. It shall align with the eastern most driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard and shall conform to City Standard No. 306. 3. If the developer wishes to obtain secondary access to this site, he shall negotiate shared access agreement(s) with adjacent property owner(s). this decision shall be effective following a 10 -day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. If you should have any questions concerning specific conditions, please feel free to contact Cynthia S. Kinser at 714 - 989 -1861. Sincerely, COMMUNID DEVE102NEKT DEPAR WNT P K DI rad Bul ty Pi nner BP:CK:mlg Attachment: Standard Conditions JW X ' 1 r •` �.r. 1 01 _ — ni r �, Br G A B E L , C O O K & B E C K L U N D Civil Engineering • Surveying • Structuros • Environmental . Planning Dear Mo. Kinser, We wlsb to appeal all Of the Conditions of Approval for this project and have enclosed the appeal fee of $62.00. Due to the Issues involved in appealing this review, 1 would request that a meeting be arranged during the week of Augunt 8th to 12th to dlscusa with staff these conditions, rather than attempting to cover all or these issues in a letter. If you bare any queotions or require additional i.,formation, please contact this office. Respectfully. Gabel, Cook d Becklurd, Inc Grant Beckl6nd Civil Engineer Enclosure .�93 18 July 1988 Y Y it .7„ r City of Rancho Cucamonga �4 Post office Box 801 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attn: Cynthia S. Kinser Re: Moor Development Review 87 -71 Dear Mo. Kinser, We wlsb to appeal all Of the Conditions of Approval for this project and have enclosed the appeal fee of $62.00. Due to the Issues involved in appealing this review, 1 would request that a meeting be arranged during the week of Augunt 8th to 12th to dlscusa with staff these conditions, rather than attempting to cover all or these issues in a letter. If you bare any queotions or require additional i.,formation, please contact this office. Respectfully. Gabel, Cook d Becklurd, Inc Grant Beckl6nd Civil Engineer Enclosure .�93 Record of- Meeting 1-11� Conversation Phone No.Z74Zjffd2,9Z— it.e yam, zm±G v IO MER10 TO FILE Date B.py.BB Prod Desc, f- Jp�B�. �1 C,2, -o�vJ Representing: 1 _ I r I � / WPM wr / 31 K i CITY OF RANCHO PLANNING rrjex: MV(Z 87.741 CUCAMONGA, TITLE: S Me- TLf�J DIVI3IO:N1 , �5- EZHIBM D BALE: MI:' �, ` _� x:4,'1- `r,�4'`" y� -� ... `•; " ^ -' a° " �',- �!. -:� ACAEP778LC 14 77 � t cass�•_ . �- dCec�nar.6 (p -•- QED OASC_ �. F _ otucdnroN L i i �4 • � -1 T � nAaecvea i m E�L� Lot�1 ne,J 1 c y �� I -- - f— y - - • J � i O ^ J W � J - Y _ Z is Y n 6 w Div 'J.•f�f_ i r •� '! ; R .? # I �--..• . .;. : -, . r � '- � � p.. .: '_ �': }. •.. :� V ��.. ;' i. , i� .f .. �* �� •': •a `,• r' • �� Y Y�� .w 71 .�� . �� r vJ :^2+ r • 1 .: tom•• ` /yam w -� _ ! • � • ' • - .. _ � -'�`.� . ��:, ., ^�i: ,:ter . Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the onus falls ultimately on the supermrket owners to provide recycling. Commissioner Blakesley commented he felt a lot of thought had gone into setting up the guidelines, and he saw no reason to change them. Comesissioner Emerick stated the visibility argument was weak, as people do not recycle on impulse. Those who recycle know where the receptacles are located. Commissioner Tolstoy stated recycling is here to stay. He felt the law might be changed, but it would probably be strengthened. He stated the City has a history of trying to upgrade its design. He felt visibility of the receptacles within the parking tot is important, but aesthetics is more important. He also stated he felt the recycling center at Stater Brothers was ugly. Ms. Kinser stated that each facility was required to have an approved recycling facilities pentt. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be required to develop according to the development criteria, or have the recycling permit revoked. In that case, the applicant would be told to remove their facilities. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Hanrath commented that stores would have to move recycling centers inside the stores themselves if then were no recycling centers allowed an the parking lot. AB2020 would also require every other convenience store selling soft drinks or beer to go to provide in -store recycling or face $100 per day fines ks tr a are no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman MtNfel stated it was difficult for the Planning Commission to compromise good, sound community standards to support the variances. Notion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to approve the Resolutions denying Variance 88-17, Variance 88-13, and Variance 88-14 Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: - carried S. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS, INC - An appeal of the Conditions of prove or gra ng and paying of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minima Impact /Heavy Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9), located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APR: 209 - 143 -7, 8, and 9. Planning Comission Minutes -21 -/ September 14, 1988 1 EXHIBIT "H" Y r E Cynthia Kinser presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. r Grant Becklund, Civil Engineer representing Rider Trucks, stated that when they bought the property, the site across the street had not been developpeed. When that property was developed, they were not required to build their driveways to conform to the driveways already in place on the Commercial Carriers' property. Therefore, he requested a variance so he would not have n to reduce his driveways from four to one and to conform to the driveways put in after his were in place. He felt he was now being penal Ized for trying to Improve his property. He also wanted lights higher than the 25 foot maximum. As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel slued that when anything goes through Planning, they try to catch up on items that should have bean done in the past. Barrye Hansoa, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that street improvements are required when parking pavement is constructed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was under the impression that what triggered the requirement was the paving. Commissioner Chitlea stated the property was an eyesore that needed improvement. Commissioner Chitlea suggested a compromise regarding the numher of driveways and stated she felt landscaping was more important. Mr. Manson suggested adding a second driveway. Ms. Morris showed the original request of the applicant, which proposed three driveways. Commissioner Chiti•s pointed out she wanted the landscaping kept 1n, but was willing to compromise on two driveways. Comoissioner Blakesley concurred with allowing two driveways Commissioner Tolstey stated they should get landscaping and screening Mr. Buller asked if the Coorelssion was willing to give up the 5 foot perimeter landscaping within the parking lot. The consensus of the Comisslon was that they did not wish to forego that. Chairman McH,el reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant was willing to continue the matter. Mr Becklund stated he would like to continua the utter until October 26. 1988. Planning Commission Minutes -22- 3CN-..x September 14, 1988 As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed Motion;- .lbwd •by- Chitiea, seconded by Emarick, unanimously carried, to continue Minor Development Review 87 -71 to October 26, 1988. • i r s T. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-24 - DICKER- WARMINGTON wi es gn review or elevations a e site plan for a propose retail satellite building totaling 5,807 square feet within a 15.3 acre ;5 approved shopping center, in a Neighborhood Commercial District of the 1 Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN: 202- 801 -35. X: Brett Horner, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman MCM1el opened the public hearing. 4 r Joy Polgren, Project Manager for Dicktr- Warmfngton, stated they concurred with the staff report. As there were no further comments, the public paring was closed. Motiau: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chftfes, to adopt the Resolution appruving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88 -24. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, E)MERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOME ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: arried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS W. YMCA PARKING Brad Buller, City Planner presented the staff report. He further stated that staff recommended using the YMCA parking ratio numbers with a Conditional Use Permit. if a parking problem surfaced, they could then use the Conditional Use Permit to get the YMCA to adjust their program or schedule. Commissioner Chitiea agreed. Chairman McNfel suggested lomcfng at peak periods and trying to determine the number of parking spaces that would be needed. Chairman MCNfel opened the public hearing Planning Coeoisslon Minutes -23- � September 1., 1988 � a w RESOL•71ON NO. '3 $ - 20Y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENYING AN APPEAL OF MINOR DEVt'LOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -71 LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT/REAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF a THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. i r. A. Recitals. s (i) Commercial Carriers, Inc. has filed an application for the thisvResolution. HereinafterR ni thiso Resolution thels bjecttDeveltopmaK Review request is referred to as 'the 4pplication'. (11) On July 7, 1988, the City Planner of the City of Rancho f Cucamonga approved the application, by letter, subject to specified conditions. Gill The City Planner's decision was timely appealed to the Planning Commission on July 18, 1988. (fv) (Ai the 14th of September 1988, and continued to October 26, 1988, the Planning Cemalssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date adopting Resolution 88 -224 approving the application with modified conditions. (v) The Planning Commission's decisions was timely appealed to the Council on November 4, 1988. (vi) On the 7th of December 1988, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (vii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, 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 ail 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 meeting on December 7, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: 'SC4 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. MDR 87 -71 - COKERCIAL CARRIERS, INC. December 7, 1988 Page 2 n (a) The application applies to property located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard with a street frontage of 814 feet and an average lot depth of 673 feet and is prasently Improved with an office, warehouse, and parking lot; and (b) The prooerty to the north of the subject site is a multi tenant industrial park, the property to the south of that site consists of warehouse, the propeey to the east is vecant, and the property to the west is warehouse. (c) The application applies to a site that is currently improved with an office building, warehouse building and parking lot and is considered a le3al non - conforming lot; and (d) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.8 authorises the City Planner to Impose reasonable conditions upon a Minor Development Review permit approval, including requirements for landscaping, street improvements, regulation of vehicular ingress, egress and traffic circulation, establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion. (e) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.A states that the purpose and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process 1s to assure that such limited projects comply with all applicable City Standards and Ordinances. (f) The Site Plan submitted in conjunction with the application, does not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standard of a 35 foot average landscape setback aid minimum 25 foot parking setback, as measured from the ultimate face of curb. Further, the site plan and existing chain link fence improvements do not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standards for screening outdoor storage of vehicles within 120 feet of a street frontage with masonry, concrete or other similar materials. (9) The site currently is improved with four driveways within 820 feet of street frontage. The City's access policy for arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 300 feet apart. Therefore, only two driveways would be allowed on this site. Further, driveways should align with driveways on the opposite side of the street or by off - setting a safe distance to avoid conflicting left -turn movements. The City's access polity also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet r -om intersections. (h) The applicant has not filed any application for variance from the Industrial Specific Plan Standards and requirements. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to L.ms Council during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: Sc>IG- CITY CDMNCWAESMUnb0 'ND.� MR 87 -71 - CDMMKIAL CARRIERS, INC. December 7. 1988 Page 3 (a) That the proposed project is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is not in accord with the objective of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district to which the site 4 is located; and (c) That the proposed use is not in compliance with each of the applicable provlsfuns of the Industrial Specific Plan; and (d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to propertfe; or improvements In the vfclnity. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 3C�5 ( i� �.i Y' MUN[1R OMC CN ( CMi[R CIRCLC JANLf l MwRANNN n O 1OR 10200 NMOR [VI V wR C2.N20R1 OR[A ULI /ORFIN 1]120!l-102020 :T' RNa1N O MwNiOF �RAI ffO. O[OI O CRw1O IOA 1LL! /MCN [�IL I]I f11� y ]201i N.wrNw wo ov20a[n a, MEMORANDUM TO: Beverly Authelet, city clerk PROM: Andrew V. Aresynski, Assistant City Attorney DATED: November 28, 1988 RE: Amendments to Ordinance No. 383 As you will recall, at the last City Council meeting, Council Member Wright, with the remainder of the C']uncil concurring, indicated a desire to include language in the subject ordinance specifying the City's intention to continue to pursue graffiti, particularly in areas where the problem appears to be of a recurring nature. More specifically, Council Member Wright indicated a concern that the City staff not take the position that simply because graffiti continues to reappear in a given location, that staff should discontinue its efforts. Accordingly, set forth below please find proposed language concerning the subject which may be included in the ordinance. We would appreciate your asking council Member Wright to review the language to determine whether or not it comports wi J: her requirements. Please note that the title line for Section 8.24.010, both in the table of contents portion of the chapter as set forth in the ordinance and in the specific section Should be set forth as follows: ^Graffiti Aad Otner Inscribed Rdr&rja" DecipW IL4 bA A Nuisance: I,eoislatilrq Intent." Additionally, the following language should be inserted as a ueparate the at the end of section 8 24.010: RIt is the intent of the City Council that city staff aggressively pursue the eradication of graffiti in accordance with the provisions Of this chapter. rurthermore, those areas where graffiti is a continuing and recurring problem ehall be 4iven specific attention 3d7 Memorandum to: Beverly Authelet ?Iovember 28, 1988 Page Two and the rocources of the City marshaled to eradicate the same shall be utilized to respond to such areas on a continuing basis to signify tho commitment of the City to the eradication of graffiti, on an on -going basis." Again, we would appreciate your providing the abova- referenced langusga to Council Member Wright for her comments. Should you have any questions ploaso feel free to call. AVAtljl L \131 \MAUTMELT \R.C. 1.3.1 qtr E'2 X" t' DMI December 7, 1908 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT TOt Mayor and City Council FRONt Lauren M. Vasserrxn, City Mawger Dt(g]ECTt CONSIOERATIOM OF HEMERSHIF AFFLICATION FOR CALIYORNiA CONTiACT CITIE3 ASSOCUSION FICOMAK n•ATIONt It ip recommended that the City of Rancho Cucamonga bacons a member of the Cslifomis Contract Cities Association. This association deals essentially with the problexs and legislative issues which Impact those cities that provlda or receive contract services. The organisation is, in other words, a watchdog over issues which impaet� either positively or 'negativoly, the contract cities throughout the state. While the nucleus of the organisation is from the Los Angeles County area, the group does an excellent job of representing the Contract cities throughm,, the state. If City Council concurs with this recommandatioa, it would be appropriate to approve a motion authorising maabership. Funds are available within the General City Membership account for this activity. �,.f• A Y r i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �CAAfQ STAFF REPORT `��, 0 8 Z 1977 I DATE: December 7, 1988 TOS Mayor and City Council FROM: Lauren H. Wassorman, City Manager SUBdECT9 CONSIDERATION OF PARTNERSHIP 111 LITIGATION WITH CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION TO CORRECT INEQUITIES IN PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATIONS FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 13 RECONW- NDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider participating in litigation to seek a determinations by the courts, that the allocution of property texas to cities following the passage of Proposition 13, van unconstitutioeal. BACEGROUNDt This legislation is being sponsored primarily by bbe California Contract Citias Association. Hovever, there has been a great deal of interest in the City of Rancho Cucsmonga since wo are oat of the largest cities in California which contracts for law enforcement. In addition, we are a post Proposition 13 city. Based on an analysis conducted with the assistance of on, staff and a consultant hired by the Califomia Contract CitLea Associatioa, there appears to be evidence indicating that Rancho Cucamonga residents pa approximately $3,000,000 more in property tar. than they receive back in reven,a. This number grows in proportion to the growth in assessed valuation, so teat as ve continue growth, the condition will worsen ratter than improve. This is based upon a poet Proposition 13 legislative formula which allocated funds to cities as a permanent funding solution to local government. In view of the fact that up to $3,000,000 per year (present dollars) may be at stake, it appears to be worthwhile for the City to join in on this litigation with other contract cities throughout the state. Legal costa are estimated at approximately $350,000, since this is a major lawsuit. However, the City's proportional share of that amount would be $7,9451 based upon a formula developed by the Contract Cities Association, which includes a factor recognizing assessed value and the amount of potential gain in property taxes if the suit is successful. If the City Council wishes to instruct the staff to proceed with the litigation, an appropriate notion is in order. Funds arc available in the budget account for legal sntvices. a lli21�88 18:61 $ 818 444 0297 EL YONTE PRNTNO EL MONTE PRINTING 9721 Eael Gamay Avonue • DOuIP EI Monle, Caldomla 91730 (818)4449889 • (0101444-1160 • FA %•4440297 TELEFAX TRANSMITTAI. i �� •' DATE _Q? _ TIME F TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: �— IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL TO •K tt�n t...� /ieLniJl ��._ _s FROM SUBJECT 4 818 444 0287 EL MONTE PRNTNC California Contract Cities Association 9 3380 Flair Drive, Suite #217 • EIM0111e.CAIllornla817314.825 . (818)288.4444 PRESIDENT ltoveaher 7.1, 1984 MARCIAL (Rad) RODRIGUEZ Ill, Nor,rHl Lauren Nassarman ` In VICE PRL31DLNr City Managur ALBERT a PEREZ City of Rancho Cucamonga Smxb El MOdH 9320 Baseline Road led DICE PTcAW Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 A I. HATHAWAY Y L. H.DUH,IW, Dear Laurent SECRETARY The .alifornla Contrar.t Giles Ashncistion has retained MARY LOUity the firm of Sheppard. Mullin, Richter d Ilaapton to seek a Temple Cur detarminac_on by the courts that the allocation of property TREASURER DO LA taxes to titles after passage of Proposition 13 was uncon- 61LOBR0 Went, OSA eticuttonal. Tchn Sturgeon, our attorney, previously mailed Rm Rlrar a draft of our petition for writ of mandate and game of the PAST PH, CRNT legal authorities we will rely upon to your City Attcrney IIA ROL Lat'CROYTP .lsmds L. Markman. Uich the material provided Como P you Friday and our dlecueelon with you and Ma Stoddard, we solicit icit EXECUTIVE BOARD your city's participation 48 a plaintiff in this lawsuit. RUTH ALDACO The member cities of our AIRIOgia Cion have voted to Comm. assays themselves the legal coats which we anticipated at CHARLCS BELBA Bell, In 000. taxes time. oachacityaforseachP$10,000p that Chad L0"1O to bA rafsa4 for legal costs was davelopod for the assessment BILL CL'ANINGHAAI Using that basis, your city's gain is epotoximately $3 million Haeoopon Prrl Sa property taxes Therefore, your assessment for legal costa TOM JACKSON would be $7,945.00. Hummmod Pwl CHARLES e would welcome your city Joining In our lawsuit, as A RLES :ICn,alnov wall as becoming a member of the Californla Contract Cities AA90clat Lon Dues for a city of your size outside of Los JOHN ROBERTSON Angeles County is $400 00 per year C.d,by TOM THURMAN If you have any furhter questinne, Pleaeo feel free to L. ) contact me at (818) 288 -4444 LVIOI VERNOLA Aorv,all Sincer , SAN DIEGO CHAPTER CHAIRMAN GLORIA KIvCLCLLAN 0 EzoeutIN. Director EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SO /kgc SAN OLIVITU 3/ 5 Cialifornia I Cdiitract Cities tl ASSOCiation a388 Flab 0nve,Suue 0217 , EIMOn1tl,10e1110re1a91731.2825 , (818)288.4444 4LNUAI 1R,Vt Rol it I/ July 25, 191;p \on,u N LAU ern 'i k'n 1w 11(! 1L \1 C1ty of Rancho rssarmnfl II,l n PI11! ' wtllI NLL PI RI/ 93 In nn9eIis. Rnnd awln It \Ln¢ 1' Q, lox g l• IM "it PRl,III \l 1'Inchn Cuc nu In L1 OJ 7fr • )LU111ATIIA4 ,1 t, n,el. Ifsinno Uo.1r 4r ' vt(RLTAR1 MARL LOU S%AIy ' Tempw rm 1 tltt en[)Caiilr aunt her a. t t' rallforn SP "Ontrnet Cities Associa[Inn tp I1UA]VMLR fin(' Of icter•,r you r1a Y'!t oll "I NT of I A XIK % r,IO xnru ,1 tit 1111 111 y11 L If Pro posh ion tl, n.. PAA1 PRIautt \I nldL fuller service cities I" 'f tin• dlu r,•f I HARnl olp.0 l Am 1, ,ould rinve nrd I t nI to nvr morn and mere ii,n c,,, r.11 .n1 ',cc use of redneed resnOreeo- •intnta 10 /r, t;,, t ',,re costly lndividusl in -house services As n rro-ult since Ptop osi' Ion 13, 1 t\nlnH a uAxu „ n) of the:•` c" lr•, Art lolnfne the runtrp,ct IItlel• III n1 Al UAt0 AsSUL111 ton t• advun[n1;c of the tssortArto n's -lane r •m++rrar Icart utn11• exnerieoee in developinP I l."XI 11 nil 1.4 AN nt111 a1 ng coal rnfi ser %,Ice, hoth Irom n(IhI i[ A, 'Itir zings Lm�.