Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/01/04 - Agenda Packetk CITY { COUNCIL AGENDA. i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays — 1:3C p.m. January 4, 1989 Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line llr,_ kancho Cucamonge •rr City Councllmemhers Dennis L Stout, Af4A4r Pamela J. Wright, C44nranmbD Deborah N. Brown, Ar4ro.P —T,- Charles J. Bugoet, e4.4rrwt.ne4. William J Alexanaer, rrr Lauren Al Wassonnsn, rar Alewrr. James L Markman, crg4,vr q Beverly k Auamlet, Car ck4 Cuy Once a09 -1851 Lions Park 980 -3143 PAGd City m:mcil Areda JarMarY 4, 1989 1 1 All itals sutrittad for the city C= ' Agenda M=t: be in Uritirgh 'mo domnim for stsditi.l.. l; s item is 5:00 P.m on the Wbdnaaiay price to the Sating. elm City Clerk's article rooalvos all such items. 1. P10399 of Alloginr -e to Flag. 2. Roll Call: BrOlal _, Bugsat __, Ctsut Alwoninr _., and Wight._. 1. Presentation of proclmmtian to the Bowers L: z000.41i+-1m of their aaaigsl9ahra3n-- at the Marlboro Country 5lnu3am MAtionll Crtpetiticn in Nashville, Dennescoo. 1. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 12/21/88 and 1 12/28/08 and Pvyroll erd&q 12 /22/88 for the total .mamt of $1,513,849.06. 2. Approval to raceivo and file current: Drmatrmnt 1 Sdwxbrlo as of Doc(*" 26, 1988. 3 Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off sale General for 13 Wardxxme Liquors, Tb:W R. Lin and Alm -Ping hts, 10271 Ft.othill Bmaevm d 4. Approval of Park and Recreation Commission 15 RoRmridatiws for Appoitdmrnt of eleven Red Hill C=omity RPsidentn to serve on the Claekside Park Comnmity Dralgn Comittee. PACE city wancil lgenda Jylv,1y 4, 1989 OP 'Dff,, c1TY cOlp7f:'II. OP T`ffi QTY ta' F.'MID iCN Lrt .GFNL7f diIAI �Bt AAA ApMQWCN FM dDII7ESt nm CALV3um i111DTJI'E. GpANr MNO AMi LAND (Y�A7'SCN %, T oP 3 IM A0:4ISnTw OF LAND Ter THE NCM 1AsT CM4271TY PARK 31 B. Ar "r pml of the lnc1OSia:i of fiw rtv Woject8 into the Fiscal year 1988/89 Canital c�ilRtraf nti "g"als the int Proor'aoo omens of Ardtitold and Imm Avms ea and at Naves Avenue and S tre ;St. side of�Fodxntcr AA w bbatnom Easo Lino or' i ad a >l Highland Avu4iai the design of modian island landsapa i¢4� on V=w Vista Scoot east of East 6mcd Avenue: and the cityNex"m Beautificatim Nastcr Program Favim and Psa dienasv Study. 9 pk,>cv✓al to order the annexation of certain territory 40 to Inn7d..capo Mminte arne District 1 ard36 for t I Lighting µainbowne District Nos. 17, located on the northeast corms of Haven and Nighland A%m"xs- of noo�m ti that the City permit the 31 s. to defend the la aOit a' Los '' ( of Son &xMraim Moe. at al. v. b'tato A�alC+ 6y8A Ltd. Pa�;adnip, Board of rg mlizaticn, °�' • • at al. on behalf of the 1, city of Fcndno 0nc50103a } mizrt do, an jppla 316 oer cvrPlnal and 33 G' Approval to the Salo of the noaPater• srthariM 34 sstzl. �t Approval of application for too par, capita . n. 7. wdar �tim Act of 1958 for th3 acgAlMi rarx crk as of for Yuic and 1 s,=Wtic n =mewl r; 35 FFSD711 M NO. 89 -001 OP 'Dff,, c1TY cOlp7f:'II. OP T`ffi QTY ta' F.'MID iCN Lrt .GFNL7f diIAI �Bt AAA ApMQWCN FM dDII7ESt nm CALV3um i111DTJI'E. GpANr MNO AMi LAND (Y�A7'SCN %, T oP 3 IM A0:4ISnTw OF LAND Ter THE NCM 1AsT CM4271TY PARK 31 B. Ar "r pml of the lnc1OSia:i of fiw rtv Woject8 into the Fiscal year 1988/89 Canital c�ilRtraf nti "g"als the int Proor'aoo omens of Ardtitold and Imm Avms ea and at Naves Avenue and S tre ;St. side of�Fodxntcr AA w bbatnom Easo Lino or' i ad a >l Highland Avu4iai the design of modian island landsapa i¢4� on V=w Vista Scoot east of East 6mcd Avenue: and the cityNex"m Beautificatim Nastcr Program Favim and Psa dienasv Study. 9 pk,>cv✓al to order the annexation of certain territory 40 to Inn7d..capo Mminte arne District 1 ard36 for t I Lighting µainbowne District Nos. 17, located on the northeast corms of Haven and Nighland A%m"xs- i s{ �Y City Oouncil Agenda Jan>2ry 4, 1989 EW7I171TRE Na. 89-002 A AMOXIVION OF UM CITY COUNCIL Off MM CrrY OF RANC[M CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERIIG MIE ANNVWIOH OF CERIhM TEFSU 0M TO IAMXAPE MIUMMCE DiSIRICr W. 3 AND SIMMr LIGH' r. ZOMI NICE DISItICT M'S. 1 AND 6 FOR OR 87 -17 10. Approval to �t a Agrn_mmi (CO 89 -001) for the the dFmign of Foothill Bmdcvrird - Route 15 Ant err to Paacsc Brinkerhoff, CgWo and Omglas, Incorporated, for a msximm of 5171,500 plus a 10% contingency 1ho project is ferried though tm 1988/89 Rodwelcpmnt Agency Dudget, Aoommt No. 13- 50300. 11. Approval to &*=to proressima services Igr000ent (N 89 -002) with LAndm pa and Hater 1W07m8nt Consultants for design we operaticne training for the Rand Dill cake Wosystm Fmdifications, and approve the innalusim of a lot omtin.7ency foo, for a total ;sot to excmid $17,000.40. Project to to f xW by aom7nt m nhar 2514285 -7043. Mile is a Fiscal Year 1988/89 bYgetod appropriation. 12. Approval to execute tairovommt Agreement, Lquvvement Sorority ad Orderer the Anmexation to lands:X)a Mtintrrarce District No. 3 and Street Lighting Fbtnte cv DiLtriot fin0. 