�, for [rt 'n� �t•[C) In.' nri,ate fiu Aline I I I I 1 l 1 \\ I \, 11 A N q,,, 1•nnwn p,.. { I, (t • c III nnI of thraC ' 1111 1 ,, 1 111x° 1 t rn ' ' +Air r • A95fo n f, 1n Attr T('11 \'(• nr Intllµ Mll\ nr 10nG LO f0t r1 A11 1 \'� I r nl 1 r., ulnrnl I r ,1 rl• 1 r,•t 11 \xll�xn li.Mb�. r\ r ' it IJ Ifnrnll 'll n111r1 ' leS Al: of n n 1 I. V1,11 FVN 1 the 11 r 'Ir .l 1•T Al t 13 ten 1110, ,nd a.. nrur n tit„ prl nil. I'I I,1 IJ Al Gr n l At Jan ' n1 nr [ 1i tote• rr ^l r•I I 1 1IfPr 11 , Ih1 st 1te n,11 I deral levels ..1 P1, rrr• or Ir1p,Ir inn f rl'OAC cltle^ ' is 11n A l flu• •�n rxyal,dfn s"re el [fefent eceondrt \AA 011(q(IIAFIINlIlA1NUA\ one Pe service [hrou••h the fontrnct system, and Ll uxn a.nnl A� re trf [ICn our A-(Ivl ire to (Ursa ..pec1[fe Areas, Ilowever, t nlugh the years of working on these efforts ind contending with county Rovernments and develop Lap Mill Ii101Rt0Ox SA'.I OL stets legislation we have become a very closely -knit I.ITO and poll ticol ly disciplined organizat inn• which is whnt the cities find attractive in our orl;oniznLlon all,; led,to expanding our legislative activitfer to address broader city We conduct annually a number of special events that are beneficial In many ways to our member cities and their councils and staffs, from an education, political and social aspect, The na for event of the year In our Annual Municipal Palm Springs at wh i•:h wr Cry to examine and P Seminar held in Possible to the mayor problems confronting our produce answers stoh provide a forum for the exchange of information and 0xpc Sene es among our city councils and staffs, We have an Annual Legislative Orient o tfol TOLr to Sacramento which .,r oil of our participating members find vory retightening and informative on up- coming loglalativc (snore that will dl n,ctl,v affect choir cities +_ durine the coming year A :r 1160 provide a COM014sioners lorl.shop mach d^flnine the relations between the ro year to asal et in uncll nn.' commissioners and their r rlr ns Public policy makers we also provide considerable rasourcen for our member cities throw th Z` the various standing committees that conduct studies and lnvestlgatlona o -` the most avnlunblc of sthese and ls Pro,,roma of Committee Intel Of car City oManagers cities. One Administrators which cunduets research, studies and nnllysoa of Uw cost effectiveness of city servlcas, comnering public or pn vn to contracting ` with in-house services I or conbi nations of all three of these. Till, also ' serves as a forun for the oxchan•v of ideas and experiences between nor city manniers and administrators. which till of our cities find no extreme]) valuable resource that no indfvldun] the expenditure of nunh cnrsultln tors city could match without '^ c.rrentl y have two dl(fer.nt dues schedules• one for slums inside Los Angrloa County and another for those cities outside of Los j 1lghrrct Cnn nlhose The dr..s for the _Lon Angeles County cities are much refit= outsl„r of the nr r• bee star Hoar of Chr 1 ^o151ntivn n.'tr test rr ^ "r �ausr^rfOCr 'or hnvr n•.plf,d only to Ina Anpr L!. rrJ tr ,tn r 1 ountr, < ntr vlmn of our •ern br rshlp to Iu lhr I ,i r•ounty CAL, ha.r rren more rffnetivel) arrvnP to of .r otlatlnnc tver contract cnstr wire the 'oI,nty and other "n•nher r• s ore citlos outsl•'t• t i rnnntr lrrn Irininp now hernnv. I I (t.rn tins t hren�Ct stmt r. t.,r t 1t1 „r r 'rive heen '(Orr n r" u t ['ir c. Ile l ove' h• r at^ '� 'r` rnmmOn Ca a l l e l l rn ovine ^err, melon- rr 1 rl r r rl�i c, r',,I., i. ind ro rtertt, our r • r ]f vlt.. laocur t••e I`I r cc or S )/k v 3( 7 .o w ': i'!tIt. nn 7. i.., Ban Bernardino County i- �i �1Fr Redlands a f Rancho Gkc,uo g i" It Assessed ,f Value 014,946,094 32 $26,754,250 54 _ Attributed Revenues: W/o SOAP $15,648,647.38 $24,073,070 93 ' + v SnAF $15,447,931,85 927,793,890,31 yA,(, Attributed Revenues less �j Property Tax V,f w/o SDAF $702,333 26 ($2,681,179.61) ++j1 w SDAP $301,737,33 ($2,960,360,21) C= L f h , NE .r • x 'yl ',ti 6A5 \ \ ' } 0 } . . / 2 C 2 { § :3 2 — t / k @ / ; ■ 2 ■ E k � 0 2 � o z7�into � Q . �(� � ] J OD 2 2 k / OD 2 m � �� G r;i{ �` OF RANCHO NCAl1(ONOA nm oa. rm ur, s,.enuw.,.,., au,r.mn. nuY V.►ICl � 1. November 23, 1988 r� G; Lauren Wasserman, City Manager City of Rtnche Cucamonga lA- P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, 91730 Dear Lauren, S� :;•� It has cone to my attention that there is goal confusion as `• to the responsibil.ltie■ of the new Lieutenant's position �r that we requested from the City Council. ?I I believe the staff report that we prepared for the city, s Council, requesting the new Lieutenant's position, was toe brief and did not explain the full duties that would be the reaponaibility of the new Lieutenant. In order to clear up this situation, I would like to delay iur request for an addittoneI Lieutenant's poeitton until °• the mid- fiscal year budget review, this delay would allow us the time to prepare a proper staff report explaining the need for the ne,r position. r' C Respectfully, Bugs, Gilmore, Captain Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station 9333 9th Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 eG=la t 3 d ,Wnb N. &own 6..,.r n uw INrp K4J 4L..e. S, DermG L Saw Chadal agmll Pme J. wek< l I�M K W� Y 'ro r.M: S a r,r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Laura J. Bonaccorst, Landscape Designer SUBJECT: Entry Monumentation - Request for Subcommittee Revfe� RECf%"V ATId1: It is recommended that the Mayor appoint a subcommittee to review the Entry Monumentetior, concepts and have the subcommittee return to City Council with a recommendation. Background /Malysls For Fiscal Year 1987 -88, staff requested and rrceived permission from Planning Com isslon and City Council to develop a City Entry Monumentation program based on approved designs on Archibald Ave ue and Base Line koad. Staff hired R.J.M. Design Group to prepare the menumentation ;grogram which included major gateways and standard entries at previously approved locations. Concepts were presented to D.R.C. where a Planning Comulssion subcawfttee was estabiished to 7urther review the concepts. Upon examination of the concepts, the cubcomraittee provided additional desiqn criteria, and a new generdtion of wnumentatfon conv,pts evolved. The concepts were ther. wdified again as staff was compelled to make several design modifications to bring them within the allotted funds for these projects. In suammry, 3 entry monumentation programs have been designed. In order that adequate review be given these concepts, staff is requesting that the Mayor appoint a subcommittee to evaluate them and return to the Council with a recommendation for approval Respectf submitted, ` RHM:LJ . rx f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TD31 City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Bob Zetterberg, Maintenance Supervisor Streets i Storm Drains SUBJECT: Report to City Council on City Street Sweeping Program The City Street Sweeping Program consists of five sweeper operators working on a Pour 10 hour day work week, three vacuum and two broom sweepers (ora broom machino is a backup) servicing an estimated 597 curb miles. There are at least Pour sweepers on the road five days a week between the hours of 6:00 a.m. "d 1:30 p.m. sweeping a scheduled area which follows local trasn pickup schedules. The City is broken down Into seventeen different areas in relationship to the trash pickup schedule and is swept as Pollowa: Residential areas are swept every two weeks, the day following trash pickup. The Civic Center area is swept once a week on Monday, including south of Foothill Avenue, east of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Route, west of Rochester Avenue. Major arterial streets are swept once a week on Tuesday or Wednesday, including Carnelian Street, Hellman Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Beryl Street, Haven Avenue, 4th Street, Arrow Route, Etiwanda Avenue, San Bernardino Road, Base Line Road, Banyan Street, and Hillside Road Foothill Boulevard, 19th Street and Highland Avenue, which are state routes, are swept once a week on Fridays. The Industrial area including south of Arrow Route, east of Hermosa Avenue, north of 4th Street, and to east City limits, is swept once a month. City owned parking lots are swept week)- on varying days Please note new subdivisions are not swept until the developments are accepted by the City. This quite often creates a d•!)ay it. the City providing sweeping service to these areas after occupancy, but before acceptance. City Council Staff Report City Strcet Sweeping Program December 7, 1988 Page 3 Our current level of service compasses :avorably with neighboring Cities. Ontario presently operates five aweepers awl five operators servicing an astimated 450 cvrb miles matching our service intervals. Upland operates three sweepers and three operators servicing an estimated 500 curb miles providing monthly sweeping of all City stree:a. Due to the high maintenance needs of street sweeping equipment, ,`• our current prcgram makes optimum use of man and equipment by keepinn a standby sweeper at the ready. The backup awerper minimizes operator down time and allows sweeping service to remain uninterrupted during unscheduled equipment maintenance. ,. Scheduled equipment maintenance is programed for weekend service performed by our maintenance contractor. In providing for off hours maintenance service time, a backup sweeper and proper scheduling, we are aiming to provide maximum weeping service to the citizenu of Rancho Cucamonga. Included with thJs staff report Is a copy of the sectional map for the Council to refer to when sweeping schedules are questioned. Respect£ submitted, RRM:RZ:dlw Attachments CITY OF RANCHO CUCJU40NGA STREET SWEEFING HISTORY 1901/1982 F.X. First street sweeper was purchased Major arterial streets wure swept by a contractor on a 2 week schedule Residential areas arc swept on a 6 -C week rardav schadulu by the City sweeper. Employesu perform majority of service and repairs or the new sweeper. /983/1984 P.Y. Prior to this Lime, all maintenance workers were rotated into the sweeper on a monthly basis it is determined one person will be assigned to this position on a full -t:me basis. The sweeper is used to clean storm drains and catch basins on a limited basis. 1984/1985 F.Y. Second sweaper, a full broom machine, is purchas6d. Sweeper operator position is cleated and two maintenance workers are promoted. Residential areas ate swept on a 6 week random schedule. Vacuum sweaper used to cl an storm drains and catch basins on a limited basis. Major arterial stre.,cs are swept by cuntractor on a two week schedule. Operator doing :,ajority of service and repairs. Ten hour /four day summer schedule. 1986/198/ Y.Y. Two n•w vacuum sweepers purchased Vu ^u,.m sweeper to be used as backup and for storm drain clearing. Third operator hired Ten hour /four day work schedule becomes year -round standard. operator doing minimal repairs, major repairs done by contract. Arterial streets swept by the contractor on a 2 weak schedule. Residential areas swept once a month by City. STREET SWEEPING HISTORY PAGE 2 y. 0 1987/1988 P.Y. One new vacuum sweeper purchased. Two additional operators hired (total of 5). Sweeping Contract deleted to $30,000.00 annual savings. Major aiterial streets and residential areas sahtdulid twice a month, some operator -and equipment problems extel.d time. Operators doing daily maintenance only, major service and repairs done by contract. 1988/1989 P.Y. One broom machine purchased in order to put old broom machine as a backup. A split -shift program is put into effect allowing the City to, have four sweepers sweeping five days a week /partially rr,imbursed by Caltrans under existing maintenance agreement. Residential areas swept every two weeks. Arterial streets swept every week. Industrial area swept once a month. 3.� S _ V CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATBt December 1. 1988 TOt City county. City Maunger FROM: Duane A. Baker Adminietrotive Aaeiet SrWECT1 DISPLAY OF Z -RATED VIDRO C0VMS AND MATERIALS ",a 1977 Staff racomaends that the City Council al.w City staff to actively encourage volumtery complianca through direct contact with merchants and the Chamber of Commerce in regards to the display of Z -Rated videos and materials. Should staff have difficulty in getting cooperation from merchants then it in recomendad that Council direct the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance regulating how Z -gated materials can be displayed. 0ry -.Zq At the City Council meeting of November 2. 1988 staff was direct&{ to exam,, how L -& red videos and materials were being displayed in this Caty. The primary concern "pressed was chat explicit video covers and nagsainaa were displayed in such a way " to be clearly visible to children. The City staff aurvayed nine (9) video stores and amen (7) convenience. liquor and book at,-rev where adult materials might be available. In each of the nine video stol as rarvoyed. the adult videos tither warn in a section clearl serked a adult• or Vero saparot.d free the root of the store. In thove cazte where the adult sectium was in the main pert of the store. the videos were W. oplaysd spine out and not full face. In the seven comrnlance. liquor and book stores surveyed only three sold adult raterials. Two of theme stores had all of their adult magssiats wrapped in a blinder package which allowed only the title to be seen. The other store had adult books and magazines prominently displayed near the entrance. There appears to bo an effort by east merchants who nail or root adult materials to limit the access of childraa to tbasa materials. It is recotnendad that staff capitalize on the generally shared practice of lrmiting access to adult materials by actively am•oureging voluntary compliance with community standards rntba. than immediately passing an Ordinance. If staff finds that volant ry compliance is not forthcoming. then an Ordinance could be drafted to address the problem. :Yy e i P z, t A r w `r CITY OF RANJ'HO CUCAMONGA STAFY REPORT DATE: November 29, 1988 10: Mayor and City Council FROM: Laurea H. Wasserma, City Manager SUBJECT: City Council Committee Appointments <-- Per your request, the follroting informati regarding City Council Cowmittee Appointments is provided for your review. If yap have any questions, please feel free to contact me. We will schedule these committee appointments under the Council Business portion of the December 7th agenda. City Council Committee AGDeintlentl Southern California Associated Coverment4 (SCAT:) - Delegate: Stout Alternate: Brown Inland Empire League of California Cities - Delegate: Wright Baldy Viaw Public Private Coalition - Delegates Mayor Alternate: Ting Chamber of Commerce Representative - Delegate: auquet Alternate: Wright Finance - Delegates: Brown and Stout Solid Waste Management /Recycling - Delegate: Buquec Alternate: Brown Soil grosion - Delegates Wright Alternate: Buquet aI - Brown /Wright The following co ®ittees are no longer active. The City Council may wish to abolish these co ®itteeat Foothill Boul"sxd Subcomsittee - Delegatest Stout and Btow Housing Set Aside Subcommittee (RDA) - Xing and Buquet Campaign Financing Options or Limitations Subcommittee - Ring and Wright CucamTnS*- Cuaeti park Subcommittee Wright and Buquet 2,j 'I■ K i City Council Committee Appointments lsjt.}. November 29, 1988 page Tro D Co ity Foundation Liaison Delegates Stout Alternates Wright 7's City Selection Committee r - Mayor /Nayor'a Designee As Required Mobile Homo gent Review mn' - Delegates Xing Alternates Brovn i i• geduvelops t Marketing Subcommittee - Brown /Wright The following co ®ittees are no longer active. The City Council may wish to abolish these co ®itteeat Foothill Boul"sxd Subcomsittee - Delegatest Stout and Btow Housing Set Aside Subcommittee (RDA) - Xing and Buquet Campaign Financing Options or Limitations Subcommittee - Ring and Wright CucamTnS*- Cuaeti park Subcommittee Wright and Buquet 2,j 'I■ City Council Committee 6ppointmants November 20, 1988 Page Three Council Subcommittee to Interview Commission Aoplie nts Planning Commission Interview Meats 5rd and 4th Wednesdays Public Safety Com Interview Beets lot Tuesday of on /mo Advisory Commission Interviev Meets 4th Thursday of ea/ma Historic Commission Interview Meets 1st Thursday of as /= Park S Recreation Go® Interviev Meets 4th Thursday of ea /mw Listed belov are the terms due to expire: P lsnoiv¢ Ccmmie eion Suzanne Chities Bruce Bmerick Public Safety m- ei on One Vacancy (Bill Alexander) Fill unexpired term to Advisory Commission ('Is Vacancy (Bob Thomas resigred) Stephen 3arras Grace James Vies Ross Historir_PreservaLion Commission None Park and Re, -, ation Commission Pam Henry Holly Mitchell i Sam Punter I� LM,I:jls 88 -787 3q Tern Expires 01 -01 -89 01 -01 -89 01 -01 -92 01 -01 -89 01 -01 -89 01 -01-89 01 -01 -89 Ol -01 -89 01 -01 -89 01 -01-89 Ring /Brow Arovn /Wright Bror-r /Buquet Stout /Wright Ring /Wright I CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City tanager FROM: Russell N. Maguire, City Engineer 37: Richard R. Cota, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT. Public Nearing to receive input regarding the proposed intention to construct the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain betxe -n Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1 and award of said contract. pEC0gE1plITIDM: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolutions for A) Ordering Certain Changes and Modifications in the Work in a Special Assessment District and D) Warding the Contract for the Construction of Certain Public Works Improvement in a Special Assessment District; said improvements being the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1. BACR6ifA.W /AIY ISIS• This report presents the Enggineering Staff's intent and recommendation to the draincouncil facilities within October Ass�essment District b2- 1LtAD82 -1). to additional fundedStorm from remaining Assessment revenue. AD82 -1 is bordered by the following approximate boundaries: Arrow Route on the north, Deer Creek Channel on the west, Fourth Street on the south and Rochester Avenue on the east The proposed storm dr4ln facilities will planned facilitie2 provide consistency plann d facilities weredesignedaforaQ100 year flows to be contained within the right -of -way and Q25 year flows to be carried in storm drains. The first additional facilirj to be addressed is the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue. It is proposed to construct a 39' storm drain in Jersey Boulevard in order to mitigate potential Q100 year flows which are presently projectsd to flow beyond the right -of -way. This stretch of Jersey Boulevard has fully developed adjacent properties. The proposed storm drain will interconnect an active storm drain pipe and inlet facilities at Jersey 8ouievard and Utica Street with a presently existing inactive storm drain pipe and inlet facilities at Jersey Boulevard and Red Oak Avenue. CCSR December 7, 1988 Page 2 It is r- cowended that the City COU6Cii open the Public Nearieg for Protests was objections published to the said proposed storm drain 1mProvements as said hearing was pablis as required by taw, It 1s also recommended that the City Launch approve and adopt th Resolutions ordering said changes and modificatfons to A082 a attached _1 construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, 4 RY. Ire., for $12T. 918.70 LairdaConstruction o a the No. 83- 5637 -6028. ' be funded from Assessment Revenue Account Aespectb"y submitted, RIMI: RRCC: %pam cc: Jerry Fulwood, Resource Services Director Attachr+ent ■ - ■§ , ,/ R■ R ®f! -£ \ . R §a ■e e§ k » I! � k |§ §§ ■B §! ; �t� � ;B ka ■kk B�� § jk at kk k. 8 8 2M gm ƒ . § § ..s■ ka kke .)ƒ :, ;!§§ k §k §e e§ kk ■ k~ § k k B$ 2| |B 2& 7 B §§ )§}B 7! ■ ! �� :� � � � � � � � 2� »e= � + � »«�� y%�� , � , _ . , , , � \� , , .:� e , , . ,,� �t : _ . . - . _ � �z \�[� � \k � �/ � � 9� ` � � « ` #• - � - ,3: f \ � § \� / � P »; ƒ !■ � / . Ee � /k } � f '� © | E & K�§ . § � 2 \ )!` § ¥ §2 �� ( }� § f n� -/§ 2 § ! § k � ; � ORDER or lROCL mm • CITY O! RANCHO CUCAMCMIA ASSESSMENT DISIAICT NO. 82 -1 (SIR STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING, DDC[MBLR y, 1988 o ., a l•, g, MAYOR, Announce s a the t that this tae and place for hearing protoste or objections to certain Proposed changes and 'odlfications to the work in the AsesssNSDt District. CITY CLLRR, AnnoDnC* that nrilce of the public hearing was as required by law, and an affidavit of Publication Pl nhla i on file. k,• STAFFS Generally discuss Proposed changes and wodificaticns the walk. to ttl • Announce that no aaeecamnts will be inLreased by reason of the proposed change. Report on percentage of written protests received (S of assessable area). Explain alternates, if any, in proceedings Report on results of construction bidding. END OF BSAFF REPORT - OPB11 PUBLIC HEARING FOR Discussion MAYOR, Ask to hear from anyone who wishes to Peak for and /or against the Proposed W modifications to tM work CITY COUNCIL, Declare Public Nearing CLOSED IP TEE LBOISIATM BCD! NISEEB TO PAOCim CITY COUNCIL, Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CNA:7CC9 AND MODIlICATIDA9, Formal action ordering changes and a,odificatlono to the mrk In the Assssament District, CITY COUNCIL, Adopt RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRAL7, Formal action awarding construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder D EESCLOTSoN No. RESOLUTION OY THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY' OF "RANC,NO CUtAmONOA, CALIFORNIA CRDMU30 CrnTISN CHANGES AND mODlri- CATIONS IN THE WORK IN A SPECIAL. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONOA, CALI Pssolutlon pursuant to the p FORNIA, has adopted a MdSlgnJ of chapter a,5 of Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and specifically Section 10352, (the •municipal Improvement Act of 191]•), deeluing Its intention to order certain Changes and modlfscationo i• the proc•tedingw and the works of improvement, and did, Pursuant to law, sat forty a time and place for a public hearing on said proposed changes and modifications In a 9paCl&1 assesament district known and essignated as ASSESSNENT DISIF,1Cr NO. 82-1 (STN STFJIET' INDUSTRIAL AM) (hereinafter rafcrred to as the •Asyssamant Ulatrict•)t and, WHEREAS, at thLe time notico of the public hearing on the proposed changes and modifications has bean given In the manner and form am required by law) and, WNERE)1S, this legislative body Ras heard the presentation and testimony as it relates to "a proposed changes and modifications, and this legislative body in now ready to proceed to take action on Said croposed changea and modifications. NUM, THIRSTORE. IT IS NEARLY RESOLVED AS FOLLONE, SECTION 1 That the above CeLtals are all true and correct SECTION J That this leglslatln Sy hereby orders thou changes and modifications u sat forth in a R tlon of Intention to order said change& modifications, said change. 9snerally described as follows, and The construction and Lnetallatl-- of addltlonal storm dean facilities and appurtenances to carve all proper- ties within the boundaries of this Assessment District SECTION 1 That the above referenced changes and madifications, as ordered, do not Cause any increase In any assessments ae previously levied Assessment DiatLict. for this SECTION a That the decision■ and dstersinations of this legislative body orderin0 the above - referenced charsas and modifications shall be final and conclusive upon all persona e1titled to appeal thereon. m �• •"•' 9v .� ' 111 `i�;' {:1�i+;.i.L.i�✓_`= Ytii.di r. -r trp,. -. �' °.'h .•: t � '.� . af., *'A -L -'1: sECrICR 5. That the. Englnsai'a -Report", t6• Asa•saeent Pall, and all related dooupntatlon, as herein •odlPled, are for the beat Interest of the t. Property owners :within the Asaeesnent District, and !sold m of 'Report, shall stand as the Engineer•• •Report• for ill subsequent Proceedings relating to this Regalement District. APPROVED and ADOpm this day of 1088. ATTE97, CITY CLERK CITY Or RANCHO CpCANOMA STATE Or CALIrORNIA L. MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONOA STATE or CALIrOPMIA ��,,° . 5l '.� ayi *('..1+�+ ay`�'c'.Me.`^'" ��:' —•r. •y" �, _ . ... : ,—!: - - • =�. a K, 1 ' Y STATE Cr CALIFORNIA' - rCOUNTY OF SAN EEIMARDINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , I, BEVERLY A. A9nm=, CITY CLEM of the CITY OF p"CHO CUCANOMA, CALTEORAIA. DO HEREUY CERTIFY that the foragolnq Resolution, balnq iteeolutlon No. , was duly pawed, approvad and adopted by the City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clark, all At the aretinq of said City Council held on the day o1 , 1980, and that the sa was paned and adopted by the following vote, AYES, COUNCIL MBMBBRS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS RESENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS EXECUTED this day of 1998, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. IBr.hL1 CITT CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHMA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN RZSULUTInf( FO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OT RANCHO CJCANONOA, CAI,IFnRNIA, AWARDING THE CONTRACT TOR THE CONOTRUCTION Or CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the CITY COVNCII. of the CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, did publi-ly open, aaaalne and declare all sealed proposals or bide for doing certain of the works of improvamant as sat forth and shown on the plane and specifications which wore approved for prooaadings in a special anesmrnt district, said proceedings Laing taken pursuant to the provisions of the 'Municipal Improvement Act of 1913•, being Division 12 of the Streets and Highwayw Code of the State of California, mild special assessment district known acd designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 87 -1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the - Amessaaeat District -). NON, THEREFORE. IT aS HRRZDY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS$ SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 That this legimlat'_ve Jody Nereby rejects all of said proposals or bids except that herein mentioned, and does hereby award the construction contract for doing said work and making improvements in the Assanant District to the lowwst responsible bidder, to -uitH LAIRD CONSTRUCTION W., INC. at the prices named in the bid of said bidder on file with the tran- script of these proceedings and open for public inspection SECTION 1 That the works of improvement shall be constructed in the manner and torn as set forth in the plans and specifications as previously approved for those works of improvement. SECTION m That the Mayor and City Clerk are hen%by authorised to elecuta the Agreement for the aorkt of improvemant relating to said AFsessment District, and a copy of said Agreement shall be on Lila with the transcript of theme proceedings. SECTION 6. That all monies to pay for the coats and expenses of the above referenced Assessment District shall be paid from the funds as deposited In the Improvement Tund, including any interest oarned chareon APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , •988 MAYOR CITY OT RANCHO CUCAIIONOA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST, CITY CLEAR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1. STATt OF CALIPoIWA 000" OF SAM BtANM0IN0 -I ' Ci PANCyo NCAMOM7A ;7 BMRLY A. that tk" CY OoIin )te o the CI17 Oi RANCHO NCA1k1N0Ar CAI'SiOMIA, pp duly pa••ad foregoing •otutlon, f Mayor, end ■Ct [ Q p ani Adopted being Auolutlon No. `t uCOUncll h•ld on the Y the Cldt. clock, all c at he Council approved and •— 1— q ld LY the Passed and aAOpted b y Of —�"�— iaetln9 of uld c Y tIi falloulnp voto& . 1989, and that the sap e, a Ayes, COUNCIL McveaRs +� ewes, COUNCIL Nanetns AB9eftr, COU'CIL HIMHIRS ABSTAIN' COUNCIL XWIRs "ICUT" thle M1 —�.. day at '— �—.��, 1988, at Rlnchc C,Ca nqa, California. I . CITY CLBRI C171 OP RANCHO CUCANpIfOA SS'ATI OP CALITOMtA I SEAL i f z° — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 7, 1988 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Richard R. Cota, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Public Hearing to receive input regarding the proposed I -itention to construct the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1 and award of said contract. RECOMMENDATION. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolutions for A) Ordering Certain Changes and Modifications in the Work in a Special Assessment District and B) Awarding the Contract for the Construction of Certain Public Works Improvement in a Special Assessment District; said improvements being the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue within Assessment District 82 -1. 2ACKGA0 iD /AMALYSIS• This report presents the Engineering Staff's intent and recommendation to the City Council on October 19, 1988 for the construction of additional storm drain facilities within Assessment District 82 -1 (AD82 -1), to be funded from remaining Assessment revenue. A082 -1 is bordered by the following approximate boundaries: Arrow Route cn the north, Deer Creek Channel on the west, Fourth Street on the south and Rochester Avenue on the east. The proposed storm drain facilities wilt supplement and provide consistency with the now existing original master planned facilities. Said master planned facilities were designed for p100 year flows to be contained within the right -of -way and 025 year flows to be i.drried in storm drains. The first additional facility to be addressed 1s the Jersey Boulevard Storm Drain between Utica Street and Red Oak Avenue. It is proposed to construct a 39' storm drain In Jersey Boulevard in order to mitigate potential 0100 year flows which are presently protected to flow beyond the right -of -way. This stretch of Jersey Boulevard has fully developed adjacent Properties. The proposed store drain will interconnect an active storm drain pipe and inlet facilities at Jersey Boulevard and Utica Street with a presently existing Inactive storm drain pipe and inlet facilities at lersey Boulevard and Red Oak Avenue 1.��"r, `�S; r °� r- ., :. ;-arc. •- -;t.�) i _ _ . ' ;Xutii '%�'k:: ` CCSR December 7, 1968 , Page 2 It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Fearing for protests ;., or objections to the said proposed storm drain improvements as said hearing was published as required by law. It is also recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the attached Resolutions ordering said changes and modifications to ADB2-1 and award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Laird Construction Copan, Inc., for $132,918.70 to be funded from Assessment Revenue Account No. 83 -4637 -6028. Respect l>'y'submittod, RW:RRC:pam cc: Jerry Fulwood, Ro3ource Services Director Attachment ti ;b -nT ■ ! , � ] \` !� §| k � /� ` k }} f ■� i | .. ..�■■ ;3 p| |! . � §■ " k� k§ § k- §� Bk§,ke Ba r ) §! | 2$ 2; ■ \! § ■e§( §.kB ■ � ,/ $§ ;■ § ,£ EP ke ae k§ ■ saƒ � | ;% §$ *8 )% §■ § § k 's ;;kk§e k. § ,• � §§( /■) £; | % {�| § ,§ §r we§» $ k B§ 7 |) §§ ■ § ~ § k ke *8 *8 kk k § !� §| ■'$�2 k (7( ] \` !� §| k � »■ » ■� §§ . x - � / | �- . E§ { § ;` \ � 3 ■q -§§ 2§2 § | � f a � § ! . e , ; »■ I _ ORDER OF PROCEDURE C' rT OF RANL..9 CUCANONCA ASSLSSMtlfr DISTRICT No. 8I -1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) DATR OP PUBLIC HEARINGS DECEMBER J. 1988 MAYORS Announce that this is the cjr.e and place for hearing protwsb or Objections to carta)n proposed changes and + Modifications to the work In the Aset■■mant District. CITI CLERES I Announce that notice of the public hearing was publl■hed as required by law, and an affidavit of publleation la on file. STAFFS Centrally discuss Propo■od changoo and modifications to the work. Announce that no aaresementt will be increased by reason of the proposed changa. Report on percentage of written protests rwceived (a of asese■shle area) Explain altsrnateo, if an), in prcceadingu Report on results of constructJon bidding END OF ST"r "PONT _ OPEN POELIC REARING Met DISCUSSION )A °ORS Ask to near iron anyont who wLvhe■ to ■ against the yaak for and /or 4 Proposed Modlfleatlone to the work. CITY COUNCIL, Daclart Public Nearing CLOSED I► TIM LEGISLATIVE DODT NISIMS TO PROC.tm CITE COUNCIL. Adopt RESOLUTION ORDERING CHANGES AND NODIPICATIONSS Formal action ordering rnanges and modifications to <ne work in the A66"INDent DLetrl:t cir" COUNCIL Ldopt RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTAACTS Farmal action award)ng construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION Or SAE CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, cALIFOPIIIA ORDERINO CERTAIN CHANGES AHD NODTrl- CATIONS IN THE WORK III A SPECIAL ASAE.9SRERT DISTRICT WNEAEAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CfyTrORNIA, has adopted a Resolution pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4.5 of Division 12 of the Streets and Mblaways Coda of the State of California, and specifically Se:tion 103539 (the •NUnlolpal Imprrvamant Act of 1913•), declaring its intention to order cwrGin changes and n.odlf lcattons ir the proceedings and the worko of Inprovament, and did, pursuant to law, not forth a time and place for a public hearing on said prcpoead changes and modWeatione in a special amsesseent district known and daslgnatad as ASSESSHEIT DISTRI -rr NO. 63 -1 (6TH STNrET INDUSTRIAL AREA) (hereinafter referred to as the `ASe,ssmenl District-)j and. WNEREAS, at this time notice of the public hearing o the proposed Changes and modifications has been given in the manner and fora as required by laws and, 7 WHEREAS, this legislative body has heard the presentation and testimony an It relates to the proposed changes and modiftcations, and this legislative body is new ready to proceed to take action on said proposed Charges and modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, IT YS HERESY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS& SECTION 1 That the Qbova recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2 That this legislative body hereby orders thou changes and modification, as not forth in a Resolution of IntentLm to order said changes and modificationu, slid changes grneral!y described as follwes The construction and installation of addstlonal atom drain Cacilitlas arA apra¢tenances to urns all proper- ties within the boundaries of thin AO,s,arsens: District. SECTION 3 That the above referenced changes and m,dlfications, as crdared, do not souse any increase In any assessment, as prerlouely levied for this Assessment District SECTION 4 That ohs deck :ons and detarmlratlono -if this legislative body ordering the above - referenced changs� and oodificatisne shall be final and conclusive upon all persons entitled to appeal thereon 3ECTI(9f S. That the Englneer•s -Report., the Asseesm of Roll, and all related documentaticn, a bereln modlflM, are for she bast interot pf the PCOPartp owners withLn the AesanmenL Dlstrlet, and uld modifthe 'Report" shall stand as the Engineer's •Report• for all subsequent praeeadings relvtlrq to thle Assessment District. APPROVED and ADOPTED this OAF of . 1988 RhYOR CITY OP RASCHO CUCAHORCA STATE OP CAI.IPORRIA ATTEST, MY CLERK ��- CITT OP PARCHO CUCAHOEOA STATE OF CALIYORRIA Sees m STATE Or CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN ISRNARDINO CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONOA I, BEVERLY A. AUTEELET, CIT. CLERK of the CITY Or nMCHO CUCANCNCA, CALIFORNIA, 00 HAPEBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. van duly passed, approved and adopted by the City COMM)LI, • ro. the Mayor, and attested by the City Clork, all at the Fp ad and signed by CM Council held on the day of meeting of said City was gagged and adopted by the lollwlnq wte— �'-'-� 1988, and that the same AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES$ COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSTAIN$ COUNCIL MSNBER.S EXECUTED this day of 1988, At Rancho Cucamonga, California CITY CLEAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOHOA STATE Or Churohmu [SEAL) RESOLUTION MO. tF RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL Or THC CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING !!!�' THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Or CERTAIN PUBLIC wOAKs Or INPROVENEAT IN A SPECIAL 1SSESSNEHT DISTRICT W"RFAn, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY 07 RANm CUCf!(ONOA, �JILIFOAEIA, did publicly opan, exaolne and declare all sealed proposals or bide for doinV certain of the 1 works of improvement an set forth and shown on the plane and specifications which were approved for proceedings in a special anessmnt district, said proceedings being taken pursuant to the provisions of the •Huniclpal Improvement Act of 1913', being Division 12 Of the Streets and Nighwayo Code Of the State of California, said special assessment dtstric: known and designated a PSSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -1 (6TH STMEET INDUSTRIAL A02A, (hereinafter referred to as the •Aasossment Dlstrict•t Mi. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLONSI SECTION 1. That the above recitals are all true and Correct. SECTION 2 That this legislative body hereby rejects all of said propovals or bid@ except that herein mentioned, and doves hereby award the construction contract for doing *aid work and making lmprovemente in the )%asesxmnt District to the lowest responsible bidder, to -wit, LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO., IIIC. at the prices named in the bid of said bidder on file with the cran- acript of these pcocsedinge and open for public inspection. SECTION 3 That the works of improvement shell be constructed In the mannwr and form as set forth in the plans and specificationo an previously approved for these works of improvement. SECTION 0 That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to exec,te the Agreement for the works of improvement relating to acid Assessment District, and a copy of said Agreement shall be on file with the transcript of these proceedings. SECTION 3 That all monism to pay for the costs and expenaea of the above referenced Assessment District shall be paid froo the funds an deposited in the Improvement Fund, Including any interest earned theracn APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1988 MAYOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA ATTEATt STATE OF CALIFOAIIIA CITY CLERK CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATI Or CALIFORNIA W SIAM OF CALI"NIA COUNTY OF BAN BsgNAPOINO CITY' OF RAKCNO CUCANCNOA I, 'I'll A. 4Uil2L"' CIII CLXRA of the NiA11sr cvmzrr that cha fora CIIX OF AANCNO COCAlf.. CALiIOMIA, OO Y passed, a roved and adopted by the being it# fpyro No. , vas .� duly � „ mayor, and attested by the City clerk, atlC at thhncl!, sPprovsd and signed by the Council held on the day of eaeting Of said City was passed and adopted by tki tailoring rnte� - -' 1908, and that the saws z > AYCBt ^.OUNCIL ms"XRB ' Nosst COVNCIL MC11tIR0 ABeCNTt COUNCIL NaNSEm ANBIAIN, COUNCIL NaNazas t SICCUTCO this day of � , 19BP, at Pnncto Cuo —n9a, California. IBCALI CITY CLERX CITY OF '"CN0 CUCALONOA eTATE OT CALI1'OANIf. 0 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCnbiONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 1988 it _, m: T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Henderi;on, Senior. Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SLWEC1. MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEHT/ENVIROMMUTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE Attached is c memo from the environmental consultant regarding revision and correction to the Cucamonga Canty Water District's response to the water quality /sewer issues. This information should be incorporated as part of the public covert on the subject MEA/EIR at tonight's meeting. AW:mlg Attachment K .Y- �N�at ,a t Date: December 7, 1988 To: Alan Warren Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department From: Kent Iforton Planning Network Re: Corrections to Water Comments i On December Sib, I spoke with George Blanchard with the Cucamonga County Water District regarding the memo I sent to you dated November 1, 1998. In this memo, I outlined a previous conversation I had wise; W. Blanchard about water quality in the Ran- cho Cucamonga area and comments that were made In the General Plan EIR. Mr. Blan- chard called to correct two Items In the I1 /1 memo. First, the California Action Level (CAL) for nitrates is 45 parts per million (ppm not parts per billion (ppb) as Indicated In the previous memo This was a typogrcphical r ror in the I1 /1 memo. Secondly, in the 11 /1 memo, I stated !b:ct Mr. Milochard knew of no instances whee the nit-'ate levels in CCWD wells had sac - :dad the CAL. Mr Blanchard called to tell me that Ise rccailed saying that no wcils as t"t a escctded the standard, but that on more than one p,evious occasion, thece of their wells (8, 18, and 20) did exceed the CAL for nitrates. %fr. Blanchard said that, It response to this problem, the CCWD blended water from these wells with other well water to reduce nitrate levels to acceptable le cis before distribution, which is allowed under to state dew. One of the wells (I8) will cosequcntly abandoned. The other two IS and '10) are still In operation near the Cucamo„ga Channel and Baseline and their water quality is well within state standards regarding nitrate levels. One additional item Is that 'Mr. Blanchard also mentioned the letter you seat to him regarding the requirement for sew•.ring new development. He stated that he die not have a policy determination yet an this teen but he might have it to time for the City Council meeting tonight. He furtner indicated that as far as he knows, all new development east of Haven is or will be connected to .`: ,ewer system; in -fill development west of Haven, primarily i., the hillside areas north of 19th, may not need sewer service and may be able to utdue septic tanks. This will be addressed when he can officially respond to your letter fly w f V it zt NDN'U P1 Ali" "r v c ON NJ DEC 7 1908 PM g1o1�JiIDj11 t,2t91;i5t6 ,4 12/1/88 Lauren: Item C1 (Alcoholic Beverage Application for Siam Restaurant) needs to be pulled until the CUP is approved It 1s going to the Planning Commission on December 74, 1988 (per Dan Coleman) Debbie L ✓ fWTYAIAM LYON'? >V7677 BStO ARCHIBAID, SUITE B, RANCHO CUCA)AONG.9, CA 91770 1714) 980-2244 URCENT II December 01, 1988 S,aSpm Glen McCurdie Grupe Development 940 South Coast Drive Suite 260 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Giant e I have Just been informed that Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, called my office to tell me that there vas Inadequate dust control measures in some of the parrots in Victoria coat have been sold to other builders. tie p.ans to bring the issue to the City Council meeting tonight I spol.. with you or someone in your office today ebow rte Importance of ' addre wing dust control immediately due to today's high winds In addltlor i followed my phone call with a letter FAXED to you chic afcarnue,t. ,b.e to the level of response obourved by our field Operations Manager and reported to me as of the time noted olnvt. I have instructed our Y aid Operations Manager to hire enough water truckr to work throug:rout the .uration of this high wind period to mlti0ate the duct problem that may be generated from your site. Plerse contact Dan Posen or myself first t, s Thursday me rnfng (Decembei dtn) to coordinate and assume responsiblit.v cr ed+quate dust control ueesutes on your project. We will not enter any eurreat coostru:tion artivity trees for this effort. 1 no having u,Lpies of this latter elfue:,. to the City Council tonight to Gamonstrate that The Vff f'am Lyon .ompnny takes this ma••er seriously a•e if necessary will iack up the bufl!er• v Lin Victor!* Thank ynu for your a:iticlpsted Ile p, and cooperation. 1 Will Look forward to hearing from you us span a+ I c able ,n the morml,gt Reaps [fully a.. an Ford rro Manager lerty Grant, (nlef h alien Ufl.clsl, City of nancho Wcamonp Rancho Cucamonga City Coun. I Members REAL STATE DEVCIOPMENT ✓f 1 /'ILLIAAI LYO -NC +»rearly 8340 ARCHIBALD. SUITE B. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91770 • (714) 96V-2244 J 9A.'SIMILE COVZR SHEET TD f aALG3 _I }I(Ii () II Qt,7� - FAX /I_[?lµ� FROM. !Jr�isr l : NIM9EH OF PACES, e (lnrlud lAg cover shoot) REAL ESTATE OEVEIOPMENT Y 0 0 IF YOU NAVE ANY QUESTIOM;, ff"SE CONTACT: TUE NILLI411 LYON COMPANY (714) 980 -2244 (714) 944_4836 (FAX) REAL ESTATE OEVEIOPMENT Y 0 0 �i%'eV1LLIA,II LYON�m�un� 85d0 ARCHIBALD, SUITE B, RANCHO CUCAItONGA, CA 21770 • 1714) 980.22AA URCENT I1 December 07, 1988 5t45pn Ilarlcy ecyne Repub.ic Development 180 N. Riverview Drive Suite I70 Anaheim. CA 92808 Dear Ilarleyt I have Just been lnformod that Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, culled my office to tell me that 0,ere was inadequate duet control measures In some of the pare le in Victoria that have been sold to other builders. lie plans to bring the lssae to the City Cocnctl meeting tonight. I syoke with you or someone in yovr office today about the importance of addressing dust control Isaedistel7 duo to today's high winds. In addition, I followed my phone call with a lettar FAXED tc you this afternoon. Due to the level of response obse :vad by our Field Operations Manager and reported to me as of the time noted above, I have instructed our Field Operations Manager to hire anough water trucks to work throughout the durstica of this high wind period to mitigate the dust problem that may be generated from your situ Please contact Dan Polon or my mlf first ding Thursdal morning ( Dacember 8thl to coordinate and assume rrcpcnslbllity for adequate dust control measures on your project We will not enter .my current construction ectivity areas for thlr effort I am having copies of this .otter delivered to the City Council tonight to demonstrate that The willlr.m Lyon Company takes this matter seriously and if necessary will back on the builders within Victoria T1ank you for your antic,pated help and cooperation. I will look forward to :3earing from you as soon as possible in the morning Respertfu Iy, Steven Fort Project Haoager cc, Jerry .rant, Chief Building Offlctal, City of Rancho Cucamonga Ru,cho Cucamonga City Council Members REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT E, �� \�'ILLLi11i L>01�n7�an� ,} 85d0 ARCHIBALD. SUITE 8. RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA 91730 (IIA) 9E0.22d4 is r FACSIMILE COVER SHEET iiiL'II��Fr::I�3 FROM% 6T e v 1 ep-,*� _ NUMBER OF PAGES: d (Sneluding covet shccc) IF You HAVE ANY C.UESIIONS, PLEASE COHIAcT[ THE NiLLIAN LYON CDHPAHT ,714) 960 -2244 (714) 944 -4836 (FAX) REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT i I} ri { Ji%tiVILL1AM LYON' 6=1sasamy ••* 9340 ARCHIBALD, SUITE B, RANCHO COCA 'ONGA, CA 91770 • 1714) 980.2244 i ;- UHCENT'1 t t: December 07, 1988 5,45pm Tom Arcontf Fulte Home, Corporation 270 Newport Center Dtive Nevpvrt Beach, CA 92660 k, Dear Tom, T- I have Just been informed that Jerry Crant, Chief Building Official for the City I:, of Rancho Cucamonga, called my office to tell me that there was inadequate duet K control measures in some of the parcels in Victoria that have been sold to other L.. builders Ile Plana to bring the issue to the City Council meeting tonight. I spoke with you or someone in ycur office today about the importance of aao:es,ing dust control immediately due to today's high winds. In addition, I Coll oed m• phone call with a letter FAXED to you this afternoon. Due to the level of response obaarved by our Field Operations Manager and reported to ace as of the time noted above. I have Instructed our Field Operations Manager to hire enough water trucks to work throughout the duration of thin high wind period to mitigate the dust problem that may be generated fnva your slit Please contact On', Polen ar nyielf Eliot thing Thursday morning (December Bth) to coordlnau, and accume responsibility for adequate dust control measures un your project We will not enter any current construction activity areas for this effort I am having copies of thl letter delivered to the City Council tonight to demonstrate that The William Lyon Company takes this matter seriously and if necessary ,till back up the guilders within Victoria Thank lnu for sour anticipated help and cooperation. I will look forward to hearing from you as soon as Pnsaibl' In the morning Respectfully, Stevan Fora Project Manager ee, Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official, City of Rancho Cucamonga Ruche Cucamonga City Council Members REAL EST ?TE DEVELOPMENT 90-AVILI.L"I L>O\q;.vyem�r 8340 ARCHIBALD. SUITE 8, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA 91770 • (714) 980-2744 a: FACSIMILE COVER ,IUEET MAMMA r I FROM: 5 NUMBER OF PACESt —/l (Including cover abeet) COM)MNTS t 0.