1 and 6 for OR 87 -19 and ER 87 -20, located cm the ncrtt.ast corner of Sixth Street and Turn r Average, sutmitted by Adnmor Investments, Inc. RESOWPIC p pio. 89-003 A PESUp1 CN OF THE CM C=X3L OF MIE CITY OF PANCHO CUCAr'WrA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING I440JFMM AGRUI4M Arm II9h0VEMMor SEOUR 1'Y FOR DEYE[OPHFNr REVIEW NO. 87 -19 AND 87 -20 RF90EIITON EX1. 89-Ou A RE90pUPICN OF THE CTW OJINCII. OF nX CM OF RVKHO CUC%M[M, CALIF'CF5*IA, ORDERING 'ICE ANNE74M N OF CERTAIN TEFUMa& TO LANDSMPE HAI71VWXE DISI2ICT NO. 3 Alm SIRM LiGHFIW. MINl'IIW= DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR UR 87 -19 AND OR 87 -20 PAGE 41 44 47 48 4S 50 PAGE City c=YAl Nlenda Jam vXy 4, 190 i 13. Approval of Map, eaeanticn of b%=oYmerk Agmeem t, 53 M q lmvme t semwity and Ordering the INUntmtim to Ianismps Nhinteninca District Igo. 1 ant Street LiSttini dmin[rmnxi District Moe. 1 and 2 tar Tart 13063, laotod an the east side of East Ammm at Catalpa street, suhnitted by citation RAIders. RESULQTONN MN. 89-005 54 A TMILMON OF ,= CITY o"= OF mm cny OP RANCHO arANCM, CALIFOlWIA, APPROVING �"14N3VF7ffNP A1.S8Z4=, vmvuam SDCUPXN, tie FINAL MAP OF 7rb= 140. 13063 RFSMU.SCH NO. 99 -006 55 A RI50IInCN OF THE CITY COCNCIL OF WE CITY OF RANC313 QT_AMLNGA, CALUCFMA, '.k.DFIt TH3 ANNEQMCU OF CEPTAIN TEMITOW 10 UN SCAPE MAIN111LANi:I; DISDtICF NA. 1 AND SIflF>a' LIGHTING MAINPYINANCB DISnUCP MS. 1 AND 2 Nttt 1RACP I I 13003 14. App_oval to execute Imptvnrent Agreement and 58 Imi�rovtmit So=lty, and Onbring the Amxnmticn to Ient lrcapa d4tintcnarM District No. 3 and Streat L`ytting M.nintUnanC* District Nos. 1 and 6 for N9R 88- N•N, located on the earth side � Arrow Route, cast of Havai Avarua and wart of %hits Oak Avenue RESU L=CN 00. 89-M 59 A FOSOLUrICN OF *THE CITY OQAYII, Cy IBM CITY OF RANCHO CLXA'.IONCa \, CALIFuR1r7., APPROVING 1HPWM WM A'90 MN Ir AIM D#rVJNM M SEMMIW FOR .%MXR DEM IDEMW RNII3N NJ. 88-19 RN9 ff=CN NO. 89-008 60 A PJ90NMCK OF UT (TTY OOW= tie^ 7-2 crry OP RAN= a1CAeZYrA, CALUMI NIA, Oii)_-= THE ANND2=0N OF Ci7O w TEmmum 10 LAM7&CAPE eAUNIFNANCE DISTRICT IA. 3, AND SRM I.IOHIIMC M, INTENANCE DLSIMCI- NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR H12XR DFVE'L> *0?r REVILW NO. 88 -19 ;- PAGE ' city Ct�utcil AgenU a'Janurry4 � 7989 5 #15. Approval Of flap, p'�dn Of Bk=avamt A1}c'0¢0tatt1 63 Ialaovcment Soarrity and Orderinj the Annamtien to Lmesmpe F81nGm = DisWiLt No. 1 and Strom etL Lighting Hxbrtemmce District Nos. 1 rnd 2 for Tract- 1233z-2, located an the oast side of Hav,st WIMP v rtorth of Billsldu Otarvtel, submitted by M.J. Mwk and Sore, Incorporated. i RF50ID1TCN N0. 89-009 64 I A IE50IAr=ff OF THE QTY =NCIL OF MEE C[TY OF RMICHO CUGAMONW., CALIFORNIA, APPWMr- ai y DaTVVtgMM AQM94D F, IP1p1OMCETT SECMMY, AND rnal, MAP OF W= NO. 12332 -2 rzmwPICN NO. 89-010 65 A RL`YIIMCtj OF THE CLTY CCE14ML OF THE CITY OF RMX:IM a=M rA, C7fLT MEA, 011lU G MIE AMmyAmctt OF (ER173N TfRitlTOW TO LANDSCAPE mAIIN1TTlwxE DISD1 CW tn. 1 M Sn= ISGttlMG HknnFoam Dls=Cr NOB. 1 AND 2 FOR TIWT 12332 -2 16. Approval to R010a o Real Property M*rcvcment Contract 68 wA ldm Agroment (00 89-003) raleaairr7 Parool 1 of Parcel Map 8100, located on ttn rtartlteant corms of Ramous Avmle and Foothill Boulevard, submittal by First American Title ImRawsm nnparty. RF gMMCN NO. 89-011 69 A RFSOI1l1TCN OF WE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RmaID (iJU9+Mxm, CAIUdlSA, rd IZA-T-7C A REAL j PROPERTY nVROMMM C)MRACT MM LMF ACRFDOM ER74 FAl04R JACK'S IRMSFRY LAND OXTANY 17 Approval to acvodpt M*mvmwdS, nalsa-4 Of Batd3 and 12319 PodestriaN 70 file a Notice of ampletim fa^ Tract Bridge, lamted on the rrntla+est miner of Them Vista P.rrkvav and Slmr Avranra- Falthflrl A.rformanee Bond (Street) $ 28,500.00 k City WmCil Agenda Tammy 4, 2.989 RESCU,190N du. 89-012 A RFSXlr=M OF T1lE Cf1Y COU4= OF ZZE QTY OF Rvm CCCwmm, CALUUMA, AA=nnG mm TUUSC I1IPROVEMM IM TRACF 12319 PPDESnUM MMN-9 AND AD14=P..0 THE FILDT, OF A NOITCE OF OcKli TON Fist TR.I NOW SP. ApFacval of Fb2r9mry Ma agomcnt A2vistanoa Sig!uture Resolution aa=dinj twoolutia• 87-530 as nx;uirod by state Office of Dmgmcy Serviom to factlitate Vwxho wwampls 1wicut to participaha in Fmdlrxj jSoistarwo 34ogrm• RESrAJJFION 110. 87 -536A A RLKA3I =0tt OF 711E CITY CCU$= OF MW CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IMEM DULVII1MS IM ARE AUIIIIU= T3 ExEayiE AFFLICATICNB AM DOO]¢ M FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO IIX7V431.m 19 AAnTVal Of a Subord Aticr. Agrwmant. (07 89-004) fr= Eodvtr T. lazter and Mig3alla E. taster for M»ir P=r)crty loczted at 443 Croolmd CrO,JC laity. REDOW =f W. 89-013 A RE90I =CN OP THE CrU CO(IJCZL OF THE QTY OF RANCID CDCAEY7M, AHTCVnA3 A FDA.' iCH AG1r2A@rr F=4 FCOiQ:IZR T. IA.