-.ap A, \ �`ewxo/ it — IF YOU HAVE ANY QU7SFIONSa PI&!u•E COUTACTs THE VILLIAM LYON COMPANY (714) 9W -2244 (7I4) 944 -4836 (FAR) fiwD t,alp REAL ES1ATt DEVELOPMENT ,i. %�SyILLInNI LYON�n�an� 8540 ARCHIBALU, SUITE B. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 • (714) 980.22AA ORGEUTII December 07, 1988 5t45pm Don Stabile J.P. Rhoades Development 1801 —C Park Court Place Suite 6100 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dist Dent 1 have Just been informed that Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, called my office to tell me that there was inadequate dust control measures in some of the parcels in Victoria that have been sold to other builders. Ile plane to bring the issue to the City Council meeting tonight. I spoke with you or someone in your office today about the importance of addressing dust control Irmedletely due to today's high winds. in addition, I followed my phone call with a letter FAXED to you this afternoon Due to the level of response observed by our Field Operations Manager and reported co me as of the time noted above, I live instructed our Field Operations Manager to hire auough water trucks to work throughout the duration of this high wind period to mitigate the dust problem that may be generated from your sits Please contact Dan Polen or myself first thing Thutsday morning (December Bch) to coordinate and assume responsibility for adequate duct control meaour,s on your project. We will not enter any current construction activity %reps for this effort I am having copies of this letter delivered to the City Council tonight to demonstrate that The William Lyon Company takes this matter serkously and if necessary will hick up the builders within Victoria Thank you for your anticipated I..Ip and cooperation I will look forward to hearing from you as soon as pucsible in the morning R,spectfully, Steven Ford ro)er,c Manager cc: Jet. Grant, Chief Building Official, City of Rancho Cucamonga Ran no Cucamonga City Council Members REAL ESTATE OEVELOPMC .i 7 ✓� �1'ILLIAhI L10\ �om�an�r 85AO ARCHIBALD. SUITE B, RANCHC CUCAMONGA. CA 91730 • 171AI 9804244 FACS:MIlJ1 COVER SHEET WAIll NUMBER OF PACES[ -. (lncludf aS cover sheet) ®r4rl —w .4allm IF MU OA\E AN'T QUESTIONS, PLEASE CGNTACT2 THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANT (714) 980 -2244 (714) 944-4836 (FAA) 1 t: u�° Lmc..•. REAL ESTATE i1EVELOPMENT ✓7 WILLL1Y1 LWON%t� Wma� 8540 ARCMIBALD, SUITE B, RANChO :UCAMONGA, CA 91730 • 171e1 980-2244 URCENTI1 Deccaber 07, 1988 5 5i45pm Steve Xabel Matt Inland Empire, Inc ' 3602 Inland Empire Blvd. Sidle 8 -110 Ontario, CA 91764 Dear Stovat I have Just been informed that Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, called my office to tell me that there was inadequate dust control measures In some of Lhe parcels In Victoria that have been sold to other builders. lie plans to bring the ,asue to the City Council meeting tonight. I spoke with you or someone In your office today about the Importance of .� addresting dust control immediately due to today's high winds In addition, I • followed my phone call with a letter TAXED to you this afternoon. Dun to the level of response observed by our Field Operations Manager and repor_ed to me as of the time noted above, I have Instructed our °field Operations Mentzer to hire enough water trucko to work throughout the duration of this high wind period to mitigate the dust problem that say Lc generated from your site Please contact Dan Polen or myself first thing Thursday morning (December 8th) to coo- dinate said assume responsibility for adequate dust control measures on your project. Mc will not enter any current construction activity areas for this etfort 1 am having copies of this letter delitered to the City Council tonight to denwnstrate that The William Lyon Company takes this matter seriously and if necessary well back up the builders within Victoria. Thank you for your anticipated help and cooperation I will look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible in the morning Respectfully, A Uelx— Steven Ford Project Manager cc+ Jerry Grant, Chief Building Official, City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga City Council Members REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT �� 1'ILLL�1 'f�l'O:r �sn�an1r ` S6d0 ARCMIBAID. SURE 8. RANCHO CIICAMONGA. CA 91750 1714 980.22d4 3 x FACSIMILE COVER SUET Fa —1 FROM, S I C V Gov est NVMBER OF PACES, (tneludlns cover shoot) �i.........�� .r You RAVE ANY gULF.T10N5. PLEASG CONTACT, THE HILLTAH LYRN COMPANY (714) 900 -'244 (114) 916 +836 (FAX) Re4L ESTATE oEVt LOPMt GT i � /WILL XA l LYONI sz�os;V 85AO PACHISAID, SUITE B, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA 91770 • (761) 900-22AA UR Elfrl1 December 07, 1968 5,45pm Las Persohn Baywood Development Croup 120 Newport Center Oriva Suite 750 Newport Beach, Gk 92626 Dear Less I have Just been infomvA that Jerry Create Chief Building Official for the City of Rancho Cucemo sga, called my office to tell me that there use inadequatc dust control measures in some of the parcnls in Victoria that have been sold to other builders Ile plans co bring the issue to the City Council meeting tonight. 1 spoke with you or someone in your office today about the importance of addressing dust control i. ®ediately dur to today's high winds. In addition, 1 (allowed my phone call with a letter PAVED to you this afternoon. Due to the level of response obuerved by our Field Operations Manager and repor.•d to me as of the it,- •otsd abov,, I have t,.etructed our Field Operations Manager to hir• s. it water t -ucks to work throughout the duration of this high wind period .gate e.,e aunt problem that wy be generated lron your sI e Please contact Dan Polen or myself first thing Thursdar morning ( December Sth7 to coord,nato and assume responsibility for adegnara dust control measures os your project we will not enter any current constructt.+ activity areas for this effort I an having copiaa of this letter delivered is the City Council tonight to demonstrate that The William Lyon Company takes this matter seriously one if necessary will back up the builders within Victoria Thank you for your anticipated help and cooperation. I will look forward to hearirg from ycu as "on as possible in the morning Respectfully Steven Ford Project Manager ec, Jerry Gran— Chief Building Offi ^lal, City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga City eouncil Members REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT P , N ✓� \1'ILLIAB,i LlO`�n�ea�y 8540 ARCHIBALD. SUITE 8. RANCHO CUCAM0NGA. CA 91770 • 171[1 780-22AA FACSINIEZ ODM SUIMT tea' +.A. ..i]► !•7l? . gyp, �r FROM: 6Tay=7J !�EU NUMBER Of PACES: (Lncludln8 cover sbeec) COMMENTS ED- lls . IF YOU HAVE ANT WESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT: THE NILLIAH LYON COMPANY (714) 960 -2244 (714) 944-4876 (FAIL) 1;0!�oo ol> 11 4< rAxap qJpj, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMEUT 6U5? :f ,1 December 7, 1988 171104f4QFOl Mr. Brad Buller, Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baselino Road P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Mr. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Foothill & Vineyard Dear Mr. Buller and Mr. Murphy: C71Y YHtA DEC 7 1988 AM P,1 71O191101L',. 7• ?r4, iiP;t6 Thank you for your help in facilitating the agreement between Park/Abrams and La Paloma and in obtaining from the Planning Commission the new variance and amended C.U.P. La Paloma Homeowners Association hereby withdraws its appeal to the City Council previously scheduled for December 7, 1988. Very truly yours, MARJORIE 14. MIKELS MMN:cq Attorney at Law cc: Mi Mike Abrams PARK /ABRAMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 15751 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 200 Irvine. CA 9271C Mr. Paul S Wheeler WHEELER & WHEELER 133 Spring Street Claremont, CA 91711 Board of Directcrs La Paloma Homeowners Association s, "Response to Comments" MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT General Plan Technical Update OCT. 16 1961 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMIONGA a s AN OCT I3 1988 7AWAIA810 6 GENERAL °LAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT & MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FINAL EIR This section addresses comments received b� the City of Rancho Cucamonga relative to the ^•trcnm : «Lil Impact report (EIR) on a Te:hnieal Update of the Citys General Plan, in. cluding a Master Environmental Assessment (GPEIR /MIEA) for the entire City. During the review period for the Draft EIR, twelve state and local agencies commented on the GPEIRomme The following test presents the comments received and proaidcs responses to comment nletterr, other eo menu are sumar zeds or Pxrst)hrased as needed. All from the comments are included at the end of this section. Lett BERNARD/ uj COUNTY TRANSPORTAT /O.V /FLOOD COATROL DEPART3f£Nr Later dated August I, 1983 from Robert Corehero, Chief of Flood Control Planning Comment: (1) 'Page 16 . Fiotdmg Paragraph 6: The Flood Control District is charged wslh prntiding flood eontrci and w--:-r conservation facilities only within its funding - 30bilitics and limitations. The District's Jurisdiction Is limited to those fac:l)1)cs +aser courses where right- of•w•ay has been acquired.' and,br Response: (1) Comment ncicd. Comment: (2 4-0 The District requested it number or technical corrections to Figure III. G/1 Flood Control Man, Including showing ail muter planned drainage improvements, P.erponset (2 a-() The technical corrections have en incorporated into the new Figure 111 -G /la (amched). This new figure includes al) waste. planned flood control facilities ar Provided by the County Transpo :tst)on /Flood Control DepartmenL In aadit3on, 'The City's drainage ms, ;ter plan Is eutrenaly being reviewed. A report _ carering the easteraly part of the City is being analyzed by City staff while a report Met. ing rte w.sterly part of the City (is tieing prepared). Upon completion of this project, the master plan wsit be changed to reflect the City's needs.• (See City memo dated October 12. 1933 frr.m R f3qusre to B Buller). Comment• tat Figure III T/I Open Space Plar. Some o, the Flood Control lands shorn between Deer Creek and Day Creek Channels may be surplus t0 rl District needs and be sold :or future detopment' Response• (3) Comment noted At present, this area is designated fat flood control uses on sue City General Plan At the rime that any of these lands are declared surplus, the City wdl examine them «lalive to the General Plan and make appropriate la,-,d use decisions based on the constraints at that time. Q SAN IIERNARDINO COUNTY (CONT) Comment: (4) 'Figure Ill -T /2, Master Plan of Trails. Many of the proposed trails follow District right of way, T.:dir design should be such that their use does not conf It- = %, ,ne operation and mainter.•nce of the District faelf:lies. Any use should be :oor- dmated with the Flood Cnntrol Distil.:. p togsaecring Division, Permit Section., Response: 14) e` =Qaut noted. All proposed uses will be coordinated with the District. FOOTHILL FIRE D157RIC7' Telephone comments from Lloyd Almond of the Foothill Fire District. Comment: (1) °Section N, Page 127 - Existing Setting, 3rd seoteree should be changed to delete fire, paramcdic_dcpartments. Reference to these services should list the Foothill Fire District as provider.' Respcnse: (1) Cornmeal noted. Comments (2) 'Figure III -N /I needs to indicate the locations of proposed fire stations numbers 4 through 7. Also, under the legend, fire stations 0.6 should read 'East Avenue and 24th Street.' Response: (2) While it may be desirable to have actual street addresses for the fire stations on Figure III -N/1, the information is provided in the text and tha locations shown on the figure are accurate for the stations. Therefore, Figure III -N 11 .eed not be modified. Comment: (3) 'Section Q, Page 133 - Existing Setting, first paragraph, the ou,lying areas should be changed to 'ig' square miles and the total are, listed as a total of 130' square lailes. At the end of the third and fourth paragraphs refercece should be made that sta. tions No. 2 and No. 3 provide 24 hours protection as listed for station 0.1 In the second Paragraph. Alto, in the fourth paragraph chaage the 83500 gallon' water tender to '4000 gallon'.' Response: 3) Comment noted. Comment: (4) 'Section Q, Page 134 • The second sentence of the third paragraph should read as follows: 'This agency provides fire protection services in the area north of the City limits on land which the State is legally responsible for extinguishing wildland first.' Response. (4) Comment noted. Comment: (S) 'Section X, Page 1 -6 - %litigation Mcasure, second paragraph (haiardeus A astes) the Fire District is checking atth the County into any responsibilities the District may have to this area. Additional comment may follow regarding this subject.' Response: (5) Comment noted. Changes in the policies or goals of the General Plan that ire requ-red as a result of additional information /ions the Fire District will be made. M 0; �j i -( '! 1 , P O rTu �1 i C v m _ ca $ S. $ O o A o n Cl) 0 r CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (CAWQCB) Letter dated August 25. 1988 from Anne Knight. Environmental Specialist Comment: (1) The CRMQCU notes that $ame of the local welb show unacceptable levels of nitrates and drbromochloropropan0 and suggested that. If importe3 water Is obtained, It first be uted to recharge areas with degraded water quality and 'reclaim contaminated wells' Response: (1) The water akeacies that serve the City must determine the most appropriate application of imported water. However, such a plan to reclaim affected wells has merit and should be a strong eoasideraticn as decisions on water policy and use are made. Comm"': (2) 'If the 1013 of wells because of unacceptable water quality reduce, the available drinking water mpply, so effort sbculd be made to moderate growth In this region to maintain adequate water supply for present /future population' R.,ponse: (2) Many of the City Genersl Plan Poll.-leg maadate that adequate resources, both in 4uality and quantity, must be availab,e or made available to support growth. If at ,ny point the City faces s lack or degradation of vital resource; limits will be examined to prevent cumulative r npaet, to City selvicer, utilitles, etc. Commeru (3) The CRWQC9 relate that it is ' unwise to asseme that Imported water will be aval able to support all of the projected growth In this regioa' Response: (3) As with :he previous commen1/rap0a3e, at any point, it the City Is faced w:th a lark of necessary rasunrcu, appropriate action will be taken to prevent unacceptable impacts to the City. Comment: (s) The CRWQCS expresses a eoarern that local water quarity would I-e im- pacted by new development approved with only septic tacks. They %troeply recom- mends_ that the `Ntliation I.kasures' (p.113) be amended to incorporate a policy that all new development mutt hc2k up to a sewer system'. Response: (d) The City will pursue coasldrration of this concept with the. Cucamonga County Water DlstriCL Coalesces: t5) MW Chino Basin Muni0iphl Water District (CBMWD) provides the was. tewater treatment for this area (p. 17)) st RP 1. However, It Is our understanding that the Plant provides tertiary s,rvice. to the Rancho Cucamonga area.' Response: (5) This Is correct and the new City General Plan contains policies that to. courage new development to tnke advantage of tertiary water for appropriate uses. In e.4- di on. RP-4 will be online in 1991 far additional treatment capacity. Cammea t: (6) 'We concur with the C;t7 Ahat coordination of water supply, wastewater set "M. and construction of needed impro.ementa should precede developmeat' Response. (6) Comment noted. �_6 i rr Jr CHI,VO BASIN AIDNICIPAL IPAT£R DISTRICT (CB3D1 D) Letter dated September 6, 1988,from Mark W osey, Planning Comment: (1) The CDMN'D :equcsn clarification of the land use designations in and around fit administrative offices mi;Archioold. Response: (1) The CBMWD of(1ce:2' nit consistent with thaaoning and land use desifna. tions of its property nod ho surioundins aver. The site is presently commercial with a schorl tv the south, commereid us es to the north, a civic /community facility to the north• east, and residential to the.easL - However, any expansion piano weaid have to meet the time City guidelines as any other development. Y �? Comment: (2; The CBhlWD requests that the City consider implementing Its original general plan policy regarding the use of reclaimed water supplies when available' 9 Response: (2) The use of reclaimed water is included In the new Genera( Pis-% policies and sy '; will be implemeomd when and where appropriate. i `:' Comment: (3) 'The Regional Plant No. I (RP -1) facility In Ontario Is currently rated at a eapaei:Y of 32 MGD. BY a sar)es of later- related expansion projects, RP -I will be expanded to s capacity of 36 MOD In early 1969 and to a capacity of 44 MGD in 1990. The proposed r' RP-4 facility 1: scheduled to be operational in 1993 with an initial capacity of 7.5 MGD.' Response: (3) Comment noted. Y_ "• CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION t Letter dated August 29, 1988 from Dennis Bryant, Environmental Program Coordinator Comment: In accordance with the provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Section 2762, the City is required to establish mineral resource management polities in its General Plan that wllL• (1) recognize the mineral information transmitted by the Board; (2) assist in the is— na8ement of Iat:d use In designated areas; and (3) emphasize the eouservation and development of identified mineral deposits' Response: The new General Plan of the City does contain such rolic(es and these will be forwarded as required to the appropriate Special Representative with the State Mining and Geology Board in Sacramento. CALIFORNIA D£P.(RTAI£,Vr OF FISH AND GAAfE (DFG) Letter dated August 24, 1988 from Pete Bontadelli, Diree :or V021mout: (1) Concern is erpresscd about the lev :I of detail in the M'A and the DFG r.:commends that specific mapping of sensitive biological cpeeies be provided in the MEA. B,teause of this lack of Information, the DFG "Commends that the GPEIR/MEA not be certified at this times Rasposse: (1) Although much information was provided on potential spa. ct oresant, the WFA did not provide specific mapping for each species because of the Cost and timeliness Of information that would be used as a baseline for future developments. The ?.litigation hfeawres in the GPEIR/MEA (p, 11I -05) recommend that biologically sensitive areas be preserved or moaltored closely to miaimire impsets. It is further recommended that, in all areas north of the Cairene City limit and in any area that court her re msy contain sensitive biological species, biological studies must be conducted by qualified personnel prior to any ning di.-actor. ement. The requitement to prepare such studies will be at the discretion of the plan- ning Comment: (2) The MEA Is'iacorect' in ioferring that species that are not formally listed on the federal or state rare or to dansered lists are not protected. _ Response: (2) The JfEA did not mesa to infer any pus level or eonsideratlog or protection should be afforded species that are not on the state or federal lists. It is otr: of the express 090113 of the General Plan to protect say species or habitat, including streaside woodlands e ss r wetlands, that are e0asideend valuable and In geed of protection. Comment: (3) The DFG suggests thAt the unincorporated area north of the City be plaanco far the bwest densitiex of residential development (1,000 units) to act as a buffer between the City and the Angelcs National Forem i:•spomr (3) An error has been oottd In the potential densities allowed by the County's West Valluy Foothill Community P.an as indicated on Table III-H /X, MEA page 77. The acreage: listed in the table reprment only a 3Mali part of the community plan, the Stu Sesdne 21:11 (Sec LAND USE ANA.CYSIS). As result, the 934 MAXIMUM snits listed in a grett)y unda+stimated count of 'hit potential unit density which could be allowed under the existing e0uatY land use regulAdoas. The portion of the West Valley Foothill Cum- munity Nan wither the sphere of influence of till City of P.noeho Cucamonga Is xtvUly fuse over 5,000 units, which is assistcot with 7,500 units. the County General Plan range of 3,400 to The remainder o! t!ee planned units see within the sphere of Influence of this City of VOntson (1804 acres, It should be noted that the Vest Valley Foothill area (16,782 acres) coprites the Caryn Plaened Community (274 acres), spheres of influence for both Rancho Cucamonga (7704 sores) tad Fontana (1884aercs), and National Forest Service lands (69:0 acres). CoMmenl: (4) ',ye are partieula rly con,:erned about proposed use changes In the Dny Canyon Brea and we recommend that all of the ar:3s of Actual and potential Mourttin 'beep habitat be designated Resource Conservation' Rtspoo• (4) The GP.SIR /hfEA r:Ccmmends that 'Any development proposed within the Day C' on area shou!d first lsccl lain the exact boundaries of the sheep range prior to approval.' While both Measures atuld afford similar levels of protection, the City wili have to dcrermme the appropriate level of ube should be for this area that will balance growth Ind protection for the sheep range. M CALIFORNIA D£PAUHENT Of TRANSPORTAT/O,V (CAL TRANS) Letter dated September 1 from Guy Visbal, Chief of Transportation Planning, District 8 Comment: (1) Caltrans requests 'an analysis of full buildout which includes a forecast of future traffic on the State highways' Respame: (1) (Reference City memo dated October 12,1988 from R. Maguire to B. Buller) 'The Citi of Rancho Cucamonga Is presently setting ap a major traffic planning model program (TPMP) that will satisfy the majority of CALTRANS comments and requests. A request for pr000sal tr establish the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Model and Nexus Proce. dure3 has been sent to prospective consultants. This program is scheduled to begin in December and be completed by mid -year 1989. The TPMP will address the traffic impact (, of full bui!d -out of the City and its sphere of Influence on all Its streets and highwuyt, la. eluding State routes. The TPMP will adequately reflect existing conditions and r31culate levels of service. It will also allow (the City) to use any existing or proposed highway sys. tem and measure and evaluate Its traffic imP1eL The City will mitigate, or cause mitiga- non of silgniftcabt traffic impactsof %arious developments by use of its transportation sys. tem fee.' In addition, It is recommended that either Caltnns or the Southern California Aneelation ,.r Governments (SCAG) conduct a regional study bated on the existing RIVSAN regional traffic planning study, which can be used to analyze regional circulation impacts. This study could be jointly funded with each member City contributing a pro -rated share based on population or some other allocation method. It is further recommended that Caltrans and /or other regional agencies pursue balancing employment and housing land uses on a more regional scale. Comment: (2) Caltrans requests 'a regional study of the traffic effects to the state high. way system. This would include a study that would show Rancho Cucamonga's contribu- tion to regional traffic in the West Valley'. Respouss: (2) See Caitnns Comment /Response ul above for details of City -wide and regional traffic studies Cemmeot: (3) 'On page 94, the current buildout is 2S percent ten than previous calibrates, therefore the generated trips should be 23 percent higher.' Response: (3) From Page 94 of the GPEIR/I.fEA -rho DKS study is based on ap- proximately 936,545 total City -wide vehicle trips per day. These in turn are based on a Projected General Plan buildout of approximately 48,000 units. Since the current buildout estimate is for approximately 60,000 units, the imparts to City streets will be 2S96 higher.' Comment: (4) 'On Table III -1, E. the figures, del ed by 25 percent, ate used for Volume Cawcny ratios and Level of Semite calculations where the higher number would be more 2pproprtate- Response: See Caltrans Comment,, Responses *1.3 for additional informatioo on traffic studies and the 25% increase in trail is Impacts, HE �i e, CALTRANS (CON -r) i Comment: (5) Celina requests an •analysis of the circulation system with and w4hout the proposed Route 30 freeway t Response: (5) See Colinas Comment/Retponp: MI for details of stir proposed City -wide ti traffic study which in:ludes impacts to State hi- :hwsys. 