%Mt Alm M MNLIA 1;. IASTER AW AUI iIUZING 71T MAYOR Ala CT1Y CLERK TO SIGN SAME FAGS 71 72 73 74 75 City Oamci.1 Ageryla January 4, 1989 CRDI1 MOM M. _. *! (SmOond rmihx3) AN CB ANCE OF THE C:(Y CCaCM OF 716 C31'Y OF RAti.7D ax*rwA, CA1mi TA, momiNG T1TIE 8 OF TIM RANCID CCCA..a MN EC RIL CCOE BY ADMC A MW CIAPTTR 5.24 PROVID12M A PROGRP21 FOR THE RDT.NAL OF GPhPPTrI AND UNM DOCRIBE) PUBLIC Am PRIVATE PFDPERPY .11 Arm CFDI WW= 140. 386 (800 rd Loading) P21 OROIIWY6 OF 116 CP1Y COMM OP 711E C17Y OF RANGED CIICmum, (wiYarom, A ocnG TTIME 8 07 MM RAMD CUr'NCVGA KNICIFAI, ODDE BY ADD11d': A NON CrAP17R 8.23, 3DO2712PYINU AND PRIM 5 A RDJW OCR PUBLIC NUISANRF-c irtPN FWZD 70 EMST CH PROPERTY EIITMI 216 CIT[ OF00ANCE NO. 387 (second 1uad1ng) ,W CE7UINANCE OF THE MY COMM OF 7H1: COPY OF RA%Mr CS1t3V mm, C71Li WIA, A1RMDn TITLE 8 OF THE CANCID COCAWrA WICCUAL WOE BY ADDING A NL39 CIU.P= 8.25 PROVIDING I. P,135MI FOR THE .)FY,JVAL OF ABA.`WW, M'RECM, DLSELMISD OR INDPEERATIV6 VDIICTFS FR31 PRIVATE FROPEFUY OR PUBLIC PROPER." !Dl' UN IIDIIG MaDe(YS Pace 76 70 79 m io Ci Jary 619 9 s Cma PAGE 8 R. AfA['7c17�A P[NTC tL�7tFiIlY'4 The following itnw haw bear odvcxtimed and /or postal no puhlic hoarinja as ralu�ad br ]r..+. 9n chair will open the aoetir4 tO raanivn pohlio tooti>,�Cy. 1. MA9R2C II.V1R2Pmlla�, R�c..�o�cvn nMAI AND UBgEQNMQ , Il1PPBL1_'_SsIRh Pat m� RANaY7 alax>icA ct3vElu.. 86 LiAti TW!l77t91L IhrxlE - A ompvdhemiw study to identify tha arvironmental ctaractariatics and crnstr.Snts of the cenmal Plan area. hi an M, the d=w.nt will ptvvido a central s=va of anent onvircvrxntni information to assist in identifying long ranp, area wide, and O=datile impacts of individual paojocts iacposed in the General Plan area. CCntiruad hoe 72 -7-80 RE'SOIIDTON ' p. 88 -700 89 A RE901M=? OF TIKE C=j C OLIK II, OF TdlE CITY OF RC81aD CU AMXM, allZECRUA, APPPOM45 WIE Cr7L1=C?=ct? of 71L FAS= i?nFII7k24 MkL ASS S.%Mrf AND RNlX1.41NAL IMPACT REMU FOE TES OFNW.4I, PEM TDaRUCAL OMUZ, AND MAKDCG FIIIDINGS IN SUPPORT TMIMP 2. Manz • Elm =UlM, _VPLM - CITY OF RAMID II6 "r8 - T:Ce project is " preparation, review, and sd -ptian Of a technical Update of tho Grne-al Plan consisting of statistical information and iaPle entatial measures, and revisions to then CtnsaLty Design aoction of the Iwd Lbe and Davelopmant Elam. Cortiruod EMM 12-7 -M RESOIIATal NO. 88 -701 91 A RES011TION Of THE CT1Y C L*la . OF THE CM OF 1WKW W- 2-4I,CA, CAI.IROMA, AYiWMCG M ADOMCN OF MM GENONAL P1264 TRYWICAL IkiY+1'E, AND MAMCC FM4DncSS IN SUPE0C 7WZREDF .5 s�•N / PALL p City C=--U M3etda f ��1� January 4, 1909 9 k 3. 93 03 - SaOfcm 7wD ►: tP 7.EIi iffi}i 5 - AFPaal of the Planning Cotmission.. decinien approving the davalcpmnt of r rofail Mrber and service station tobil n+ 4,416 6quare feat cis a 0.63 acres M land in the MM=dty OameMt&l DistrlCt (&Iberea 2) Of the Foothill Boulevard 4*mific PL'm, located at the omthesst saner of Foothill Bail&,. -d and vineyard Avenue - AFN 208- 192-06. TM3M ATtr7 NO. 89 -014 i 19 A RE4JiMCN OF ME C'FEY CM:CM Or 'Do CM OF RANCHO MCAMONGA, CALIFMM, APPMV7M COMZrTQIAL USE PM= EIO. 58 -03 M MM DL'VELL*rMG OF A rE=M CERM AND SIR47CE SIMCN 7OL1IJM 4,416 SWZM FEET' CH 0.63 ACRES OF jum D7 THE w"MI'TY Cmi: CIAL DISMCr (SUBAREA 2) OF MM FOMML BOULEVARD &Pi1=C PIM, .DQ= AT TILE 56J1HU1' 9P MMUR OF IU MML MILK WO AND JI2MMO AVEMM, AND M(DiG FIK:=b 1N CUPPWtF MIMW &DaT f♦ltENT7L AC_C_c_C%Wr AND VARIAN= 88-09 - WUFI}a7 93 eWD N m2a ARC { n4ET.'IR - Appeal of the Planning O.anission's dominion approving a request to ndloo the ragaired parking setback along Foothill Boulevard frm 50 fk' t to 40 feet and along Vineyard Avrsm from 50 fact La 43 feet for a retail center arp service station in tM 02MIDIity aammcial District (Silaarta 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Spemifia Plan, located at the satheast saner of Faoddll Boulevard and vineyard AVaM - APN 208- 192 -06. RESOLL117011 170. 89 -015 124 A RE907J CN OF mm CITY 0yJr -M OP THE CITY OF RANC71O CUCAXWGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 88-09 TO RFDUCE ME RFIpI711= PAMMG SEMACK AE= FMM= BOULEVARD FrOf 50 FEET TO 40 FEET AND AX013 V71' OUM AVENUE 1FCM 50 FFEI' 7O 43 FEET FOR A REFAIL CENTER AND SEFVICE SIAM" INi THE Cta*";11Y COMf7F1 CIAL DIFMCT (SUBAREA 2)0F 7H2 EWnML DMMZIAM MM MC PIM, LDCATED AT ME &OIIDD7CSr Comm OF FDMjB1 . BOULEVARD AND VINF'OM AVENUE, AND F01KDG FIDDCS IN SUPPORT TjMMr k city a>ancil , 193n Jaraary 4, 1999 PADS 30 f4. itlw 127 YLY S1_WE= —.Q% ;i1 - APPO° Plum1 bo cart+LiniOwnticna pratelni nl .lardwaping alotg Dana Una Rood fa a pxvvi=slY +VprtAed diwch facility lomt,c et the soutlmest. corner of Jagw Streat and Imits o. a= - APN 202 -026 -13. IMX IMICli M0. 89 -016 146 A DFSL'[1 M; OF um C11Y axvmL OF THE CFTY OF RANaD c1WOM, t'41.IFl e1rA DFI DG A liDJM P TO OFSE^E A =C=CN Ov APPIMAL FOR O=I'IlaW, USE PMD.T 87 -19 FEFa7MMi% TO LVWC%PMIG AIDW RASE LIME IMD FM A Fr,1 CLS,L APpW4D acml FACQM 7oCATID AT THE SrjMS.T9r Oat= OF JASPER SIR= AND IIMITA CXW 5 ,ND EfItiANLV. SPDCLPiC PIAtI 148 mi, 00 -06 - kugy, 71RA]IAFK.R - A request to add ,ajOl ambulance, services as a conou OnallY Permittad use within the Office/Profesaioral District of the, '- 'tlw.vmle Specific Plan. CFCs M In. 388 (first railing) 161 AN c:*T N= OF WE CITY COL" . OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROMU MTAW18Yr SPECIFIC PIAN AMB MFM 88-06, ADDING AMMMANM a -r=CFS AS A CCNDMCEQILY PUNTM M? Wl'Dr1D' UIE OFFTCL+ /PRCF£SSICtML DI81RICf E POHI.iC R� 'the, fclla+in.5 StoA hlve W PW pibli,s,ticn or Pootln9 mquirmonts. no Chair will upon thf ux drq to receive public tostilmly. Oatp iai, t7`.1MIERSa 162 An appeal Ct the conditions of &MrOval for the c¢ading and paving of aPproodrately 12 Wrw of lard fa outdoor stmY}a within the Minim= iapaet/NeavY Industrial Spsc. SiC Plan (91wn3a 9) locatod on the south side of Jersey Boulevard battiest Utica and Vincent Avennn. Ctetirms1 from 1217 -03 t,DG� h PAGE City Cbunoil Agenda Jnmiazy 4, 19Wd 11 RL'4]=Ol NO. 38 -701 I 209 A P.F91I1IFIw OF TIE CITY J0.tA'7.i. OF 7HE cny OF RA-010 aXMH:trA, CIJS)C2TIA, CDft- 4', AN APPEAL OF HUM C.EVFIOFf0?r RLVXW VD. 07 -71 IDCA17p AT 10807 JU SLV BOGIZMARD )N THE HIIII)YM I)IPACI'IHII,VY 3)>fl[,MRIAL DLSMCF (6l.MARFA 9) OF 9iE 31MUSMAL SPECIFIC PIFN, AID MAKING FINMI;S IN F.t.@I<W 'n1ER DP 13=1ffi4iKMa 'Q FSr Xzs =n_Iytxrra - it in 212 rU0cmntrcYd that a %xWI licit of 35 HSI be cstabiislxd on lcillbido road Pram taven[ Avtnn to Cani tau Avenue, 45 )¢rd en Base Lira PM1 fr=1 Haven Avenue to Spruce AWS100, 45 HEII 01 I;M%W Avenue fzne 4th Street to Wain Pvan o, and 45 M, on Etiw ada Avem) from Haghland Avenue to 24th Street. Cl4). VX= NO. 389 (first r}ading) I 214 AN ORDIWWCE OF =IE C1TY CLt27CIL CF MIE CITY OF RP.NCHO CUCAMONGA, CAIM)MINIA, SE)=ON 10.20.020 OF THE FANQD C[K7MGA CITY CODE FIl:AMDr. rIaM FACOE SPEED LlIIHIS OP CFRnUN =_ SI}tEE15 The fallowing ittma dt bon: lttplly x�gaire any public txsumv, elthmtjh the Clair my cp0[ the mating for plhltc input. Tin folloWIM itbe Law bom taluosted by the city Calnoil fez• dicazxtim. MW am not p@}lic boating ihar;, although the .Litz• nzy open tha meting fan• piblic input. • .:'ll4i 4.2• -lip k b Y • 97. ,.h• aC• 4i:4M !: ✓try r !:/} . • • la; :Din• •� •• !� er,[ : >w;� }y 15'• _YY . ^517: 1 41" PAGE City OMW41 Agm-Aa JWKMY <, 1989 1 12 5* PLaIIIIIHG 1• .1. . sl: • rl, r 7. EUSTIC SAFM •l.:L1 ! 1R!•t.1VVY >' l• •;. almIrly izaQ V!, mmszj=j=Bs > VII ✓•.YIS. • MMa.: i•. ,% a. b /•. CIty •. M '1. w' .. uuur • AWOUM To Enmxm smml mt lmwo= r M-qmw= LVD AcQaUWTW. {a CDM 54953 at = §Q @ ;§ § . @Q §�■ ! a §� ,m2 ,.g. 22®��h• \3 ���■» £ � ,� §ems N:& ! K■� k° �!� § £ ( � | B /_ � ■� §� � � !§� §lR���� � � � @v§ |@•§!° ._! Vol-, �.>J m ! \ §» ` \ §EG ■!« ;! 2 ,m§ , §awwb .... I � I ® § \| ; 2 ._ ��,2 :� e : =a =� +� t =�,• =�. /�q \ ;Q ;3 ;i. _�� MA � � |§ ! - - - : °. , - . �� • , � - / *(' { � � ! ap -rigaem=tz gzc a,§,� - m . 9@w R� 2 � ■� \ � =a \ea@ _ S =R=G©� ;Jg� � � a � Q ■QgEg � A d, y V 't I 34 s°if°- e�� asp = e - a❑ s "a s ' Wig' :E°°.• t ^ e� .x is �Gl•: ..rr r. r..r rr.�r N •• r w a ' .r. u.N. ioavaouoou as ao�iio w v y nom+ i i � ro y:: r°.swar`b'� �b uerm auPau+Na -IO UbruPO r �] w Y m •Ir o ^ }: 1 a>YY >Y >Y 9M�lSSrNwOan�•'�'.1 9 T a G x O 9 YD 9 > ; 1 m P Orrn• >Y »1Am> 2m m Y .L n innio• y trrmTZ s e oo ra„ w i z Nm sr twr.r�N�n .nr. srrmP Yni x N_�. zmirr o i.yry >ro y> ymz Aaa: N or- s� $ ,i r z x i r � o a r TYroromn ,m a R � ..• N.ImrnN.1 ' `� sDS .ArrA �mor°•ti ^YO ^ 2 z � 1 s .A.f Nr\yna Pxo i� zn n m r y T I > NrR N nn r s � � n •°+ T n z Po m az i )� n r. �••N NN >N ovnnny��\ ^imomin GDU N o Z Cro Z Z � < N `p• fY >CmrC ••T m9Airo mnYYmC>M TT__nmY ylrrGn ``z 2 [� n 9 ^\ O� � <]'!� rr`irwgOaamy♦ O N O 2 n C( r 1 T pr � \', NNDr n yD f• Ar {�aYy 1 n ( fl `T Ni\TrNmmr. nrm OOL >^A•nrn �yPNN > r <m y � D 1 Iii a >TO 00<�y13 TT•. YZ m _ m A o t m� nn Zro2m]rN:z Ty> D i Y •riT Dm 90 �.ri^ >.S'IST j >�TSTC rmir Y 4 2 Tr y 1 i �� SO r M rrrD y� • 1 r <a OOr'•mN TVO n>Yrr O Y Y O 1 � N ou i ii]n. is' .x. mo o' noefn.00 Y'lii m •r y z .v^ n n rrr oY nn n•�n r n > a a: i nNNO,n rr Dr'r r^ m `O 1 O O T4� �m�00yn0 O i r n 1 m n r O 9 � \OPO�ANrYD D D jNdN3 nA Ar. \N Y r rrN�Oa orN+aPb \M.•dnY r rOPO PlrrPn `O >O nr.r }ro N r y. PNO ran�NPPr y.P Tr rPPP r r 8 yYNYNVNNNNNNNr..YµNr IZ Y i aaOddadJVWdaaN�2da�aad a..°.uur°.ud0 O4 VPObOPPd -r la °:::s�:::oa:•u. aaNUrr oao•'•o u.uN- n oaro�P� •..N now.. mool]a -. oPrwrbNe c a o 0 o r o�-. o.. oor o�iso .•o i]��ra,.a i�rP � r o o a •- a o.�.0000. croos000 o•+e..aPUC .+ o 0 1 C. G/ iJ• ."1....:1 N/rasw�r. `e.`.. yppy -"Iw a� Hn.....`+'�i.n � 1 .. _`IaN.N. we°. dm im° YYYYOryOO P li dONYbPAPdYy1M�mOYNrrb!•f 1r VrrYJ O•+m dmNNOaNtiYYV..rO 1 1 t � �wyTymlTmTTgTOOVr°nn/�1.1nnn nnlnNnnn^nnm>An +TPON >•/. >r>CCC.PO z>a >r »>. �i� m n qad corn �anvr >r+rnzz.+NNn ti »aNr>rr. -z a.ov 2 'In NTZ iirzrm »SOrK_.>2f'ae ^ <rrT €zv . Beni �/'�i>ii °•{oi ^T ^^ sl °znccrznm ZLmnT °< r ; r•:» NS°nr..rmrNnO °°m. Z� y TYmron +o v:ez >ezwvm x.