'I•he City is preset sty upgrading 19th Street (Route 30) with transportation systers flea The City Will eontb.ue Its prretice of growth mltigrelon by upgrading the State Hlthway System whoa it is necessary' (See City memo anted 10/12/88). Commeot: (6) Catints also recommended thut the fotle.tng measv•ts b: implemented: 'Prrhibitlon of Parking on Sts :e highweys and the I'lannvd interchange at Intmi :clt is .tad ith Street does not meet federal spacing requirements of interchanges on a freeway, Response: (6) (Reference City memo dated October 12, 1988 from R. Maguire to B. Buller'. 'CALTRANS presently maintains all surface star: h(gbways in the City and, therefore, au remove all parking if they to fesire. In spitc of their rc!uctana to assert this authority, the City Engineering Division intends to remove parl.ing on all City arterial and ulect.:d Coll• tf and when State Routes 30 and 66 come antler City mairtenanee, the parking removal will cis,, eoply. Since the interchanges O. 1.15 of 4th Street sod Foothill Boulevard are separated by more than two miler, an intereha.ae design as 6th Street is feasible this satisfies federal spacing rcouircmeatL The City recogn:n!s th it such an Interchange will :equlre special design cen- side.ations. The TPh /P (See Calt.•ns Comment,'Respome wl) will allow the traffic needs and wvnnts for this interchange.* Comment: (7) 'In the Hydrology section of the G"CrAl Plan, on page 49, the floc... -••cl projects refer to 1980 and 1982, this should be uPda. A to reflect the current system.- Response: (7) The flood control system• is shown it, Figure III, G 11, was revised evil the technical corrections suggested by the Cocuty FIoM Cantrol District (see FLD letter dated August 4, 1988) were incorporated into a new Figure Iii - : /Ia Included In this section, Comment: (8) 'In view of the fact that Cs Itmas has no funds available for infrastructure I mprovements, we recommend that the City of Rancho Cucamonga take the lead In developing a fall -share mechanism in which de *elopers world participate to fund needed improvements to the State highway system.- Response: (8) Most cities acknowledge that funding regional transportation improvements it one of he most immediate issues facing southern Calirorn a Unrortunsteiy, cities do not have avy jurisdiction outside of their boundar:cs to toile •t fees or establish funding me :hanisms The City to .filling to work actively wt;h the Sta a and the regional San Ber- nardino Ara Governments (SANBAGI to develop appropriab funding mechanisms for state highway improvements. In addition, 'G. City is presently upgrading 19th Street (Route 31) with transportation sys- tem fees' (per C. ty memo dated 10112/89). M. .,,, CALTRANS (CONY) with the future Cemmeal: (9) -The City should consider a demand management plan Bloat corridor plan, that would mitigate the effects a[ growth and reduce demand on the State Y s, highway system* emissions 110it' high a y s (m) The GPEIR/hiEA includes mitigation age vehicular eDyin tfie 'r uslity btsnagcment plan tfiIn addition, the City is preparing a traflYc South Coast Air Q an aPDroPrlate demand mane {ement in{ traffi model pje add highway ogram demand wlilch9 ill identify plaonint See CaltraniiComin t /Response 01 *ad City memo dated 10 /l2 /gg)• plan fat the City (See _ Comm.dt. (10) the City should provide faclllty mlt(tacclit to the state highway system wilt ermrdinate with Cattraas as to appropriate mitila this for the regional shopping center and industrial areas adHeeet to Interstate IS. The City proposed dont Response: (10) the City will Identify specific mmwit, measures relative to land cs s aloneintiDreDared specific developments and City memo dated corridor. The new TPMP acts Sea Caltrans Comment /Respa, tine measures for these Imiha City will mitigate, or use mitigation of Significant traffie IO /12 /tt)• !o addition. .111 be used to measure aad evaluate the Impacts caused by new development The TPIvB the City mitigates fraciaoal and dt easily i traffic impact of sitnifica�tt o(vvariousndevelopm ots by use of Its transportation sYstsm accumulative traffic Iin fcc.' Q;' -" �.( _. :4,: 1... �ti YLY�`1•�l °L j.i''iJ �i�•: � � t .•Y: -•b. iyyiil`t_ a '•- S •J: r1,J •" CITY OF ONTARIO Letter dated August 10. 198E from Joyce Oabicz, City Planner Comments (1) -The proposed County jail, in the southeast corner of Rareho Cucamonga, B , > not mentioned in the draft We would like to see the compatibility of this and surrounding rz, uses analyzed.' Response: (1) This GPEIR /MEA is intended as a technical update only and so does not need to specifically address Compatibility issues with established land uses. However, in this case the Caanty supersedes the City's jurisdiction on the issue of the jail. This EIR ,'..•', (SCH 87! 10916) addresses land use Compatibility and site specific Impacts of the jail. Y!• ,,• Comment: (2) 'We question the appropriateness of the General industrial designation for the property on the Perth side of Fourth Street, across from the Guastl Regional Park, a facility which lies In the City of Ontario, but which Is probably used as much by Rancho Cucamonga residents as by Ontario residents.' x•% Response: (2) It should be noted that the designation of industrial areas north of Fourth Q` Street preceded the siting of Guasti Park at this location. In fact, she existing Laura y, Scudder's plant at the corner of Archibald and Fourth also preceded the park. This in- dustrial area is an Integral part of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Specific Plan as 3�• adopted by the City Council. In any case. City residents do utilize this facility since that is i'. the purpose of a County regional park. x� 0 Comment: (3) 'We would like to see the likely effects of County proposals to recharge the upper Chino and Cucamonga groundwater basins addressed in your section on groundwater.' Responses (3) The srecifie effects that would serue from this tyoe of recharge are addressed In the Cucamonga County Water District Water Master Plan as referenced in the GPEIR /MEA. As discussed in the Comments /P,apontes for the California Regional Water Quality Control Hoard (letter dated August 23, 1998), the physical effects of such recharge depend upon the location and extent of techuge activities. Obviously, if 'new* water, such • as from Imported sources or tertiary treated water, was utilized for recharge, a like amount of existing water would be freed up for domestic or other uses. The specific effects of such plans would have to be addressed by the appropriate water agency and the City at the time such a plan was proposed. 9 i CITY OF ONTARIO (CON -r) Comment: (4) "He think that the ultimate build out scenarios ought to be analyzed in tetms of SCAG's proposed growth management proposals, especially in the area of jobs and housing balance. Rospoose: (4) The City currently has a very favorable jobs /housing balance and this balance should continue as the City builds out. The major contributor to this coad(Non Is the large amount (3332 acres or 23.1% of -he city) existing or planned for industrial uses. The 1982 Modified SCAG pepalat(an /bousing projections for the City indicate that they .� are planned to Increase by +276% and +309 %, respective!y, from 1964 to 2010. During this s..me time, empolyment in the west San Bernardino Valley is expected to increase by +266 %. o unfortunately. SCAG does not make employment projections by individual cities. However, since the City has iecreased its industrial acreage by 764 a:res (+17%) since 1961, and -he City already had a higher percentage of Its land in industrial uses than the County -wide average. it is likely that there will be even more jobs created In Rancho Cucamonga as compared to houses and population. Thesefore, as the City grows, it Is ex. v peeled to maintain its favorabl: jobs /housing balance when viewed in the context of The west San Bernardino Valley. f J Comment: (6) 'The industrial designations on the north sine or Fourth Street are likely to + require deliveries by large trucks which would need to traverse our hotel and commercial areas within the Ontario Center. This situation is less thao desirable from our snndpolot. Furthermore, the likely development of Ontario Milan, south of Fourth, leads us to conclude that property owners on she Rancho Cucamonga sHe of that street wi!I probably want to develop their properties In commercial uses In any eau. We suggest that you would ba well advised to anticipate this occurrence and have your general plan reflect the likely commer- cial development of this area. Moreover, commercial deselatment would be more com• pa•ible with our general plan, on the south side of Fourth, and, one would assume, be in line with Rancho C1le1171eaga'a Community goals. Response= (3) First, it should be noted that thin EIR only addres.us the issues of a techni- cal update and so existing compatibilities or Incompatibilities are not included in th-: dis. cussion. The issues of land use compatibility for this area were addeeued in the previously approved Industrial Specific Plan EIR. Moreover, the industrial areas north of Fourth Preceded the commercial designations tooth of Fourth. Lastly, the local property owners have indicated a continued desire to develop three properties as Industrial uses. W F3.13 i :r CITY OF UPLAND Letter dated September 0, 1983 from Jeffrey Bloom, Planning Director Commend (1) The relationships of development within Rancho Cucamonga and Upland is not addressed. The impact of buildout on the City of Rancho Cucamonga is addressed, but a no mention is made of the Impacts on surrounding cities.• ' Response: First of oll, it should be noted that this id a techn1=1 update -' and so in some cases does not quantify all of the cumulative affe beyond the ebordertl of the City. Since traffic Is the primary eonceru as it dlects surrounding communities, the A' City Is preparing a traffic planning model program (TPMP) that will analyze all traffic a. it relates to ultimate bulidaut of the City including levels of service and impacts to the £ State highways (See Caltram Comments/Responses for additional information on the TPMP study). In addition, in a memo to B. Buller dated October 12, x983. Russ bliquire, City Engineer, Indicated that Caltrans or SCAG should conduct a regional traffic study based on the 'R/VSAN regional traffic planning study (and the City study) will be able to show its free. tional and accumulative impacts on the State Highway System.' This same memo ulso states that 'the City will mitigate, or muse mitigation of significant traffic impacts caused by new development The TPMP will be used to measure and evaluate the traffic impact o! significant development Addtionally, the City mitigates fractional and accumulative traffic Impacts of various developmens by use or its transportation system fen• Comment: (2) 'Mabile and point source emistions as bas :d on buildout estimates represent a significant and adverse impact. Every attempt should be made to promote the specific mitigation measures as outlined on Page 107 of the (MEA). The guidelines for pollution control should be based an the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan of 1933.' Response: (2) The City acknowledges that air quality is one of the most critical regional issues In southern California. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Southern California Association of Gevernmcnts, and the local cities and counties are wres- tling with the related Issues of growth, housing, jobs, traffic congestion, and air pollution. The City is committed to heipint solve iliac difficult problems, However, many of these problems will require regional solutions that depend on the cooperation of cities and countim The mitigation measures Proao.ed In the MEA Include those that are under the Jurisdiction of the City and are bad on the 1938 SCAQMP. Comment: (32) 'The analysis of the circulation eteme,.t does not address the impacts on the City of Upland in either short term or cumulative loo, term Impacts. The proposed cost for the proposed major traffic improvements is not addressed for tithe: city.' Response: (A) The City is preparing a City -wide trriffie planning model program (TPhf?) that will identify all impacts to area roads (See Caarans Comments/ Responses for addi- tional details on area tr.firu "pacts. It should be noted that the City traffic analysis also did not identri), the amount of traffic within the City that is generated by the surrounding :ommunties 1 F3_ )y UPLAND (CON?) Comment: (3b) 'The analysis of traffic circulation Indicates that the 1986 General Plan understated the anticipated traffic impact by 25 %. In light of this finding, the Draft EIR makes no reference to the anticipated additional Impact to the City of Upland resulting from Rancho Cucamonga% continued development. No quantitative analysis is provided of the traffic growth on arterials as the traffic leaves the Rancho Cucamonga city limit. Con- sequently, no mitigation is recommended to allow these Impacts to be alleviated. - Reepoose: (3b) See related comments and ques:tons for Caitrans letter in this report. The City is preparing a citywide traffic study that will address these concerns. Comment: (aa) ?he mitigation measures for traffic impacts or complete buildout are Cased on completion of the Foo&N Freeway. It is stated that the traffic volumes will have a significant adverse and enmulativo Impact on Rancho Cucamonga if the exprestway or freeway is not constructed. There needs to be a specific statement of the short term impacts of traffic volumes on Rancho Cucamonga and Upland until the freeway is constructed and also the impacts of traffic volumes in Rancho Cucamonga and Upland If buildout occurs prior to completion of the freeway. It is not clear in the Draft Lnvironmentat impact Report what mitigation measures will be implemented in the short term, prior to a freeway, to assure that traffic continues to flow within the bttwcen the cities., Response: (aa) If substantia! buildout of the City occurs before the Foothill Freeway (s built, and there is no substantial shift to alternative form of transportation, there will be significant adverse impacts to the City's sveulation system. This situation also applies to sit of the cities affected by the Route 30 corridor. If development continues to surround- ing communities and conditions described previously occur, there will be significant ad- verse impacts to a majority of the circulation system in this area and the region ti well. Comment: (ab) 'If circulation and land use plans are based on the shift from automobile use to alternate forms of transportation, whits are the methods for implementing the alter- native forms? No specific policies are proposed to assure the goals for 17% alternative transportation are achieved. What are the significant adverse impacts which will result If this shift does not occur]' Respoose. (ab) If the 17% shift to alternative transportation does not occur, there will be a correlational increase In vehicular traffic and likewise greater traffic congestion, ope- cially at peak intrrseetlonL However. the City will work towards Implementing the SCAQMP guidclinet,most of which appiy to vehicles and transportation. Appropriate proleet- specific mitigation measeres will be implemented for each development proposal. Intersection and other roadway improvements will be scheduled and budgeted by the City or the City will work with the responsible agency to adequately plan needed Improvements The TSMP plan outlined in the MEA (p. 96) is especially important for the industrial specific plan areas because of the potential for employment increases. The City will work with the County to be sure that adequate transit service it available for future workers. The City and Chamber of Ccmmerce should also encourage local businesses to advertise in local papers prior to more regional advertising with the idea of attracting employees tl,ot It.e closer to their places of employment. 12 s4; S ti- s UPL iND(CONT) v Cornmaat: (6) 'NO Cnrrdinatidn Of traftic circulation bel.ween Rancho C'tcamonga and �._ UP,and It identified. A. system -wtde impact analysis should be conducted to analycc the impacts of tmf: k generated from Rancho Cucamonga to adjacent areas.• Reslmara: (S) RaaehO Cucamonga is already participating in a number of ongoing, area- 1 w,d% trt.nsporlation studies (RIVSAN) being conducted by the San Bernardino Association ° o. :ovtMatents (SANBAG). however, Rancho Cucawznga and the surrounding cities snould particiate to a jointly- funded Route 30 traffic impacts and mitigation study as it will probably to sometime at best before the Foothill Frer.way is built In this area. It In addition, see relax: r. d eommeo-a and responses for Caitram letter. Comment: (6) The long tend costs of operatiea to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for Police and Fire protection should be addressed to assure the cities continued cost effective operation.' Response: (6) 'Since this is a technical update to Vic General Plan, a detailed fiscal Impact assessment of continued fire aaJ protective services Is not necessary. However, both ageaeies Indicated that even with the typical annual budgetary problems t)at the ponce department Is facing, they believe that rbey can continue to adequately serve the City as it grows according to the General Plan. C(rY Of UPLAND Presentation made Jeffrey Z, .ek, City Planner. during Planning Commission public hear- ing held on September 28, 1983. Comment: The (GPEiR /MEA) report is well written and comprehensive, but needs to address regional traffic impacts. We would request that the City add a statement that ad- verse traffic impacts will occur without the Foothill Freeway AND increases in public transit ridership. The City's circulation plan should be checker: for consistency against the regiooal traffic Plato.• Responses See Response to Comment Ia of the City of Upland's letter dated September 6, 1988 regarding adverse impacts to the City -wlde and regional circulation systems if the Foothill Freeway is not built and there are no increases in public transit As previously stated, the Cay is already participating to regional traffic studies being conducted by the local area government (SANBAG). It would be appropriate for the surrounding eitias to negotiate a jointly funded traffic study to Identify shirt- and long -term traffic solutions 4 ith and without the Foothill Cot -idor and public transit. The City is already preparing a Traffic Planning and Model Program (TPh4') to study city -wide traffic F(See Caltrans Comments /Responses) 13 Q. )l CUC.4A1OXGA ELEd1EM14itY SCHOOL DISTRICT Letter dated September 6. 1988 from Dr. John Costello. Superintendent of SChOOIL rommeat: The District has provided updated f:tur:s for enrollment and school, capacities` (Table III -R /C). The only significant chaa2es are: 1) the enrolimcat of.Cucamonga Elementary School it now tllghtlY Over Capacity (780 1765 versus a 706 enrollment in the Draft E1R); 2) the capacity of'Guistl School has been reduced from 212 to 135 which is also their earrent cnroilmeet; 3) the enrollment at Los Amigos elementary school has decreased from $00 to 468 and the capacity revised from 460 to 480; and 4) the ct.paeity of the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School has been reduced to 365 from 533. Response: These changes are noted. CEATRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Letter dated September 12, 1988 from Ingrid Vogel. Business Services. Commeatt The District submitted changes and corrections M their enrollment and capedty figures in Table III -R /B, requested text changes that Ten". the able data and P and added student generallon figured for Table III-R /F. Raspoaret The updated figures are noted and are helpful In adjusting the magnitude of Impacts expected to schools from new development. The new student generation figures Provided by the District for Table III -R /F arc almost exactly those estimated for City -wide schools (.425 for K•8 students versus .45 estimated in the Draft GPEIR /MEA). The updated enrollment projection figures for Table III-RIG show a 4% increase over the Draft GPEIR /AtEA figures. These new figures reinforce the original analysis in the GPEIR /MEA the: the schools that serve Rancho Cucamonga are at capacity and will need to be augmented with portable and permanent rPace additions as the City growL To accomodate this and other school district eoncerat, the City is willing to form a joint long -range school planning task force with the involved distrtett and city planning stall to help the districts adequately plan for tong term school honsing needs. 14 G..1? CENTRAL AND ET11yAND.4 SCHOOL D1STR rCTS Letter doted September 28, 1988 presented by Douglas Yeoman of Parker and Covert (attorney for the two district) at the September 28 Planning Commission public hearing. Comment: Tho school districts' attorney was concerned that the GPEIR /MEA did not address school needs strongly enough 'The Districts are troubled and concerned that the City has not given adequate thought or attention to the suffieieuey of facility and funding requirements over the next 20.25 years for the public schools serving the City. (The School Section) contains numerous Inaccuracies and is totally devoid of any implementation or development policy pertaining to school facility financing to enable the Districts' Schools to adequately accommodate 'double the current number of students." Thz attorney es• donated that the two districts would need $178 million t0 finance new facilities anal up to $48 million for new school sites at City buildout. The attorney also took exception to the soggcsted mitigation measure of the City helping to coordinate the school districts' plan- ning efforts. Corrections to Tables III -R /R, III -R /F, and III-11/0 were also provided that duplicated the corrections provided by Ingrid Vogel In the Central School District letter dated September 12, 088. Response: The Issue of adequate and equitable school financing Is one of the most dif- ficult Issues that tho State has had to deal with over the last 10 year. The recently enacted developer fee process (A3 2926) establishes a direct school - developer fee process which removes local Jurisdictions (cities) from the review process. Cities are now therefore limited In their ability to assist school districts, since schools can now levy p to $1.52 per square foot on new residential construction and $.26 per a, a foot for Commercial /industrial construction. Cities are not allowed to grant development permits without a certification from the involved school district(s) that the appropriate real have been paid. These fees are meant as a partial eject to the State School Euliding Program so that growing districts can ;till continue to build new schools ahead of increasing student enrollments. As 10 the efforts that the City will make to fund new schools, the City will cooperate with tho school Jistelcts to Its Izgal limit to assure that adequate school facilities are provided. As previously stated, tho City will help coordinate the 111111111108 efforts of the districts. Furthermore, the City Is willing to work with the districts to establish a long -range school planning community committee. The City Council and the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency have approved a program for mitigation of growth within the Rancho Redevelopment Project Area. This mitigation, which Includes the Etlwanda and Central School Districts, is outlined In the devReport 90 Council help establish Dtello - ! Roos Community Facility llDistricts or examine s asset management and disposition of surplus property to help fund new facilities and slew. Joint construction and /or use of City and school district facilities may be another way of cc. comodattng students. The City is ready to work with tl.e school districts to this end. In addition, it should be noted that agreements have been reached between the Etlwanda and Central School Districts with developers in the community, the William Lyon Company and Lewis Homrs, to build needed school facilities. The results of these agreements should be recognized as additional mitigation school operations. measures to offset potential growth Impacts on IS M CAG/FORA'IA D£PART.VENr Or FORESTRY AA'D P Letter dated September 6, 1988 from James Lou /Rf PRO Loughlin TECT /ON Commeett (1) Resource Planning Officer lira la let ante - The wording that the C11Y •should• Pursue adoption is too weak. Tt a t'hertment r.