+mmm z >avnaN n '^ xS Sw1 3'a CN TOrYanZ+C]f n >y >�r ZZ+TZ ^rrnT Ih^ P.n In YwNS..r� >y »anm�C2 °•••��pp� 1 w Dn Slamn GinGr�jC> N DOy9rr yT pT NrGr •••••••••����pppp °«< >°mwZ ZTOTS LC .Ni�NnMO ^'>'. T y �'LVwY�V r 1 Y Nfp nCUwi.n T• vniT pa/n0 Nf 9N1m N Ornn Ca NPiZ12 1 9G° Tm i2lOA /ni. n ^TN r Sm [Ina2II >n w y 1 y _ n°°r •+ n < Px nn K.Z.n N. n�a� ~~ r yny�a nN� z T °O n >..NnO on 1 N r P r i t n i 1 � p L �_ �/^/ �m_OCOTCC< °C>mC�CrC!COCfnnG1.IT }PC D/Ni. ZrTY r°i��T •.i 1w r3 ^ \9M aTOTnY <T ^N9Pnr p..w mPnZ_n ^Mr�DrN CSCSry<y<n2 sns OOmN +C >:�S S�T.+b�p DN ^r�nOm �y �iao�r i opn��yT•+. -n morp2iill In y yw A.1>n T.>(.[>jT(S ^am .jN nmrn °y N'n9 1 SmNTbND NNSTVNN� n 3N NY Nim .w. L N )� <i 1 �r � Ap C TOw EO °602 Om0 AO Cr Z OR�N0 r •tr •^+ Or j n f F .Zin n �.>. ' F i N?An� n ^> n.N. /z/N. ,L> .w•��nnnn nnn oy ° Perk rNOCPO boo meson Zx� z� a izsn N `n>/in.a2 azo v> u3. a m `.3. : N N .3.. Y..z•• Y. a3••._„ � NYNNNNNN yaNyyNNVNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN n ii •wNNayyNNRN ad a�aaea�.r...d.'° a.°.. d/ : +Y$.d...°..a/L°.°..d./.°+.a/ °y °�a+u�°./ °�°.a (Cf Y la. /d./.dad. 000�d davwi�v °r ^meMmmoe >mmr- ../.r -. +-. -1 PPao-Pi�v� � e tj +- oam Pw+.+N .•oamro-NnY.°/raam./c . w is N Yr YN �n aov$vayYemNa aoYO °�`.a `oc`v >o�maaN./N..a: U ia:wo NorJ$o..POU/. +,P' If _IP wr aN+osu o eoNeooilo o:,ry 00� O.•UrJyO JOOOPm.•OJM�eP OOSU$wUrr00000yN N i•+ G/ G A •• �•Y PPr NNr ly N KIJNYVYYNN <YaYNar�r�>'P�����J�O if mNra m"1- . «maNP«- IOP006PP «PUY OaPHJPaJU IK ✓1 aOmParrPO�OPm %TTni <•CMC Gr"I yrKwwNwNNNNwSNNNwAaDMDT90OeV e000eopannY cKmYi cD&'A'i M6 1 im a>�Y_.e�•c� yrrADrrTr« 'y >f \YYCGCCCCLwySZn=Tm° % "11. Y 1 a<Ni O -•K A'K q.. «-. Cr°r nmoT�TTT.Zi. n.A Tw3TT DM�YA «=TTmT N m•.r %Ny._ mG2m. «_w «N wN�YTny9 m.<A ON MC Zt \.T _ ZAL r 1 _a9pT'>ma SP ><m P 2 aTTn yY Y «Ar291�CKM- ZA %aY� L Y «a pr9� «G N z,P, 1 w e�zTrcm sKK «iF- 3••'i�r> -�snn. \z..°.ogz�c .cii z Dox 1"�zT i i oovz>r�rm rm rr i 'ioo°c Ni•+ ^n 'za w wNm`,F^ s�"•� °v 'i j S- n > PZ3iZ 1 y C y0 O}J L' • w 1 � = ZK• <i\ O �9nNNe3r zrzrrrn3Nwm Si aear �W,a, °R °<.°.m �2c in oocmTmY OmZ M• <S OTT �TKmCrGn40 °♦ ormm90rv2 9rrmd�0lf emr.. >rD «Trwnr ^�� «:. 9 � r aK yooTC TO9 «rwY>Cr <N•r'.GOTZ09Cw�ym i.•`A9wT m.°'3 >' «m..y`\T T MnmvDn orYTE a iIn Si .°-.«.. ocni 'SKr.Z.nicZlT.>•.a� +.'^^.T.-I.N S.wa is " anLy!^n N< r ° °KN «xor e» i .°.• S.iw r.T- .>•.z �NZN N ^.^i0 v Oip �K�w�NK m2y ««« Z NDm Z �iTT wmr�: v°T� A AOr YMmi Kim m1.r 1[: f C � T13 z yy c Tc N•nsm s�o°F� LICK. i zN r K Sn um KmU n�: wrl� ^i Tf.nn .i »O nn n':z o�nnf r »ems on .o c oovTO s�°.�O r .r..°.°o .Y.T °�3.•� _ r DD A9 a S '4 9a\. 2 r m T 2° n rye Kra 1mTP "'� T N .i. .2•. K .s•..sn H.in 1 N. N � N.Zn ... Y N in aaaaaa��ain�ic <oaaaosaacas��aL�a��ii�:�� i f ns PPPPPPPPPNJM �O<O�PU>V •P FwVN � N�OaOrPNfuNrOaOKPUfuNrOaP II > G .......N a»Nr .z f '. •'oaY- .Y.Nm.lr11JNY �c.'a m."n o:+•fan »o�.N.aNmr+oT �•PPrNJOa� -IP ON »neupo P!�u » °" °P OfaoNUO o- oo\oPOOVo , »,rNPmYmorfomoKOaoJa P ooP .•o O oovuPOOON <• oR G A �• Yr•yMy NrrINP rY N .O YO•NOdy.p Yr j y yNyMyd4yrYJdY YWYYYAPYyWbN�.l 1 1 > is� N�p.p�rbNrNb..�rPPJNJMbNNyNNO MrNN -0PVr «Py «yVNJYNN 1> N V� mini zi zz i.zsactin>rn rlr.Ir L.- TLOn`.is i�a s.°ioai n:"s im °b 'y >z �iT.'..y. ^bb�yrvN *�rYP� ni smL >o mz >Ni m y1 KriNtin+°+ryw i <om nbr 1 ' �g °ii>f wY.D."a > >nz>..° os� a.e TP. .D. N ry err y�° �yo^�=yzn NV o«i9 mm+ ve illy °. ^rY..r i nNS ?Ty °o+°.. � r � p'n�b�iT nverbo D >nrvot v 9r'�JpOa$ S �Nnyn p y r V f ^ 1 n v 1 i ..�vwvNnNrvnvaYrpD.Imrvrey «g vra' «zn «Ym «py ecmecood yN.. >mo °> c S >. pvc.. <c�Temsgi i = TTV��pa�zpr`NPNmyvzzvyvmyy..>r WV n.IT rvv <Pa i V Sa �..2NrC T.11> n Q < <009y >sm..rin 1 « yen(. >ps N.sn nnymzr..P PmYmy> 9 «a2..TOm w Oro mY Tn�O «sOs V�ma..w ss 'S �wy0 �wepnT: m.Di�O Im ✓ MS9 ST� S.PioiO •Siw C'MN(>010.m2..` n.^. °naoy y °oe° +y �.... aclom .rv. o .::+'> +.°�<oi�.>.. b« ti+mn `sv. -v i a r nn> sY:", iTCnT> z¢��Ni$wNp °oi + y .riN �. «rFa.T. bcw bmw zr yP,nn r'r yl'..a%T i iri �iT fIa wMyNT Y^.nN1NM S 1 yON OTrf Ah nC S n r_O Ti•..+n nn nnn ynN 1 •"y O n «�nOy((r>> V j T Cy� OOC9�Or a D T 9y2 �D >. T.•r TDD 9r 1 Dr Y mn n n V S N NNN��uNNUyNV••uuNYUNNNNNNUN..N VUNNN+..NNNVN Ir n N�Odb..P NJyu•V•O[TyP Ni.y N••OOP YPN}. .riurOyb .°iP V�u4 Z n ..�yOrOOfM � .. O✓yPPWy�rPNdvP O°.+NP ✓�JOONOONyONr•..dPPNPNNW4NJr V f u OuA✓ OO�NOVOPOOw O OOVO.NVbrJOlpOr000POMU0 Fr -T --- ......... #3! !' � � � \J \ \E /� 2� - R\; | |\ \@RG |\ 92 MV -tau 2 R R. \| |i | |; � - � 4 k�| �X 2 |��kI| |$ | |! § ; ; | || |!`B |, | #I■I ■! ■ ■ ■ -k ■■�`. ! ' |,.. || |� ■`• � | , _,�......, |;.| ■ § §) I! ■ |2!2! ; ■ |f! |||| k ■, ■;•U!■! ■ |7 |�■ ,! ■! , ■ § ■�■ ■ | |■ „■2 |,,,R } | | | W.;. m ! §, ; ;! |l2 ; =!!2!, .;;..;;..�. ;�.,-.I,.- ■ | | ; §,. | |.§ �| ;.� - - � $�| -- - -- - - - -- - -- - -- —�@#�a� @ @& !/it 22 = �R ■ i is 2 /342 83 ! | — - — - -- -- -ew @R - a is 9 w99 � §��R�925��tq�2�! | | r;;;; ; ; ■ ;§ ; ; ;;;; ;E;;MHUS299MI ;E;;;;n 2NE `, ;;;;;;;£;;;;;; ; ; ; ; ; § ; ; ;E ; § ; ; ;E ; ; ;z ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ( -\ |! ;` ; :;;!!!!!;!!E,l�== l,•� =; .! „!l -., -� ..;,.1,;;,; ..�, ; ;� | | |� ; ; | | ■ | ; ; | ■ ;; ; | ■ |§ ||g 1 } 4 a v" gg �s aa:�ca'- ���EB' AC5Zc3p & &ZZ uri Bg a a a c9 i 3�q }F7 .;aa 3g 6 3a . gs�ias�F g 5F�� � g.aa. qcD i41 yf llkq �2 t3�Rp" ki�M�6�� 11�. p9 - EEaC= ��6••�RC gC�;2 C= „ii „_�J�fQ 7C31R��aF.[ i1��Y■3 L�00 �IYI 1i TL�911L 1� IIY 9�>i � S• flr$� �L „L i� :•• $aa.aae�$ II 3 88Lha81�i5fi a► il:TaSaaYyaEY],a]] SiY864S3E4444E�64 fit is Sax 'a �SSiSaSS8i8Y8i i i8488A I0 �A i; - 6ESay87Yf ��aS�]]ai]iaa]IYY]Saa]a LL a ]8��ia83i A tat I a - iII✓glj$ 3 II$E$IIj$$3ti R i'�ii& °? "sesass'ss }� $ Yfit sssz' ss' sa'seas'sasai'sia:sss a 'ssa :'s "sasa F 3szsaasr 53]s as a_'s �a]asa.5asp aaa c a_'sassaEll aiasa ssESa'aszsaass]ssssassssa.. :s a ssxxass•�: rr =rrrr. rrrrrrrrrrrrrnrrrrrr iSl Lis"$ X14 &Oie$S3LIIL3$b$Sd &ttYe3��d3f$ „ s�glf��E�9 e� a�i - rr�6rrrr:•r rrrrrr „rrr -r:•r rrr>r 3EL3ffP$ g04 'YE1IFS:IIt9II'26k3fkif5>'iiniH � r ©LC1fi��al9 :� rr ri:rr. r -r. rr rrr -rr r. r�r. r 'at55c359r£ "azCP3b'n833 'c_bfi1 <_ "o26E 3 neekemcaA EI r_- ptaac_gc "c s'_'7ega 'i8T c e >.a E^ 'i a a? 3i3i7�3 a s d.]h5_a.s.aR= a „abNca3y'a xacei�aacE c :a- a „Y�3e pa „ a £� s- AsF�� �� sE�a s�sas$$igriaiEiah� xscsxs� � �, £,_!tas 's o..b�i_Etln3._a_ccsc5__�G�rs4kE _ Apa_£ {� o MA issiAtci q A�aF §�! - s�,,g ro3G4tiCe� a °_ i °gipagea Fsa F=�=i4 §E E° r- 1f ° Eire 3 c saa'ss siisa'cpssssy4s's a8'a s`sassss !r. eR a a# it¢e ....t 8 a .di_ a � xII8Eii8iai8iixa8artxiSxII8iSRYT I �P4 LA 3i r &ifli € a ass's ss's ssaasaiisscaiias :cassia: 4! ppg II $ £ &as � = isII�e §Tiii£3jY$ItII334if�II�$S�`6 � 3�4 b x 's's is 's s Ds :a'x xss:: s'a is as's :a's's cabs a's as �Y Eire $ e sssss ssiasipaas @sag's s's ssai i x Eii- i 's asssa 's'assassssixss's'ssass'ssix's i s °22 i gagr ssa'u3$£6iiF21129551Nig3 ^B r r -nr - r rr!r rrrs! rrrrTT!!r.! , 3 i a�'_E a B 9iaii9 915ni&v rig IIIFivI ill 'nii9wiIV r .wrr r "Y•. r!T!�Plrf!!! •>•�TT�yp. C•1•!r O 5Si ?Oi6dNs8ans'?frc4i3nF3 &g'anE IEi s_er; 2- ggpp Fa p s�_c 3a3 sckg:nzy�pz:x ?�FL�'Fig@ iaa 3 §3 i3i8 � 3 �3i3a33i333i33�3i33 w s as tt 9:c4 _ s zacac2n�?a55 h�itas53a:sizailYC_f ,ca . /v J Nil `eE QeQ3' - 33z ,Q a sd:�oS 3?3�ra .�-- �p �t 3 'L E :a3 L 3 iilYBui � i�palf 94_ E � i st:.a _ 7RtlSSE a EIIIIR8 r!! $ j ? Se lip i 3 i'£rs'aS 3 3Ei8ak cu.r ', s sasi'sx 8 i48E8 ire 9 fad *t'v jI �,s� $$ i 7 S LYOi i 7iti /E :t iaiE I r +r•• r -r�rrr -rr a rfus a DM-1,12 9II$xi r _ Pr:.. .. rrrrr; Lc ®C i 9 ie@ x n8i5F! Og I7 r r rrrr > - -rrr rrr P ! c' ex S.Ec F g9 =ir8 E 995 G.S q� I c = -iR 3 a3i3�� �i�idi 7_ 'V sn ?$i a� IF & 3� EI 3 ii z S3 asi 2 a C' S / R $ t $0 $$ .3 ?It Nil `eE QeQ3' - 33z ,Q a sd:�oS 3?3�ra .�-- �p �t 3 'L E :a3 L 3 iilYBui � i�palf 94_ E � i st:.a _ 7RtlSSE a EIIIIR8 r!! $ j ? Se lip i 3 i'£rs'aS 3 3Ei8ak cu.r ', s sasi'sx 8 i48E8 ire 9 fad *t'v jI �,s� $$ i 7 S LYOi i 7iti /E :t iaiE I r +r•• r -r�rrr -rr a rfus a DM-1,12 9II$xi r _ Pr:.. .. rrrrr; Lc ®C i 9 ie@ x n8i5F! Og I7 r r rrrr > - -rrr rrr P ! c' ex S.Ec F g9 =ir8 E 995 G.S q� I c = -iR 3 a3i3�� �i�idi 7_ 'V sn ?$i a� IF & 3� EI 3 ii z S3 asi 2 a C' S / \ !/� { � !| � lie �} f ' � | !| I | : 4 I I I 1 n 10 1037'! ho"all alyd. 1. DEC 20W } 14••. }.r.•w 6r tartwl b. fJwl} 10. r1w. I•• 1w ..bYd y al M pwY�� N My .WN+4 � ].M�aMY :...J M r n}.IY.pY M W (1A.,1•..1 }w. .. 14 .-l.- w..• b..r 0 w 10.•a.a1.l.rn.Mafn0 w L }v1.10.•.w4.11e.. It aM4`1 •V.w (.1 PM .•} Y/nLww.11r.a 4 w.Yi. MvH ..w..•1 .,L a.+ .L M n•r.a4al.. w . 4w., uC f\I M a..m wI J•I.�. r m.r r was r M •14.1.0 w Y Y.. � M i•. a4eYi1 4.. Cs..1 M 13 ]tatl or uwasa c...,•} a �. W+- ALLaulllm�_ow_.12�!L:RL.�_ la a1 IW4T sYal YLn 1�i�,�`---' ' �: -i•IW �',e'sJ._u.t� �— APPLWAT1ON BY MANSMOR i] ]tat} a WuMpla c,.,.y .l_ l.n Mre.rOim ��..Aw_ J1L11ULi_.__ IA N.+NO db1wNA v s..Y....e .lie__ae �NlN ll.0 y0ml L M1llr.e..�. -- 1001 LorY�C+Q. tfLIL Ye LMMIN CM MLL LE]R}gL w•1••••Y•• Caww lYVLn�afVNwYIL+M 2 worm W VnK m cl _�0_ yM_} 1 rnwl d ItlII1aC110r(i) n 10 1037'! ho"all alyd. 1. DEC 20W } 14••. }.r.•w 6r tartwl b. fJwl} 10. r1w. I•• 1w ..bYd y al M pwY�� N My .WN+4 � ].M�aMY :...J M r n}.IY.pY M W (1A.,1•..1 }w. .. 14 .-l.- w..• b..r 0 w 10.•a.a1.l.rn.Mafn0 w L }v1.10.•.w4.11e.. It aM4`1 •V.w (.1 PM .•} Y/nLww.11r.a 4 w.Yi. MvH ..w..•1 .,L a.+ .L M n•r.a4al.. w . 4w., uC f\I M a..m wI J•I.�. r m.r r was r M •14.1.0 w Y Y.. � M i•. a4eYi1 4.. Cs..1 M 13 ]tatl or uwasa c...,•} a �. W+- ALLaulllm�_ow_.12�!L:RL.�_ la a1 IW4T sYal YLn 1�i�,�`---' ' �: -i•IW �',e'sJ._u.t� �— APPLWAT1ON BY MANSMOR i] ]tat} a WuMpla c,.,.y .l_ l.n Mre.rOim ��..Aw_ J1L11ULi_.__ IA N.+NO db1wNA v s..Y....e .lie__ae �NlN ll.0 y0ml L M1llr.e..�. L 41 i" WNaWWM IAh L: aw].e, (2 ].1w...... ❑ fdwlP} R.•a O- a.... v Wd Lp cr T.1Y•1r L1rpmlPrwl V. ON0 .Yt 1,•.