• Investigate adootin 1983 a Ftloq of a¢ ordinance that will °eparts the ould Ilk, to see the g a similar �oerhlll findings City actively on the ro ire f,s p nr L Published In r reduction of fire, fiend, and eroilon Iwm: alon the D Ccember foothills of the San 8Croardlaa Valloy.• ju °m. Report and Recommeodatfon R °tpDOfet (1) Com g the wild'and urban interface i similar to the °10Ot noted. Wording will be Chang a the one referenced above, aged to sh¢II develop' an ordinance It soric floods) •p, . eb p •Dls ;cases flooding bastd no :�� major flooding of 1939 and 1969. Wtidlaad fire Is nor Year flood calculations and the Response: (2) !t trstrlue that went.• ellteussed u rial soli and s. ildland fires 1.3 ° 0ontributing agent to Increase the v egem Non 1011. These m •ter(als coiributori r to a Maier storm eau olumo of flood flows and erosive bulk to storm r to substan• damage downstream runoff and seriously Commeut: (3) 173.• •� Art urban (toxic) waste eollecrto¢ site ahead Response: (3) Comment noted, Y exists at Fire Station Comment: (4) The activity � Roads should not be eonatructcd throes Pollution would outd remove much of the large animal octiv(1 gh the ttreimslde woodlands Departmentowld destroy eottoawood„ cal 41. ould dispu« that local air °more, and ash Y and the results 01 local air would destroy trees. POIIatloo caused 2' ( (quote from CPEIR Pacts of construction Over n Acknowledge y building hildc The Chet resultant air period g high levels of tree mortality g strnmslde roods Foliation would destroeara• Ca° You Provide further .caused b1 the lm- would te; (4) d b Dotntl or clarlfieatircos?- would .. )dente to support would be produced by AS use PPOrt roads. Seeodell the statement shouldrbehA roads a be that air pollutants Including lutanq would probabt nd not so much by construction dust, C annot be Y not dC1110Y but odlfled to Indicate that the Inc on 41, or the determined at this point If or to U dei«do the hat de re health cc the trees, although L e [hls might occur. Lh R 16 a, LAND USE SECT /ON SUdIdIARf The Land Use discussion ( Section 111 -H) In the GPEIR /MEA contains a number of compli. cuted tables. The reason for this great amount of detailed information Is to describe how the number of future housing units le the City eau be e•:culated. It is an attempt to se- curorely estimate the number of infill housing units that Casa be built in the western, estab- lished half of the City and add it to the number of planned and approved units in tho growing eastern half of the City. The following is a summary of the ;and use analysis in Section IIhH with rationale to explain the purpose of the various tables. Sectloa la tells how and why the total area (scrc82) of the City has changed since the completion of the 1980 General Plan. Section Ib describes how much of the total City area Is mad: up of the various land use categoric. One measure of how fast a City Is developing Is land use absorption. This sec- tion states that residential land in the City is developing at 355 acres per Year. At that rate, all of the residential land in the City would be used up In 13 year,. however, other factors must be taken Into account when estimating the actual timefnme for bulldaut. This Is but one measure used to estimate bulldout Section cc compares the 1981 General Plan land use categories to the Categories used in the 1987 General Plan update as well as the GPEIR /hIEA. The only major differences between the 1987 General Plan and the GPEIR /MEA are In th4 Open Speed and Public FDCilltic sections. Fortunately, the Residential. Commercial, and the Industrial categories are the same so the buildout calculations are directly convertible between the GP and the GPEIR. Table III-H /A compares the amount of land in each land use category for t%o 1981 General Plan to the 1987 GPEIR /MEA to show how the City has grown (20,900 acres In 1981 to 22,737 acres in 1987) and changed in character (residential and industrial uses in- creased their percentage as part of the total City while the commercial percentage decreased). The Sphere of Influence also decreased in size (8621 acres to 7704 acres) due to annexations to Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, Table III -H /D this table shows how the different land uses have changed in the City since 1981 as a percentage of the total City area (also takes Into account the overall Increase In City area since 1981). It shows that residential uses have gone from 52% to 56 %, commer- cial uses have decreased 1 %, and Industrial uses have Increased from 22% to 23.5 %. An Im- portant point to remember about this table is that increases In residential and Industrial uses have probably come by better defining open space, flood control, and urtliryitramportatlon rights -of -way rather than by the reduction of one particular type of developed laud use (residential, commercial, Or industrial). Table III -If /C this table shows how the land use absorption figure presented in Section Its as der,sed The developed acres from the 1981 General Plan (1979 inventory) is rubtraeted from the 1987 GPEIRrMEA developed acreage figure, then it is divided by the number of )ears (eight) to arrive at 378 acres per year (for residential uses). Section Id breaks the City down into identifiable geographiral units (planning areas) for a more to -depth analysis of land use patterns and trends. 17 M, M LAND USE ANALYSIS (CON'T) Tables III -H /D through III -H /L shows a detailed breakdown of the land uses within the seven (7) planning areas In the City plus the Sphere of Influence. All of these tables aro on " a computerized Symphony spreadsheet. Table 111.11 /ht this table compares the amount of residential land and number of housing units In each geog•aphieal planning area of the City to give the reader an understanding of i the size and residential character or the areas. Section 2a this section calculates the potential years to bulldout of the City by dividing the number of vacant acres per land ute category by the land use absorption rates (as pre- viously calculated In Table ItI.H /C). This shows that the City could build out In a mini- mum of 12-22 years based solely oa historical land use absorption rates. This section lays the foundation of estimating a realistic bulldout rate for the City. Table III -II /N pro% des the data to calculate the number of years to bulldout based on only land use absorption (See Section 2a). Section 2b this section beglos the task of calculating the future number or units that the City might support. At first, a very simple method Is used whereby the MAIL. density of existing residential land use categories (actual units per acre as opposed to the suggested General Flan density) are multiplied by the number of vacant acres of each land use category left in the City. This simple method yields a maximum potential of 34,077 new units that could be added to the City. However, this is too large a range for planning pur. poses so a more accurate method must be employed. Table III -H /O this table calculates the actual density (units /acre) of the different residen- tial land uses in the City (See Section 2b). Table III -H /P to give perspective on tho potential General Plan growth limits, this table multiplies the number of remaining vacant residential acress in the City by land use category times the minimum and maximum densities allowed under, the General Plan. Therefore, according to the General Plan, the City could add anywhere from 20,000 to 35,600 future units. However, this range is still not precise enough for specific planning purposes. Table 111 -ti /Q Instead of using the maximum - minimum den ity ranges of the General Plan (see Table ill -H /P), this table uses the actual Jensitics for each land use category calcu- lated in Table III -H /O to calculate the probable number of new units that could be built in the City according to the General Plan guidelines. So, Instead of a range from 20.36 thousand units, this method yields an estimate of 27,854 units that could most likely be built Table Ili -H /R this table shows the possible rarge of units that could be built In the Spectftc Plan, Planned Community areas in the eastern half of the City. As a precursor to lust addtn, up the approved number of units ft.r these developments, it Is instructional to see what the potential number of units are that could be built in these areas according to the maximum and minimum General Plan densities. is Q3 Z l =ro LAND USE ANALYSIS (CON-17) Section 2e this station summarizes the following tables and brings the future unit claims. tion process to Its conclusion. According to appravcd plans sad historiLVl land ate development patterns, It is most likely that the City wlli add 28,413 new Units as the City builds out When this is added to the 30,385 estimated existing units, it can be projected that the City wilt evee•ualiy have 58,861 housing units at buildout. �? Table III HIS thlc table takes the remaining vacant residential acres in the older, more devclor Ceotraq portion of the City and multiplies them by their actual densities as show able Ili -H /0 to arrive at an estimated number of new units that will probably be a s area. i� !; Table , ., r this is just a summary of the existing units and vacant acres in the cactera Specific Plan /Planned Community areas. °. Table III -H /U shows the total number of new housing units expected in the eastern 4 Planned Community areas by subtracting the existing (aiready built) units from the total ., approved number of units. Table III -Y_ /V this final buildout table combines the estimated number of units from the developed western half of the City (Table 111•)1/5) with the numbs of new units In the growing eastert. half (Table III -H /U) to arrive at a total buildout figure of 58,861 units which Is 28,483 new units added to the 30,31,5 :xl:ling units. Section 2d this section and the three tablet that follow (III•It /W through Y;, show the ex- fisting land use In the Sphere of Influence area arording to three potentially e;iolieable land use plans for this area; the County General Plan, the (County) West Valley Foothill Community Plan, and the City's General Plan. The cod of this section Contains a com. parlson of the minimum and maximum number of units that could be built in the Sphere area under each of the three possible land use plans. It should be noted that the units and acreages shown to Table 11I -H/X were only for a per. tion (San Sevaluc) of the West Valley Foothill Community Plan area. This labid will be corrected In the final document. The Rancho Cucamonga sphere of Influence represents only 7704 acres (46 %) of the tots( West Valley area and Is proposed to support over 5,000 units according to this plan. This figure is within the unit ranges shown for this area in the County General Plan (3,400 to 7,$00). The entire West Valley area (16,782 acres) also comprises the Caryn Planned Commurlt-, (274 acres), the sphe:c of Influence of the City of Fontana (1884 acres), which also contains the balance of the pleaned units, and the Na. tional Forest Service lands (6,920 acres) north of the Iwo city spheres if influence. 19 COMMENT LETTERS I CITY OF RANCHO CUCA61ONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 1988 TO: Brad Buller, City Planner . FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer le BT: Chuck Mackey, Associate Cavil Engineer (Traffic) SUBJECT: CALTRANS General Plan EIR Response i fi'i 3 1977 The CALTRANS comments regarding the Traffic Study of tho above referenced Project have been revteued and our comments follow: The City of Rancho Cucamonga 1s presently setting up a major traffic planning model program (TPMP) that wilt satisfy the majority of CALTRANS comments and requests. A request for proposal to establish the Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Planning Model and Nexus Procedures has been sent to prosppective consultants. This program is scheduled to begin in December and be completed by mfd -yeAr 1989. Attached is a copy of the RFP. Regarding their Trs'fic study comments and requests: 1. The TPY.P will address the traffic Impact of full build -out of the City and its sphere of influence on all its streets and highways, including State routes. 2 appropriate that regional encThse S al eo.iductospe visearegiol study. existing R VSAN regional traffic planning study should be used by CALTRANS to analyze egional impacts. The City will be able to show its tractional and accumulatfve impacts on the State Highway System. Refer to the RFP for TPN? for further information. 3. The TPHP will adequately reflect existing conditions. 4 The TPHP will adequstely calculate levels of service. 5 The TP4P rill allow us to use any existing or proposed highway system and measure and evaluate its traffic fa.pact. Regarding their State Highway comments: I CALTRANS presently maintains all surface state highways in tho City and therefore, can remove all parking they so desire. In spite of their reluctance to assert this authority, the City Engineering Division intends to remove parking on all City arterial and selected collectors If and when State Routes 30 and 66 come under City maintenance, the parking removal policy will also apply. Brad Buller CALTRAMS General Plan October 12, 1988 Page Two 2. Since the interchanges an 1 -15 of 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard are separated by more than two miles, an Interchange, design at. 6th Street re9ulre special design considerations. The TPth will allow the City to 4valuate the traffic needs end warrants far this Interchange. Regarding their Flood Control comments: Thu has hir City's dconsulta master consultants i currently conduct studies. report rbyi Sf Consultants covering the easterly part of the City is being anaiyzeG by city staff while PSamas Consultants are preparing a report covering the remaining westerly part of the City area. Upon completion of this project, the master plan will be changed to reflect the City's needs. Regarding their remaining comments which concern growth, traffic impacts on the highway system, mitigation measures and the City's ability to help fund these peasures:, The City will mitigate, or cause mitigation of significant traffic impacts caused by new development. The TPMP will be used to measure and thelCity miitigatesffractional ands Accumulativeotraffmrlepa :tsdofivarious developments by use of its transportation system fee. The City is presently upgrading 19th Street (Route 701 with transpportation system fees. The City will continue Its practice of necessaryit19W-110 thye upgrading the Allow State the City to re_vir•, Analyzetand Mas�raPta isad0iberately conducive�tonshortening the distanceeoflwork trips, and in fact, keepfnq many trips internal to the City and therefore Off the freeway system, Ile su4M -: that CALTRAMS could pursue this balancing between residential am, ,ndustrfal land uses on a large regional scale. Trying to change human behavior by arbftiary control when residential areas are a distance from working areas by artificially lowering demand access to freeways seems Improbable. RHM CM Pam :e •1 sr.rt a amos +•-0'rK{ i OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH C .'t r {t'?h hose I {r.IM UHR •�• {•CIA.On. CA rrtb SEP09l ;1 Larry Henderson September 6, 1028 City of Rancho Cucamonga y 9320 Basellne Roo =.ncho Cucamonga. CA 91701 Sub;ects Rancho Cucomonga General Plan Update, SCHI 88020115 Saar: Nr Henderson: The ststo Clearinghouse has submitted the above na."d draft Environmental :-part Report (E:R) to selected state ageno!es for review. :he review period is raw closed and the cxrants from the responding a;incy(ies) Were) enclosed. Cn the enCICSed Notice of Completion fora you will note that the Clearinghouse has chocked the agencies that have Cxaertad. Please review the ::otice of Completion to ens -re that your eon:ent package is complete. If the ccrnent package is not in order, please notify the state Clearinghorle irraediately. Remember to refer to the pro;ect's eight -digit State Clearinghouse nimber so that we may respond prccptly. ti please note that Section 21104 of the California public Resources Code requires Chats •a resporsible agency or other 1!c agency shall only make substantive eo=anes regarding thoso activities involved in a projoct w` -h are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are require. :o be carried out or approved by the agency.' Corrnenting agencies are also rewired by this section to support their crrrr_nts with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your fi-ral ell). Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the ccnrrnting agency(ies). This lettor acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Enviror,lmer.tal Quality Act. Please Contact Cohn Keene at 916/445 -0613 if you have any q.ostions regarding the environmental review process. S' �cerely, �sv id C. •7unenRa-p r.,.af C Tice of Permit assistance Vic i --sl. r es cc: Resources A;ency Tr .w.. Ir. i.n.i. W ••. w.. � wr Y wL.rA .'YrA w.. ... •u'u tt w•iru �tiiui{r i•mw... .,.IS:r °la ! b wlw..ry It wG •e • rqt �lR rPYi qr we1. • �. r Cltr • •!v ..:• '• ,1 n'av41i :[Lt• 1 1 _..isn; i— •r�_.._ L�YW. ••r. tl. •_vt,• { 1.,..,r.•w i, Y.,. An Iv,•u%4 �"� u�j°fa '�� 1' ! i1 /.! /ll r i. mi « b.w !v p••Lny •a.�IwT. w. ` •x Tnf�.•x.1 °1•t ..:l -t••1 Y. ti. ww .� -�. U. hi M. '.•.x t.l . i• .. ! • w "G•lt. a w... S.T. { !I r4 i �{. P' . 1 L�•IW N4 x 4 L X8.4 W w. �\ r. w.�• wr wu _ �� lrww. T• 1 LAY,. i _O w.� r �i.� tw.tt�.ra Y...�•' i wD'i `�•• n Y. �Iw.IY fa w. �IrM.. .w '� L...•••r+�. i. �w� ww•w.. a t]w � Y t.9 y Y Y �[r w•.1 ~' L Ntl�� N.r /� w. ANY L fn w.wl W �\.•. •n r r A. �y �r 1 'w. x. x.1.1 w.r•r J. sir. w ww.w. 11. YV "t �fYrt L� I4 Lwr•11't. t•+. 1i111 L fir' 4. tlt� L =wr�s—In WrirM 1••.{.IT••,nr Y. �wr..11b L ••1•.wIFIW 1 _ Iw �Yr YryV w. �wr yy, L �W YY L I Y.TNY • P. _wwl! i. � w .•.Yw L �•.r•wTY 4•�IY Y. 1 Yw Y. �YYt _ ••'M r. _w•.... W 14 �••. i. w�"ra.w � Y w Swwn Y.w LL•�".••I Y^•r i. �w4Ylt•w..xr i. 1 Y.Nw. Ylwr r ��• i • .T.YY i. �wr t•1^t .]i?Jlt9wisr l:1 'IN .Ie11N :M1 ^• hYr w.A=4I Mrlt „11. VH { t•I:f•t:1 LUO.•Gt •I- T� /� �Ii1:V t•tl. 1M t, •llt Wit. + ••tilt !V1• +•r -rt•l • {'S:: !'T . LC':S{C "JA lrr:ITCt•!t :••ILT II•:tT •j. wl. •Y.MIMI 4WG • V9H to of 44r11 1•l. IGt•Itlitl 'n1).y t••n IM t ^�Mttthn rynunl. IM .rriIIM1 to H•1 CY Jz, 71;19. 1{tt1l. st LL tM] °It I” ]IM1t 1 tllq.t. YPrGr CS.:S'f, leiY ,iPlt r� vt f[Nllf•MI! < ItRUVAS • IlR .CCI r l ) )•Jrt lairs Itra mtutrtTmt our. tatty TO .wKi, 8 �9 A • so t uwt t tRih Ip AMC AMC SGI 17.2 -- _ �.�s 1�, :]AtJ.tt. 9 -aC 5 •11...x. ..: ut•n ,tR::ti 1 • ,tti , Il ,Z,,� f1•_ �— �• 4r.•n•. � is •••t.MU ,non v.1 bn nn � � i ^:: NYC 1] _ . .nr I+Itla!! L...111 .:1 .I:i . ;C t�1• mm yya•�277- {•.. ,.l, r. •y •i,,•,z _ • _ _ ;TRANSPORTATION /FLf1UD CONTRUL COUNTY OF SAN IWAiDwE taildl/ TN1naONrAWAt DEPARTMENT ,.L� /y am rusuewoaxsPOENCY 125 Eitt Theo Suitt a So gorw6ne, CA 52415 -0075 • 11141381.7800 \� KEN A. Malta Y August s, 1980 f Filet 1 -000 /1 1 Cm(;-t ••• , I:1 • J A'I /1U CL1::, FS ? City of Rancho Cucamonga p: r• 1. '+ " :'••� g Post Office Box 807 ')31�,•S. ' ' '') Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 i1 5 Her lone 1 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Actor Larry Henderson General Plan Environmental t Senior Planner Impact Huport The following comments pertain to the referenced report subaitted for review by • your latter Gated July 22, 1988. 1. Page 46 - "Flooding" Paragraph 61 The Flood Control District is charged with providing flood control and water conservation facilities only within its funding capabilities and limitations. The District'$ jurisdiction 13 limited to those facilities and /or Water courses where right - of -way has been acquired. 2. Figure III - G/1 Flood Control 4ap, Existing System o) The map Dhows debris basins and other drainage facilities that do not exist (i.e. Henderson and Etiwands Debris 38sins, Etiwanda Channel between Interatata 10 and Foothill Blvd, and the unnamed channel between Day and Etivamla Creeks). b) The map does not show 3090 facilities that do -aim: 'i.e. Alta Lose Debris Basin and Day Creak Basins). a) The legend infers all the basins shown tre debris basins. Many of the basins are used for water conservation or flow attenuation purposes, not debris retention. d) Alta Loma Storm Drain 13 an oprn channel not an enclosed drain. e) A rap if attached showing existing and pr000sed District facilitie3 and known major drainage proposPls by others. , tr>r i l .. •.r.p eq 4:T}r�•.. ,�Jy is � t ... �. V i city or Ranuho Cucawngs August 40 1988 Page 2 f) It is suggested a figure be Included In the report showing all proposed masterplan and drainage lqImprovamcnts. q?: 3. Figure III - T /1. Open Space Plan i' Some of the Flood Control lands shown between Dec.- Creek and Day Creek Channels may be surplus to District needs and be sold for a`. future development. ` A 4. Figure III - T /2, l(astorplan of Trails Many of the proposed trails follow District right of way. Their ,4 design should to such that tneir use does not conflict with the operation and eairtananee of the District facilities. Any proposed t' use should be coordinated with the Flood Control District, Field J Engineering Division, Permit Scction. The above comments partair_ to Flood Control District facilities only. The Report has been forwarded to the Transportation Department for their eucaents, Should you have any (ZUestiona or wish additional information, please contact me at (714) 397 -2525. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. CORCHERO, Chief Flood Control Planning Division RMC:ala Attachment cc: Lou Gacache r r. ti n 1 I -. yq CITY OF R %NCHO CL CA %IC \r;k September 7, 1988 Kent 4ortcn Planntny Network 2940 Inland Fmpire Boulevard. Suite 105 Oitario, CA 91764 0 S•J9JECT: FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT RESPONSE TO GEAL.TAL PLA4 EIR Dear Kent: The following items need to be addressed /corrected In the Final EIR. 1. Section N, Page 127 - Existing Setting, 3rd sentence snould be changed to delete fire, paramedic... departments. Reference to these services should list the Foothill Fire District as provider. 2. Figure III -N /1 needs to indicate the locations of ;roposed fire stations numbers 4 through 7. .Also, under the legend, fire stations 0. 6 should read "East Avenue and 24th Street ". 3. Section Q, Page 133 - Existing Setting, first paregraph, the outlying areas should be changed to "18 square miles and the total area listed as a total of "50" square miles. At the end of the third and fnurth paragraphs reference should be made that stations No. 2 .nd No. 3 provide 24 hours protection as listed for statfrn 0.: in the second paragraph. Also, in the fourth paragraph change the "3500 gallon" water tender to "4000 gallon . 4. Section Q, Pags 134 - The second sentence of the third paragraph shculd read as follows: "finis agency provides fire protection services in the area north of the City limits on land which the State is legally responsib'e for ex tingu4shing wildland fires " 5 Section K, Page 176 - Mitigation Measure, second ;. aragraph (ha_ardous wastes) the Fire District is checking, %-ith the County, intc any responsibilities the District may have to this area. Additional cor•,nent may follow regarding this subiict. SEP. 7 - .... cam......, 'r•'•' DtMnh 9 e8,0.8 .n .. /,Rry Xna Cr Dt..,, L Siva CAw1nl Lq."11 — P•mN,) Wnpt UWIn M. B',a,r . Kent Norton - General Plan EIR Sc:, ^ember 7, 1988 Pa ;,c 2 These convents were received during a meeting with Lloyd Almond of the Foothill Fire District on September 6, '_988. If you have any qjestions, it Is suggested you contact Mr. Almond at (714) 987 -2535. Sincerely, OOt41'JUITY DEVELOPPEKT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Alan Warren Associate Planner Plt:mig sr•n o• arao +�•n a ;.m or�•w � :: ci.s,. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 6609 INDIANA AVENUE. SURE 200 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92506 /HON' ;7141782.4120 tlj(„ t tLl 11 �: i1::Q August 25, 1988 Larry Henderson Alan Warren City of Rancho Cucamonga 9720 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 DEIR: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FASTER = 11VIRONHENTAL ASSESS14ENT & GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, SCH 086020115 Dear Messrs Henderson and Warren: Vs have reviewed the subject document and have the following concerns: WATER QUALITY We note (pp. 42 ani 170) that 70% of the city of Rancho Cucamonga community water supply is obtained from 19 ground water wells, with nitrate and dibromochlorooropane concentrations exceeding drinking water allowable limits in wells as listed in Table III -F /D. Since the district plans to use imported water for either recharge or direct distribution to meet projected demand deficiencies (p. 172), serious consideration should be diructed to use of water for recharge in areis where the ground water shows unacceptable contamination /high nitrogen levels. An effort should be made to reclaim the wells now abandoned because of contamination /high .nitrates. If the loss of wells because of unacceptable water quality reduces the available drinking water supply, a:a effort should be mada to moderate growth in this region to maintain an adequate water supply for present /future population. Colorado River water has been noted as being of negligible value as an auxiliary source of water for this arae, and imported water supplies from Northern California pres +nt not only problems of blending, but also of limitations due to overall cumulative growth demands in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. In addition, we may noto that current activities of the State Water Resources Control Board to review the water rights decision which relates to use of the State Water Project maize it unwise to assume that inperted Liter .upplies will be available to support all of t`e projected growth in this region. This subject should be given very careful consideration in the DETR and in any general plan policies /programs now being considered by the City. SEWER We are concerned that septic systems, which currently service 25% of the population of..-this area (p. 173), present potential for contamination of the ground water supply. The predominantly good water quAlity of the Chino Basin in the Rancho Cucamonga area could be degraded by either nutrients or bacteria. We strongly recommend that every effort be made to provide sewer service to replace the present septic systems, especially in areas with soil limitations, and that future growth be accompanied by ability'to serve with full sewer service. We suggest that "Mitigation Measures" (p. 175) be amended to incorporate a policy that all new development must hook up to a sewer system. WASTEWATER Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CCBt:WD) provides the wastewater troatement for this area (p. 173) at RP1. However, it Is our understanding that the plant provides tertiary service to the Rancho Cucamonga area. we concur with the City of Rancho Cucamonga that coordination of water supply, wastewater services, and construction of needed improvements should precede development. Sincerely, / Ann* Kaight Environmental Specialist cc: John Keene, State Clearinghouse w/ SCH form a:2275 Septembor 6, 1988 mw CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL City of Rancho Cucamonga D I S T R I C T Cormunity Development Department Planning Division ......V.c + +•� •r + +- p, O. Box 807 - ucct•rc+ >+. rrrr Rancho Cucamonga, California 11776 Attention: Mr. Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Subject: Environmental EnvironmentaltAssess -ent and Ganeral Plan Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamongll'a Gen1988 Pand UHareh the 19 as iesubmltted eScomments dated for February 29, incorporation into the City's General Plan Update and the related Draft EIF.. In our February 29, 1988, correspondence the District presented a this correspondence, eTthenDistrict the hadrrequestednthat thenCityaaddress the consistency of the existing general plan land use designation fcr our administrative site (8555 Archibald Avenue) AFN's 2o9 -o41 and 47) with the surrounding land uses. At that time, it was the Otstrict's understanding that the la 7 use designation for this site was low density residential. The District questioned the consistency of the low density residential designation with the surrounding land uses which include existing commercial and industrial busineea park uses. From our review of Figure II -4 of the Draft EIR, it appears that the District's existing administrative office site is actually designated for commercial development. not low density residential. The District land stin the city orprovide clarification ion what the actual Also, in the February 29, 1988 correspondence, the District had requested that the City consider ir_plerenting the original general plan policy regarding the use of reclaimed water supplies when available This request was r_ade in recognition of the District's plan to move fcrward with the construction of the proposed Regional Plart NO 4 ( ? 7-4) facility in southeastern Rancho Cucamonga. SchaduleJ to be opertional milliona gallons iper lday �(IIGD) of high iquality reclaimed approximately water will be ultimately available for reuse purposes. /... • +: •' eN: a. [•.ul MS +Oma !:• <.1 u9: +0 C.r: a.,.Oh:a Ca: ,O n•na u•y CGU4o s.UY wumlC ".,..4 "p.,CT sVL AsC„IPto.YU.vC " a V2 .07 CuCAu04n♦ C4L0f0XN,& The availability of roclalmed water from RP -6 represents an alternative water supply so-rce which could decrease demands upon both local and impurted potable water supplies. The EIR should address the potential benefits of implementation of the= city's existing; general plan policy on_tha use of,reclained water supplies. Reclaimed water from the RP-4 facility could have many beneficial uses within the City. Potential uses of the reclaimed water include unrestricted landscape irrigation, recreational lakes and industrial and Institutional reuse purposes. In revive of Section III -W Hof the Draft EIR, a number of corrections regarding the current capacity and the scheduling of the capacity expansions at our wastewater reclamation faeilitiei require clarification. The Ragional Plant No, 1 (RP -1) facility in Ontario is currently rated at a capacity of 32 MGD. By a series of inter - related axpansicn projects, RP -1 will be expanded to a capacity of 36 MGD in aerly 1969 and co a capacity of « MGD in 1990. The proposed . RP-4 facility is scheduled to be operational in 1993 with an initial capacity of 7.4 MGO. The Diattict believes that the comments presented above should be addressed and incorporated into the text of the Final EIR. If you should have any questions or if the Distrirt can be of any assistance, please contact the undersigned. very truly y� yours, Mark N. 4Cins- n— y7Planning and Administrdtive Services CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MNxt a -2- is Slog .0C.14.1.6 The Rnw,<., Aem,y Memorandum T. 1 Projects Coordinators i.t 24. 1956 Resources Agency .` 2 City of stanch, Cucamonga , 93:0 Baseline Road �� -:, ; %>3 (••_� Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 f.an Oepe,lm.n, d i:,h and Gem• \ � � P t R s�e,en� Master Environmental Assessment and General PIA1 Environmental Impact Report (MEA /DEIR): City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County - SCR 56020115 we have reviewed the MEA /DEIR for the City of Rancho Cucanenga's General Plan update. This document was prepared to serve as a baseline of information which developers and agencies can incorporate by reference into other planning and environmental documents. The project area includes over 30,000 acres, including 22,737 acres within the City limits and 7,704 acres within the City's sphere of influence to the north. The project area is largely developed but includes several resources of significant interest to the Department of Fish :_nd Come These include riparian wetlands and chaparral habitats that may be ,fled sheep wintering ranges, and a unique wetland (ldentlfled in Che M.EA /DEIR as a 'sage marsh') at the confluence of Day Creek and East Etiwa nda Canyon That area includes the state- and federally - endangered slender- horned spinefluwer (Chorizanthe le toceras) and the state- endangered Nevin's barbery tBer erg' -'is nevani The MEA /DEIA provides only a cursory analysis of the t-iotic resources within the planning area. In order to be useful to future analyses, specific mapping of sensitive wildlife habitats should have been provided. Also, the REA /DEIR is incorrect in its inferences regarding legally profs :ted species as discussed on page 32 The CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (ccaA) Guidelines Section 15350 indicates clearly that species meeting the criteria established in the definitions of "rare" ,ind .endangered" specivnq'iistednt/ t`e California Native Plant Society, candidates for federal or state listing, and other rare and _:cal :y vn:que species shout! to ccn.s:dered as rare or endangered far purposes of CECA compliance Inpacts to these species cc the.r habitats in addition to impart; co state— o- federally species are significant adverse •'pacts pursuart to CEQA Guidelines Section 1:055, Streamside woodland wetlands ate extremely valuable wildlife habitats It is the Department's policy to cop=se protects whip~ would result i'i a net less of either .etland acreage or wetland habitat values. The City should designate all wetland areas as natural open spa•:e snd should encourage the conservat)on of this resource. The loss of any wetlands which cannot be febsiblyy protected should be compensated through the creation oL wetlands of no less acreage and of no loss habitat value the.. those wetlands which would be lost. while we agree that counties generally attempt to consider local as ncy planning efforts, we must point cut the large difference between the 8,500 dwelling units which the City proposes +ithin its sphere of influence and the 1,000 dwellin units currently allowed under the County's crest valley Foothill Community Plan (page 30) our recommendation for this area is to accept the County's planned densities to allow a buffer between the City and the Angeles National Forest. We are particuisrly concerned about proposed use changes in the Day Canyon area, and we recommend that all of the areas of actual and potential mountain sheep habitat be designated Resource Conservation. If this document is to serve as a useful tool in planning for future growth within the City's sphere of ihfLc nce, the MEA /DEIR should contain accurate and detailed information regarding the location of, and fish and wildlife values associated with, important fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant spsciea habitat. Such information is of extreme importance in planning for growth in brews where impacts to fish and w..ldlife resources may be minfmized. For these reasons, we cecommand against certification of the Y.EA /DEIR at this time) and we recommend that the MEA /DEIR be substantially upgraded to provide a firm foundation upon which to plan Lor the Lvture growth of the City of Rancho Cucamonga while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with that growth. We emphasize that the MEA /DEIR lacks sufficient detail to allow either the Department or the City. to assess the effects of proposed development, and, for this reason, the MEA /DEIR lacks sufficient detail to comely with CEgA requirements. Department personnel are available to provide the City with information regarding the sensitive nature of portions of the more than 30,000 acres contained within the planning area, and to provide recommendations regarding the long -term protection of these areas. Thank you for the opportunity to revie,i and temment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Fred worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, at 330 :^!den Shore, Suite 50, L: -3 Beach, CA 9C802 or by telephone at (213) 290 -5113 Pete Sontade111 :irector M1 .. ,, ,N Sut� d r�LfYLN Wun,u Tumeanot6n •nd N.udne Apn,r 5• M4►m *rand r•m k To State C' ghouse ra.. September 1, 1988 �r Office • _anring t Research 1400 10th Street �_LLZ n, t+o 08- Sed -15- 3.0/8.8 Sacramento, CA 95814 J ' \� SCH$ 88020115 ? Attention: John Reene y '•1`••' `. NPARTMMT Or TRANSPORTATION District a svbl,n. Rancho Cucamon3a General ?last••• ' WP hove revle'reti the Ahnve- menrinneri rrnjerr r,nA hAve rhA fnlsnwirg r comments. In regard to the Traffic Study, we request the followings o An analysis of full buildout which includes a forecast of futuLe traffic on the State highways. o A regional study of the traffic effects to the state highway system. This would include a study that would show Rancho Cucamonga's contribution to regional traffic in the west Valley. o Cn page 94, the current. hnitdnut i,s 25 percent less than the previous estimates, therefore the generated trips should be 25 percent higher. 'o On Table III -I /t the figures are deflated by 25 percent are used for Voluwe Capacity ratios and Level of Service calcula- tions where the higher number would be more appropriate. o Analysis of the circulation syst•sa with and without the propoeed•Route 30 freeway. In regard to the State highways the go lowing should be implemented: • Prohibition of Parking on State highways. • The planned interchange at Interrtate lz and 7th Street does -Ot meet federal spa-)rg requirements of interchanges on a freeway. I•f the 3yd:ology section of the Gereral ?Pan, on page 49, the food control projects refer to 1980 and 1982, this should oe upbated to reflect the current system. t :s a Caltra ^s policy to suppert econes.tc c:owth and orderly !anti �e development, however, new development t`tt stgnificar.tly !mpactu are highway facilities should have nitigatten measuces addrvssea. J• State Clearinghouse Page Y SePtember 1, 1988 In view of rye fact that Caltrans has no funds available for Infrastructure improvements, we recoxmand that the City Of n, Cucamonga take the lead in develcpine a fair -where hecCit develoPera would which A!ghvey system, part.e_ pate to ftn3 needed icprcvamenta to In e which h t. c State fut City :idoc plan, that voullard manage plan along with future y should reduce demand on the State. 1I Sate tie ef£Icta of grortA and highway system. I.', addition, through the fair -share mechanism the City should facility mitigations to the state highvey system for the regional dustrial areas adjacent to I Provide shopping center and in Interstate is, If you have any questions, please contact Richard Nalacoff at (711) 383 - {558. r e-' GUY G. V1SBAL Chief, Transportation Planning Branch RX:km cet CSmith, Plan Chord Unit, DoTP Alan Marren, City of Rancho Cucamonga Larry Henderson, Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga al�l,�((rGfrnn a aLWU4Cas AG4MC! Of CADfORN1A i Memorandum Dr. cordon F. Snow i _ t AUG 2 J }c }t'y ' Assistant secretary for Resource Draft r,-R for •arry Henderson and Alan warren t�GE ^!r-70 Master Cnv City of Rancho Cucamonga Assessment and 9320 gasoline Road ! =`? �t)S3 tot General Plan Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 '• k Updatn' DCH 188020115 f,an . p�Mrlm�nt n fwnwe+N�. —ONk� �G Ilw DIMS � ,:tE� � / The Department of Conservation has re'vi� ad the City of Rancho Cueamcnga•s Draft Environmental Impact Report ;EIR) for the City •a Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Update, SCH ;88020115, and has the following comments to offer. As you know, the State Mining and Geology Board transmitted a copy of a report designating regionally significant construction aggregate resources in the San Bernardino and Claremont - Upland Production - Consumption (P -C) Regions to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in April 1987. In accordance with the provisicna of, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act OHARA), Section 2762, tho city is required to establish mineral resource management policier in its General Platt that willt (1) recognize the mineral information transmitted by the Board; (2) assist in the management of land use in designation areas„ and (1) emphasize the conservation and development of, identified mineral deposits The City's Draft EIR includes information on the aggregate extraction resource areas, but it is not clear if management policies have been established that will accomplish tre objectives of SMARA Section 2762 SMARA Section 2762(b) requires that proposed mineral resource management policies be submitted to the State Mining and Geology Board for review and comment prior to adoption. The Department of Conservation would, thersfore, recommend that the City's proposed mineral policies be formally submitted to the attention of Ms. Deborah Herrmann, Special Representativa, State Mining and Geology Board, 1416 9th Street, Room 1175 -2, Sacramento, California 95814, telephone (916) 122 -1082. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Craft EIR If I can be of any assistance, please feel tree to call ce at (916) 122 -5871 Dennis 7. 'Bryant Environmental Program Coordinator cc: Deborah L. Herrmann Soectal Representative State Mining and Geology Board utl 1., rr/ ONTARIO ]Jl EAST ^d' STREET ONTARIO ��' ✓�I 'Y..,, ,,• CALIFORNIA 91761.4196 171.1 9e 6•IIS August 10, 1988 Mr, Larry Henderson r ' . 1 ; Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Fost Office Be, 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr, Henderson: Thank you far the opportunity to review your draft general plan. read the document with a eye toward areas of concern for the City MY staff has of Ontario. Ve have Identified the following issues, I. The proposed County Jail, In tae southeast corner of Rancho Cucamonga, 1, not mentioned In tht draft. $1e would like Co sea the compatibility of this and surrounding uses analyzed. 2. we question the appropriateness of the General Industrial designation for the property un the north aids of Fourth Street, across from the Guast! ac,lonal Park, ■ faeility which lies In the City of Ontario, but which is Probably used as much by Rancho Cucamong reaidtnts. a residents os by Ontario 3• we wou!d like to see the likely effects or County proposals to recharge the upper Chino and Cucamongw groundwater basins addressed in your section on groundwater. a we think that your ultimate build —Out scenarios ought to be analyzed in terms of SCAG's proposed growth management proposals, especially in the arts of Jobs and housing balance, 8. The Industrial designations on the north aids of Fourth Street are likely to require deliveries by large trucks which would tted to tra terse our hotel and comerelal areas within the Ontario Center. This situatltn Is desirable development of Ontario 41113 t south aOf pFourth. leads husmto Furthermore lknet Property owners on the Rancno Cucamonga side of that street will probably want to develop their properties in coanercial uses in any ease. We suggest that you would to well advised to anticipate this occurrence and nave y9ur genera: plcn reflect tae lixe,y conmercial development of tnls area, Pereover, cowerotal development would be more compatl O:e with our General plan, on the SOUtn side of Fourth, and, one would assume, ., 1n line with Rancho Cucacanea's community goals. 'U6. 1 8 .Ppt i ' � :. /•' ^ °' -`ail Larry Henderson August to, 1988 Page No. 2 If you have any Questions Please call no or Austin Sullivan at 391 -2506. Sincerely, ONTCCARIOO— PLANNING DEPARTMENT I /, i� ✓ J c* 1. BaD ez 4 City Planner JIB:AES:da — .� —da, TVG i i i•f• r ' , CITY OF UPLAND The City el gracleus .Grind' :60 So. EL:Ed A,r. P 0. got aa0 VeWld. Csiifom!s 91'56 (711)962.1352 September 6, i9e3 Erad Buller, City Planner Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear fir. Buller: REF: Response for the Master Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment and Environmental impact Report draft. The City of Upland has reviewed the Draft nester Environmental Assessment and offers the following coca erts: i The relationships of cevelor0.rt witH n Rancho Cucamonga aid Upland is not addressed The impact of lufldost on tie City of Rancho Cucamonga is ad• dressed, but no mention is mama of the tracts to surrounding cities 2 r4bile and point source ,Ssions as based on build -out estimates represent a significant and adverse impact. Every attempt should be made to promote the specific mitigation measures as outlined on Page 107 of the Environmen• tal Assessment. The guidelines for pollution control should ue based on South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality•Y.:nagement Plan of 1908. 3. The analysis of the circulation element does not address the impacts on the City of Upland in either short term or cumulative long term impacts. The proposed test for the propo:ed major traffic improv"ents Is not addressed for either city The analysis of traffic circulation indicates that the 1986 General Plan understated the anticipated traffic impact by 2Eii. In light of this fird- fng the Draft Environmental (-tact Cs;m•t notes no reFerecce to the antic!- pared additional impact to the City of u-'and resulting frca Rancho Cuciz0r4's contfrued development !:o q•;a- t+tative aralysfs is prcvl;ed of the traffic growth on arterials as tte traffic leaves the Rancho Cucrorga city limit Consequently, ro mitigation is recoarerded to allow ttese ir,- pacts to to alleviated ,r ,a ,�_90 Yur 1'&:Z0 Kr. Grad Buller Page is P . V % one complettion of su es for Foothill Freeway Pals is stated tthat ttheu traffic based lures will have a significant adverse and cumulative impact an Rancho Cucamonga if the expressway or freeway is not constructed These needs to P•&nci'os t ciamongatand Upland until short the free &yr is tconstructedi and ldout the En- impacts of traffic volu,as in Rancho Cucamonga and Upland, if he Draft oc- curs prior to traffic completion of the freeway. It is not clear in the Draft En- theashoriltermacPrlorata a freed& Y, attona ssurerthatitraffiercantinues to flow within and between the cities. If circulation and land use plans are based . the shift from methods for automobile use ntinyt the talternative forms forms7orlloispeciftc policies araProposedito are the assure that the goals for 170. alternative transportation are achieved. asst are the significant adverse impacts rhich wi l result if this shift does not occur? 9n WOO 5, NO coordination of traffic ide airpactnanalYsis should be acontl cL d tolena is identified A >' &lyze the impacts of traffic generated frog narcho Cucamonga to adj&can areas. 