� •PY I WAREHOUSE LIQUORS 10277 Fcothill Bled, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 APN/ 208 - 331.23 Current Zoning; Commerical /Office Subarea(3) Three of Foothill Specific Plan Zone of Adjacent Property: elorth: Community Commercial South: Low /Ned Residential (vacant) b Haven Ave Overlay Dist East : Med /High Residential(vacant) Yest : Commerical /Office (vacant) i I i W �O•I Jje lorrez 0 Dec.,1998 % CLY-MR Au8 MEDIAN LOCATION MAP /d crnc�n..c«mncan tIJA DATE: RV: FROM: BY: SU=CT: a � CITY OF &.NCHO C' 1CAAIONGA STAFF REPORT January 4, 1988 ��lcwnrgl� 19 WWM city Council and acting City Manager Joe Schultz, Community services 1_anager Dave Leonard, Park Projects Coordinator Creekside Park Community Design Committee A conceptual design for Cseakaido park was adopted by City council in October of 1984. Funding for construction of tLv design was provided xn the 1987-88 hudget. Because of community corceres with the design, council in March of this year, directed redesign of the park utilising a community design committee made up of local residents. To select memsbers foi the committee; an interest questionalre was mailed to ,rver five hundred residents of the Rod Hill area. sixty four wore xoturn,ed exjressing interest in participating on a committee. The part and recreation commisoion reviewed the applications ( exhibit A) and forwarded a !.1st of cloven residents (exhibit B1 they fenl represent a broad based make -up local of the community. REcomENDATIOH: The par and rocreation commission recommends the appointment of eleven Rod Hill commxnity residents to servo on the Creekelde Park Community Design Committee. DL /mg 15 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 10 19. 20. 21. 22 PARK CAEEKSIDB COMHDMM DESIGN APPLICATIONS Fred Acosta Betty Anton Stephen & Sharon Baer Ka'_ly & Greg Brown Eugene Buchmiller Debora Burdick Mr. & Mrs. R.W. Busch Peg Cheadle Richard Clements Rine Defreas H. Dwight Dicker Mr. D. FaVara Sally Frantz 2elene Hall Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hickcox Ron Holdridgo Bill Holley Mrs. M Hoops Gilbert J. Josund George A. Klrka Roberta Kuhlmann Lew, 7740 Calla Clarin 7611 Buena Vista 7599 Cerrito Rojo 7748 Duane Vista 7422 Via Serrena 7584 Alta Cuesta 7627 Buena Victa 7670 Alta Cuesta 7717 Buena Vista 8500 Red Hill C.C. 7899 Alta Cnesta 7747 Alta Cuesta 7610 E1 Arco 7759 Calls Bresca 7940 Valle Vista 8441 aim Ladora 7515 Valle Vista 8459 Calla Carabo 8537 Chula Vista 7487 Alta Cuesta 7862 Alta Cuesta 7562 Valle Vista EXHIBIT A I Crasksida CmQ.inity Design Applications DACenbar 15, 1988 page two 23. Robert J. Latham 7575 Alta Cuneta 24. M:. Mrs. John W. Laurson 8592 Via Huarte 25. Larry L. Lanz 7586 Cerrito Rojo 26. Ellen & Nick Livingston 7444 Via Paraiso 27. Gail Marlow 8237 Calls Dal Prado 2P. George Martin 7767 Alta Coasts 29. Howard Mayor 7492 Camino Norte 30. Joan McCOnolly 7510 Buena Vista 31. Larry & Susan McNiel 7482 Xlta Cuesta 32. Mr. & Mrs. W.R. Misrss x630 Calls Quebrada 33. Charles S. Miller 7781 Valle Vista 34. Jeff Miller 7362 Via Serena 35 Jerry & Dian Mulnix 7386 Alta Cueata 36. Wilna R. Oates 7420 Via Paraiso 37. Ray Orton 7498 Buena Vista 38. Mr. & Mrs. Park 8553 Rod Hill C.C. 39 Prank Perri 8373 Camino Sur 40 Denise G Pb,noof 8363 Via Airosa 41. Siegfried Pikschus 7839 Calla Canino 42. Hr & Mrs. Robert Quaintanco 7440 Buena Vista 43. Dino A. Querin 7458 Alta Cuesta 44. Jerome E. Reed 7454 Via Sarena 45. Dorthy Rose 7386 Via Paraiso 46. Grady Rudolph 7528 Valle Vista 17 Y r e i 'P Creekside Community Design Applications December 15, 1988 page three 47. Mr. i Mrs. Steven P. Scholl 7354 Alta Cueata 48. W.M. Schultz 8513 Red Hill C.C. 49. Jerry D. Shockley 7563 Alta Cuesta 50. £leaner Scrensor 7749 Calls Clarin !1. Mrs. Diane Stags 7862 Sierra Vista 52. Tom Subt 8480 Camino Sur 53. Elaine H. Thompson 7651 Buena Vista 54. Walter L. Todorov 7453 Valle Vista 55. Hr. 6 Mrs. Noel R. Treber 7611 Alta Cuesta 56 Wilbur L. Wazenfelt 3884 Camino Norte 57. Wendy R. Westphal 7833 .Uta Cuesta 58. Linus 6 Nancy Wiegenstein 7767 Buena Vista 59. Robert F. Wilhelm 7364 Alta Cuostn 60. Andrea Willerth 8425 Calla Carats 61. Ann Woods 7893 Alta Cuesta 62. Daniel d Lois Wren 8557 Calla Faliz 63. Hugo F. Valrinak 7599 Buena Vista 64. Matthew a Valerie Wilson 7516 Valle Vista v e AA9^ E� �S II Li S ii rt. SUD- COHMITEE s PARK AND RECP.EATICN COMMISSI0J! SELECTION RECOMM MD,ITICNS �$ 7 CREEKSIDE PARK ^ESICf7 CA'.?fI P7EE 1) Richard Clements 7717 Buena Vista 2) Ron Moidridge 8441 Via Ladera 3) Bill Malley 7515 Valle Vista 4) Gail Marlow 8207 Calla Del Prado 5) Prank Perri 8373 Camino Sur 6) Tom Subt 8480 Camino Sur 7) Mrj. Bonnie Quaintance 7440 Buena Vista 8) Mr. & Mrs Steven Scholl 7334 Alta Cuosta 9) Walter Todorov 7450 Valle Vista 10) Ifugo Valrinsk 7599 Buena Vista 11) MatthaW & Valerie Wilson 7516 Valle Vista EXHIBIT B t Selection of Comsat yn t.y ! Proposed Creekside Park Location Inter at Quesdomite 1J Daa±a: ��vw i Adtess: Ihow (kcups6m- tianaf 2) AIM? 0.10 yrs. are In 1120 yrs. 12 � yn. �".. 