6. yhq f {re protection shouldrbetaddrassed tat assurea the acitiosacontinued cost effective Operations. The City of Upland is continuing its analyst, of the Draft Fng the public impact R!port. i Thank youe for theaopportunityrtoaprovideninput during this matter hear- ing p should you have any questions regarding our CO- -ments, please do not heslta e o contact us sincerely yours, ppla�- 8100.1,ePlannint Director JA9/JJl:bjr ;t d BOARD OF TRUSTEES KENNETH BRADSHAW t W S GONZALES DAVID ORTEGA LORAINE McMULLEN JULIAN RI:XON JOHN F COSTELLO. Cp D Svpc.mitnd-nl V76 Archbald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga Ca:.bnala 91730.4695 (7141957.5942 Soptenbcr 6, 1999 Larry Henderson Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 "C" Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Dear Mr. Hendersonr Attached is a revised enrollment and capacity report for the Cucamonga School District. The information that I presented should replace the information on your Table III —R /C of your master Environmental Assessment and General Plan. If there are any questions regarding this, please don't hesitate t0 Contact me. 51. reI , olirt I Costello, Ed.D. S perintandent Attachment C ic^ Where Succesklul Learning Happens A e P' Central School District 443: foothill Bhd. Rancho Cucamonga. C41dornlx 91:30 (714) 989.8541 September 12, 1988 P.arry Henderson, Senior Planner V City of Rancho Cucamonga ?I&-ning Department S, P O Box 807 Pancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 1 ADMINISTRATION Fran A. Costa, Jr. Ed.O. 0"t"It 5Y0e1Inlr4rr"t Ingrid Vogel 4110bN CYDIONIndM! RLnI•• ep J- .d'.:l JCr? RLI Pogaestsd Revision to the Rancho M.EA Planning Section III for the Central School District Dear PC handersonl I have reviewed the date. ,elatirg to Central School District in the Rancho m..EA Plan and request that the following changes are made to reflect adequate info tion for our tchool districts PAGE 139 - Exhibit 'A' to reflect correct design capacity for 1987 -88 Sicl_ ding and /or excluding leased portables PAGE 143 - Exhibit 'B' to reflect current enrollment of 3080 tc agree with page ).39 and projected enrollment forecast of '-616 for :992 -3 PACE 147 - Exhibit 'C' Central School District has vary detailed studenit gener4tion ratio and this information should be reflected and the note changed PACE 148 - Exhibit 'D' to reflect actual and projected enrollment for Central School District ;ou have any questions, please call me at 989 -8541 :ngr.d ogel Assns:ant Superintendents BLSiress San• -eas 33 =ne -cs J:es cs -'a.:en Kastarran Frank Cosea FO4eD OS TeUSTI(1 wrnl t Seta 4.1aW, L IDrm DntaL OSr, TABLE III -R /B PRESENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTINCT 19104- Ai School and Location Bear Gulch Elementary School 5333 Bear r:ulch Plac: C:r :21 = ::mentary Sc. ".00l 931 A ::hitald Avenue Carol: Canyon 1.0-3 Terra vista ParkW3 Cic2rnor.12 Junior Hi7h School '611 Hillman Avenue Dona _Elementary School 10333 Palo kho Str:et Fade vista E:ementuy School - :7 vsll: visa :)rlve Current Enrollment Design Capacity' a93 Sgt SzP ni .� TO 1001 7c, 7 :3 661 S 69 s�? 'Design npaelty does not include leased or rented portables- alRR!!r!!!fIIW �Tteiryr 2 �"�CLt/Lr7 C.CJ1rib ��u�c ,ee><,ma Poc�ifyct3 ri21:ho %fEk -S:: cn Ill Eag: -139 �^n na as e ssD Q6 S�yG // 99 GG� ,a ao �� „b„ • r The Central District had a :o.notetZ*,th1t?'M'scnt n prepared by '•P air • tap i Christopher in 1986. This district is situated In an orridor in the cent of the - :Ity and ne:uds the Tcrn Vista Plar.ncd C:nnuaster Plan ident• ca skier : - : :rn trite pear) enrollment trends and f3ei!itrs nrif he t:hoots in : dislrlct. It is ant; :l;al :d that enrollments will Increase from to at come point beland 1990. There are sevetrl prap01317 before :he Board of Education that address stu• dint .:owing glans over a inner period of art.:. The Coyote Canyon School is Terra Vista :erns :s of ail portable buildings and wi❑ Scut: students from the planned :ummun;ty an. :if anew, state•fund:d permanent school Is :c: stru: ::d an Mountain View just west of %til- :Acn. The E:iwsnda S :houl District o::upica the aorh:as :rrn portion of the :It;• A =r'_ ng :o the district, an clemenury school designed to ac:or..mcdatc ap ;rna;r x-.:ty 300 s•udea:s is currently under construction and Is :en:atively s :.h-.du:ad :o open In Fall ;988. A t:::nd :Idnc1t2ry t:hool is planned for construction .n Fall :989. -1111 s:ho:l. hew:.::, w:.I be to :a::d in Fontana. Dcp:ndlog on :his school's earn:ln:nt rate aad :he abai :� cf a ::teat: available schools within the City $:Soots to ac :0.m.modar: :ha s ;cd :n• stad:n :s may be bussed out cf the C: :y :o :he Fontana ,:hoot si::. The soda School 7I t:. I :: Is agad a s it.$ for :h: ae :uis i t ion O r a dditieaal lehooI sites which has:..r:ady be :n s:ic :::d within Rancho Cu :ar.,onga and Fantara. The Alta Lor..a District is Io.a:ed in :he northwest ;art of the city. School sites for an elementary and junior high school, located in :he Victoria Oro%cs area and alorg Hc: : =a A�•:nue :T%p=is•e11•. have bean purchased by the district. Cont:.uetion of bath $:car's has a0: beep s:hsdu::d an: : :he State has not allocated :he - :esssry rune: :0 -.h : :ens : :. : :; :n of :he junior It •h s.hecl has b::a ::: :1•:d d.c u :.h -i '.rd ag. ::ia:a:ab:c ::a$srd:r..s are ea::e::l :o be ;:a: :d :c :he :i:. f:- ::! $:hail! .s :zp::::d :o ape:,:: as a to ^pots:}• fa:;': ,v c; t ra Y. asai :,bit. This school %.:II :hen cnd::go ::as::u::ien of a rase r.._........_. •:. In :h: maa:im:. ;tar :On s'. :o :o:ru -t an additional :lamen:ary rhooi {:he : :entl)' being forru:atce.. According to the Cucamonga School District, they proposed elementary s: -hoot. Ontario Center School, has been designed to handle an estimated 600 students and open in 1990. The District has Identified two sehoals. Rancho Cucamonga Middle School and Cucamonga Elcmentary School, as being heavily impacted by the growth occurring within the City Ac :ording to the Cucamonga District, a committee has been ft -tined to consider enlarging Rancho Cucamonga huddle School by adding a wing. This will conserva- tively double the school': present capacity. The development glean has beet orovislocally urgetcd rot 1992 While supplemental portable clsss.nont were recently •' d onto the Cu :anor.ga Elementary School. It Is yet cs ;ericnein, difficulty in adecust ! a :omr..odat- trg :h: stud :tat population. The District predicts that the need to abacat ' .loncl pert• r t. ::: :ssroc. ^s will only continue in the future. R: -::c %:2> -S:: icn In Pag:•la3 C TABLE I.R.F STLDE;IT CENERATIO:( FACTORS Student Scheel District Ccncrationt ... ............................... Alta Loma Elementary (elementary K•6) 0.6 (junior high 7•8) 0.6 5 q >r Chaffy Union Fish (9•I:) J.15 C::a.ongaElemeatary C.5 D:INanda E:cm:i.tary (K•5) 0.40 (6•j) 0 -10 C , ttt —..a:" z OAS H.jh S:h::l(S•C) 0.17 TOTAL 0.6: 'All distrie:s oa p i (iseeal maintain record: or students per household for projection purpoaea. 'Averaged vales based on City-wide data compiled from all districts except Central. Ran:ho h:EA•Sr.:.oa 1:1 PISC•147 I Student Gen _Rn Ratios by Housing Types -��1� ■# |�\' ¥ ;)`! �\§ { � }!�! ■:.��.l,. : ;! , | || ■l� 6 'i d 0 6 i i l | _•!!)��..l! .. Z § §�� i ■ _.- . . |_! 4§! } 'i'a ci d , . .. §§ � :.; i ! ! k ;! �!! ■ ■ ; |§k�2)f� ■�§ $|| 0 a 4 ;4; § §k� | ] } § . ;.: �a } $! 0a ) 0 j ) � ; ;; . | 6 a 3a a a a3 �.��,��:�: ..a �a« 1q: ]` (� |! .-j \ , TABLE Ilt•R,C PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IMPACTS iElements:Y 13.001 (K•6) w8h S:hocls 4,991 °aa: uyd,T mar a, mar nu Udl da ".b;. e:mnama daiandlet an deanaav maaArd dawauiaolnt aa7anp 'OeiT ::'F or aao aaudanu at Caany High w t m W'k. C.aamanta tool, aaueu amdaeu 1. ChaRar OLuto Imm llama. C—*p RA • (tuna em P"P" b dM4/H >* �rfi� SOv,►.cv: Atvvdr�t. C3d�r �r"Yos�— Rancho %I£k S:c:iOn III e -S I F2g:•14/ Totsl Capae:tyl Actr2l 1996 1917 t 1999 =90 District ..........................1. ............ -191'9..1 .... Alta Loma 68:9 5332 6042 9 3vot. 6113 6303 V�It 6990 4;79P Cdntral 1 - 9999 -Z�M1 "t' {. r_?T •K9T°° yx63 :093 1482 1::9 NA NA NA Cannons' 1.32 932 13:9 1.96 ::60 3371 C12((:y .000 68;0 7145 7330 7900 1:51 Union' iElements:Y 13.001 (K•6) w8h S:hocls 4,991 °aa: uyd,T mar a, mar nu Udl da ".b;. e:mnama daiandlet an deanaav maaArd dawauiaolnt aa7anp 'OeiT ::'F or aao aaudanu at Caany High w t m W'k. C.aamanta tool, aaueu amdaeu 1. ChaRar OLuto Imm llama. C—*p RA • (tuna em P"P" b dM4/H >* �rfi� SOv,►.cv: Atvvdr�t. C3d�r �r"Yos�— Rancho %I£k S:c:iOn III e -S I F2g:•14/ 0 C District antral School Distr Enrollment History i P IN I I 'a 1 IF •a.x��8x� y 1� 1 1 S 1 'M1 I 5 q + a I r ��x J J P I j .yy q V IJ + � e M 1 x w Is ly V y y r s 1 i c f 'M1 I 5 q + a I r ��x J J P I j .yy q V IJ + � e M 1 x w 0 :1 y r s c f ' o e 0 :1 * i « { / / School F� J ors c o District ■ � |■!�e£aI!! � -,! \§ , �( ,! §! ■! ■!! � ,f ;f. � . � |2a!! ■! ■aa » if �!� ! | |§! ■ §9!■2! � �f k!§ } _ : | | � ' ®' =,E!■E ■!! • ! ! m a . � | |� §E2!■!■ §2 � f | � ��!! ;!■;; ; ! !' � } \f k ;■eae!!!! : .2 §,22§ I �~ } $ }{ � �/} , Ig uwanca y' PARICER AND COVERT . r' A..Ar•••r+a..a,no.N CO..o...ow Y' M"I r[IL•.•`h[.JV•t'1 t•w +�! fH til•C COrPJ MIUMI N01 USl, ONrn iJq -T SW JE Vi rItLCP•G gu.in 5777 vA•OA +frA Cn•OIFI• SANTA ANA CAW OaN,A 91I05 •1AwA • S•btlr w OyAr•1 }° .+cnlal O frw:lM !•W -AN♦ W11 � E AAO•htI AKOIWy.ONP .At•rA0111 September 20, 1988 r DMOLAl4 110Y.N ce - »D ET -40 Members of Clio Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91130 Re: Response to Draft Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear !!embers of the Planning Commission: This firm represents the Central School District and Cho EC4wanda School District. We have received and reviewed the MEA and EIR for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan "). Pursucnt cc Government Code section 65302, "The Cenral Plan shall consist of the statement of davaloPRent policies (to include education) and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text tatting forth objectives, principlos, standards, and plan proposals." .he Central and Etiwanda School Districts operates many schools in the community. The Districts are concerned about the development policies and enormous impact which the projected build -out of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will have or, existing and yet to be financed and built schools. The following are the Districts' coccents concerning Cho above General Plan: ,.a amps PARKER AND COVERT Members of the Planning Commission September 28, 1988 Page Two The Plan estimates that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be built -out in the next 20 -25 yaars. During this time, 28 483 new housing units are anticipated to be built In tAa'7 representin a 48% increase in chs existing 30,385 housing units. �n Section III, page 118, the population of Cho City is expected to increaso from the present 94,614 to that of 178,370 around the year 2010. In apparent recognition of this rapid growth, the Plan's Executive Summary concludus thee the "build -out of the city to almost 59,000 dwelling units will effectively double the level of urban infra- structure end services needed after tha year 2010. The provision of adequate libraries, parks, trails, and ponsibly schools may not keep pace with development unless t •re sx a •quasi long range planning. At present, most service axP:nsion plans appear adequate to accommodate growth if sufficient funding is provided." (Emp. added.) The Districts are troubled and concerned that the City has not given adequate thought or attention to the sufficiency of facility and funding requirements over the next 20 -25 years for the public schools servicing the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Section IIIR of the Plan, which pertains, to schools, contains numerous inaccuracies and is totally devoid of any tmplemencacion or development policy ertaLnLno cc school facility financing to enable the List r ices schools to adequately accommodate "double the current number of student:" (Section III, page 146). Unlike Cho Environmental Aasmasment for the 24 remaining categories, no analysis or projection of school facilities or impact is made past chs year 1990. What assistance does the City volunteer to help mitigate this enormous impact which, will be felt by tho Districts' schools? On page 149, it states, "The City may wish to help the affected districts coordinate :heir planning efforts so chat the result will be a comprehensive plan for providing school facilities as they are needed." tar O,a Kt3 P. %RKER AND CON ERT Members of the Planning Commisaicn September 28, 1988 ,4 Page Three In an effort to assist the City in Les evaluation of the impact which the projected Plan will have on the Districts' schools, a preliminary analysis is provided for your information and inclusion in the Plan. Initially, please find attached revised Tahles II1 -R /B, III -R /F, and III -P. /G. It is our understanding that the information included in these revised Tablas were previously furnished to the City by the respective Districts. Based upon the Plan's projected increase of 28,483 new housing units by the year 2010 and the .62 combined student generation factor for the City's elementary (K -8) and high schools (9 -12), 17,659 now students will be generated within the next 20 -25 years. In determining the cost of providing school facilities, an average of 65 square feat per student would be used to provide adequate facilities for the Central and Etiwanda School Districts. For 17,659 students, 1,147,835 square feet would be necessary. Using the State Allocation Board's allowance of $120 per square foot for estimated construction costs, $137,740,200 of present value dollars would be needed to provide adequate school facilities. To determine the total coat of providing school facilities, the cost of acquiring the property upon which Lo build schools must also be taken into account. Generally, the acreage requirement for new facilities is as follows: 10 acres for an elementary school, 20 acres for a junior hiih school, and 40 acres for a high school. The Districts estimate chat the market value of property within the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approximately $160,000 co $220,000 per acre. Using the City's proposed 14 elementary schools and 4 junior high or intermediate schools as sec forth in Table II -4, property acquisition would amount to between $35,200,000 and 48,400,000. .tdditiona:ly, these figures represent only the costs associated with the furnishing of schools, and in no way provide for uther necessary facilities such as maintenance yards, district. offices, warehouses, instructional carters, acquisition of school buses and ether capital needs. pv or, K IS PARKER AND COVERT Members of the Planning Commission September 28, 1988 ?age Four Accordingly, if the above concerns are taken into }� considoracion in developing the student impact, it is clear that revenue generated solely from developers fees will not } ba enough to alleviate the burden that the Plan will have on ,3 the School Districts. Additional mitigation is required. This additional mitigation can be effected in large part through the Community Redevelopment Law. In particular, Health and Safety Code section 33401 provides a moans is whereby the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency may, in { any year in which it owns property, pay directly to a school Y district an amount cf money to alleviate the financial impact that the redevelopment project has caused. We requosL chat the City employ the provisions of this section. In light of the foregoing, the Plan at Section VII erroneously maintains that the current school developer fnes will mitigate potentially adverse impacts upon the Districts. We appreciate your cooperation in expanding upon chh Plan's analysis to address the impact upon school facilities and funding caused by the projected grouch within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Very truly yours, 41a on Parke CIIP:ONY:dm3688 Attachments cc: Frank A. Cosca, Jr. Superintendent Ingrid Vogel Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Central School District Dr. Carldcon P. Lightfoot Superintendent Gene Kewcon Assistant Superintendent, Personnel /Facilities EC wands School District TABLE III -R /B PRESENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Total 3,880 2,512 1,7:1 Rancho MEA- Section III Page -139 Sehoal Current Capacity and Location Enrollment Par anent/ Portables r, Bear Culch Elementary 493 32 518 ✓ School 8355 Bear Gulch Place i ?' Central Elemenrary 581 588 40 School ; 7955 Archibald Avenue Coyote Canyon 421 0 446 11075 Terra Vista Parkway Cucamon a Junior High 1,001 670 529 Schoaf 1, 7611 Hallman Avenue Dona Merced Elementary 723 695 77 School 1033; Palo Alto Street Valle Vista Elameneary 661 527 141 School 7727 Valle Vista Drive Total 3,880 2,512 1,7:1 Rancho MEA- Section III Page -139 TABLE III -R /F STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Alta Cenerac Lome Eleme-6) (elementary K -6) (Junior high 7 -8) 0.6 Central 0.6 (K -6) (K -8) (7 -8) .34 Chaffs .09 Y Union High (9 -I2) Cucamon 0.15 E• Elementary Etiwanda Elementary (K -5) ntary (6 -8) 0,40 0.20 City, vide Totall - -� Elementary (K -8) High School (9 -12) 0.45 0.17 TOTAL 0.62 districts,walues based on City -wife data comp iled fr all Rancho HEA- Section III Page -147 TABLE III -R /0 PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IMPACTS y �.. District Capacityl �ctuel 198-•987 'To ected 1988 I3� 90 , r 9" µa Alta Lome 6829 5332 6042 6113 6503 6890 Central 4263 3480 3776 4083 4362 4778 Cucamonga 2093 1482 17i9 NA { Etiwande 1732 952 1 3,„ 0 NA 1746 2460 3371 Chaffs .i Union 7000 6870 7145 7350 7800 8251 Elementary (K -8) 13,008 i Hi$h Schoo13 ( 9 -12) 4,991 ? capacity depending not nditrict''s method Or's 2 Ofncalculatingbcapacity. Only 22% or Cucamonga. 600 students at Chaffmy High are from Rancho 3 Only counts Cucamonga. students in Chaffey District from Rancho NA - figures not prepared by district. Rancho HEA- Section III Page -148 _r. 3FPARTMENT OF FOR65TRY AND FIRE PROTECTION :LEN J. NEWMAN, Ranger Unit Chief Ian Bernardino Ranger Unit 800 Sierra Hay an Bernardino, CA 92405 714) 882 -1226 September 6, 1988 Cicy of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Res DRAFT RASTER ENVIRONIJENTAL ASSES -4ENT (ILEA) AND OBNBRAL PLAN F.NVIRONHENTA. IItPACT REPORT (EIR) The Cullfornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has reviewed the above captioned Draft Assessment and EIR and our Comments are listed below. Pr. 136 The wording that the City •should• investigate adopting a similar fire safety ordinance Is too weak. The departopnt would like to see the City actives urcue adoption of an otdlnance that will address the findings published n the December 1983 Foothill Communities PiOrectIve •Oreenbelto Pro ramr Report and R ban interface n an the raCUC[Ion of fire, flood and erosion losses along the wildland urban Interface in the fOOtLIRd of the Clan Bernardino Valley. Pa. 46-50 Discusses flooding based on 100 year flood calculations and the historic floods of 1939 and 1969. Wildland fire Is nor discussed as a co,ltributing agent to major flooding and soil movenenc. P /.. 4S T1e urban ([exlc) waste Collection site already exists at Fire Station 173. Pr. 3S 'Roads should not be constructed through the strecroslda woodlands. The activity would re.aove much of the large animal activity and the resultant locai air P'Jllutlon would destroy CattOn,OUda. sycamore, and ash., The Department would dispute that local alt pnliutlon caused by buliding streamslde tads would destroy trees. We can acknowledge high levels of tree MOM M7 caused by the impacts of eonrtruc[lor, over o period of years. Can you provide further ev!eence to support that resultant air Pollution would 6estror freest Any questions should be aadressed to the undersigned at: 3800 Slerra Way San Bernardino, CA 92405 or ca11 (714) 882 -1226 AIIf.SR. Ln UCIILIN Resource Planning Officer IRL Jas K G...r fp Date: November 1 1989 To: Alan Warren Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. From: Kent Norton Planning Network t, 1 - :9 .11 pt' Re: Planning Commission Comments or the General Plan EIR/h1EA i,YSr At the October 26 Planning Commission meeting, It was asked If the Cucamonga County l Water District (CCWD) had responded to staff's request for clarification or the septic tank r issue On November 1, 1 talked with M:. Blanchard of the CCWD and he stated that the District is considering forming an arAwment district (AD) encompassing the foothill (sphere) area. If this occurs, all new development would be required to hook up to their lines. However, If they do not form the AD, they will continue to allow new developments with septic tanks. Obviously, ne. new large -scale development could occur until full sewer ., tot e.oe was extended to this area. Also at the 26th Commission hearing, a commissioner asked about water quality and the letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board as It relates to CCWD wells that exceed the state drinking water standaras for nitrates and DBCP' Mr. Blanchard has in. formed me that the figure on page 43 of the MEA for Well 08 should ba 0.13 and not IJ as shown He further stated that at the time that the data was collected (for the CCWD Mcster Plan In 1986), DBCP levels In Well P17 were six times the California Action Level (CAL - or the level at which an agency must take action to correct it) of 1.0 parts per bil. lion (Dpb). Since that time, the CCWD It" taken action and lowered DBCP levels in Well *17 to 02 or five times lower titan the CAL. Mr Blanchard indicated that this was an iso. lated lacioent in that DP,CP (a nematode fumigant) and nitrates (from fert'lizen) result from agricultural (citrus) activities and this wel', is looted some distance away from the other wells. To his knowledge, no CCWD well has ever exceeded the California Action Level of 45 ppb for nitrates. Lastly, he rcla -el that the District is no- deciding how best to utilize existing and potential future sources of water to manage long -term growth, In. cluding groundwater recharge. t Dtbromochloropropane (DBCP) TABLE III.F /D GENERAL CROUNDR'ATER QUALITY (JULY 1986) Total 'Veil Dissolved Number .."'—^ Solids DBCP' ^ -- ••- ------ (m8/1) _._.....^.._ (ppb) Nitratess Idl Hutt N ............. 7777.. ^......_...- 7777 . ..............._...... (mg/0 p 1 ICiB_zinta CCWD 8 CCWD 10 CCWD 12 300 270 }30.0,13• 18.0 CCWD 16 212' 4720 15,0 CCWD 19 220 0.10 NDs 7.3 CC'VD 20 185 ND 11.0 CCWD 21 300 0.10 2.1 lei "kil_Fd (Cl - 200 ND 24.0 6.1 CCWD 13 CCWD 14 226 0.04 CC'VD 15 CCB'D 17 334 320 418 19.0 11.6 I''ell 294 . 012 3.30 8.0 Field Vo 7 f hin Basin) It .0 CCWD 1 CCWD 3 220 ND CCWD 4 Zap ND 4.5 CCWD S 210 NO 2'3 777_7 )d3 NO LS p .......... _.. .... ._...... .S tDtbromochturn ro 3ne; ..._.._.........».....,_ _.........._...__ .............. p 0 the current m3zimum (California) allowable level is 1 part per billion sNitrate coneenteatlons measured as nitrogen, The mazlmu drinking water it for nitrate is IO m8 /1 (as nitrogcn). sDat3 not evailable for all Cucumon m allowable '1984 data. Be Basin wells. 'ND. not detected. •corrected figure To: Alan Warren rancho Cucamonga Planning Fr: Kent Norton Planning Network Dt: Novemaer 23, 1988 Re: General Pima EIR/MEA Revised West Valley-Coeaty Land Use Plan - REC'IVZD- CIfY OF RANCHO CUCAWNGA PLANNING 0wod AM tiOV 2319n 7 19iffiIU,•,!Il iZig14i�76 9. As per your eque"t, the following information Is intended to REPLACE Table III -H /X in the Draft GPEIR /ALFA. The origiaal table iodieated that there would be 964 units in she Nest Valley Area according to the Coun(r Community Plan. However, this figure was only for a portion of the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of influence area. The revised Table Ill. H/X shows that, aceo,din8 to the Community Plan, there could be as many as 31064 units in this area at buildout, This revised figure would likely pffect the comments received by the Department of Fish and Came (See Response to Comments) relative to a is roc ive she the units). TABLE III -II /X (REVISED) WEST VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN LAND USES Land Use Berea Maximum Units /acre Maximum r Units RES -1 695 ~ . ^•. -•.~.w .2 834 2 693 700 3 1695 .4 d 0 4 2100 0 RUL 1 200 1.00 200 .112.5 240 0.40 96 .115 123 0.20 25 -I /10 2335 0.10 236 .1140 175 0.025 4 RCN 2180 40• PUBLIC 03 0 0 COMMERCIAL 25 0 _ 0 Total ...._. 7704 _..._....._...__...__ _..___ 3064 5064 • based on historic[! In uses RCN zone. i i 0 1