41.65 yrs. 1_ 65+ _. fl 3.) How aftstt would you eupert to use the pack? 4.) VS"•ut type —of fsdlitles woullou like to secluded in the SJ Yave you participated In a community design ptccess before? Yes_, NoJG, Spedfy 6.) Tell us jh f yap ould tom as a m ember of he 7.) please specify evening's) and time(°) you are avabble to meet: Id t' ' T � W — 'Ih �C F _• 61 ✓6:30 pm _f.! 7 pm 1L 730 pm 8.) Commerta: � 14 �. a+.? r t i t w7nk.7O1�lth+tw+. W�j�.y.1'je(N'ry4w "� a"u%� ' ..tN ( . .Y�» tr Y k `�..yii • • .. Vii. V V� i L7t:'si Committee t.y ! Proposed Creekside Park Location Inter at Quesdomite 1J Daa±a: ��vw i Adtess: Ihow (kcups6m- tianaf 2) AIM? 0.10 yrs. are In 1120 yrs. 12 � yn. �".. 41.65 yrs. 1_ 65+ _. fl 3.) How aftstt would you eupert to use the pack? 4.) VS"•ut type —of fsdlitles woullou like to secluded in the SJ Yave you participated In a community design ptccess before? Yes_, NoJG, Spedfy 6.) Tell us jh f yap ould tom as a m ember of he 7.) please specify evening's) and time(°) you are avabble to meet: Id t' ' T � W — 'Ih �C F _• 61 ✓6:30 pm _f.! 7 pm 1L 730 pm 8.) Commerta: � 14 �. a+.? r t i t w7nk.7O1�lth+tw+. W�j�.y.1'je(N'ry4w "� a"u%� ' Selection of Community Design Committee Proposed Creesside Park Location Inter-at Quwtlonaire 1.)Name: HOL7)RI -DbF. Address. 2LI641 117,q L 7J/ -.GA '— phone Number. 44, 7 01 _ Occvpatlon: (optionall 6X r6LHPAN.c1r. %- 2.) How many people are in your famdv? Aga? 0.10 yrs. __„ I1.20 yrs. --2— 21-40 yrs. -L- 41-65 yrs. 1 65+ 3.) How often would you expect to use the park? WfSWE&M< uIHB.0 W,4L&zW& 0/j 1?lDrNf- A reyctr 4.) What type of fadHen would yar like to ere included in the design? R6`5 TQMHS , A7PZUlr rAt�F FOU /U LATH/ d APCrd rAB L@c'ALCO FRO" 21'!i_IffLT )G tin ny'r 6A j,r_�S7fP aF VALL6 VLSTA. 5.) Have you participated in a community design process before? Yes No 1s, Spediy: ' 6.) Tell us why you wouH like to r.. - Uctr.i »<-1 n, mb-r nf the committee? SAH WI rg TNR DELAY- 72 ia.rrs A,Vn ,ae,VC2A! 1;AA6gI -,9A .c a >:us RA R14 _ 7.) Please specify even,g(s) and time(s) you are availaole to meet: M_ TZ W�L Th.`,4 F_ 6 pm 15_ 6:30 pm ]L- 7 pm A 7:30 pm _ 8.) Comments: THANK YOUI ej C: Selection of Cotnmunittyy Dealgn Committee Proposed Creekslde Park Location lnxmt Quemionalm Addres pho ne N r. phone Y Occupatlom (optlonal) 2) How many people am in your faadly? Ages? 0.10 yea. f 11.20 yrs. _ 21.40 yrs. L 41-65 yrs. _ 65+ 3.) How often would you expect to use the park? 4.) What type of facilities would you like m see included In the dntgniZl� 5.) Have yoy.partfdpated in a community d tsign process before? Yes[L, No Spedfy; 6.) Tell us why you would like to be selected Asa member of the committee? L� 7) please specify evening(s) and times) you are available to meet. M_ T_ W._ Th r•_. 1 6 pm _ 6•.30 pm — / pmT� 7:30 pm —'�� 8) Comments: _ THANK You 3 cl Selection of Community Design Committee Proposed Cceekside Park Location Interest Questionaire 1.) Name: C_IA—'n �ry1ArRL00 ss: 3 AddreA t rte° Phone Number. --J 8 �,��— ` occupation: (optional) t4 t t 2.) How many People are in your family? -?, . Ages) 0.10 vn. 1 11 -20 yrs. _ 2140 m. 1- 11.65 yrs. 1 65+ — 3.) How often m• d )rou expect to u e e park? , r = 'M--- -�tLL.�. 4.) What of fatuities would you like to see Includqd in the des k gn�� D 4• rf� LLcL �"'TT 5.) rfaw you participated in a. commnity d esign process be re? Ye. ! . No _ . Specify: -1 ^,t,�Q�•�._34� 6.) Tell us why yoy would like to be selected as a member gf the - 7) Pir.:.=e specify everdn�(s) and t efs) you are avadab!e to mee.. M �L i i NI _e! Th _iC P7 m 6p. _ 630 pm _ P 8) Comments: T '' .GldtiJ� 4P, is ii.•. :.... olA&ACj e ta. -+-w o-- kTHANK YOUI <j -naf• t.Ilw 14. C6, G s",4 B �- o Selection of Commwuttyy Design Committee Proposed Creekside Park Location tnf =rest QLwt!onaire 1.) Name: _,r ' Hearts: — Phone Numbcr. • - �� �/ Ocxupadnre (opdo 2.) How many people are N your family? Ages? 0.10 Em. 11-20 yrs. _ 21-40 yrs...4 4165 yts. 65+_ 3.) How often would you expect to use the park? stn e�e,e 4.) What type of facilities would you ' ^ to see; included in the dealp? pelf F/n to1 �h �4 — 5.) Have you Participated in a community aesign proves before? Yes—_. No;X%-, SPA"_ 6.) o�m�tteei = /�i to se! as a member of /w IsnSr f iN n f / rv' h_dal I 7.) PL--!Zt specif ]Cevening(s) and tim re e(a) ymt a available to meet M .i. T W _ Th 3e F 6 Pnt — 6J0 pm — 7 pm .15_ 7 -30 pm ,L_ 8) Comm.nts r ^— THANK YOUi L J L Selection of Community Design Comuddee Proposed C eeksidc Park Location Interest Questioralre 1.1 Name: dicL !hone Dlumber. C )mpath!:(cptloml).BUQLQYs'M(4-CL N)MICHTBR _ 2.) Flow uany people ate in your family? 41..J1 0.10 yrr. Q9+ 11 -20 yn. _ 2110 yrs. yrs. _ 4.) 1..• . ! t. di!C l THANK i�a at �17�f_ of. Youl ,� • 7^ C� L L Selection of Commvnit ,/ Design Committee Proposed Creekside Park Lccation Lmmest Questiondre 1.) Namey�...e�.r?uF r t Addr_..s _._2,,,,y,.�d ,rlydrr Phonc Number. 6t Occupadon: (optional -) !/ - / L) How many people are in your h"y? Ages? 0.10 yrs. _ 11 -30 yrs. _ 31-40 41.65 yrs. _ 65+— a�-oi.z- zG- �3 -r }43 3.) H'- often would you Ira 4.) t yp of fadiHes woul,dyrou lt .fk � b.i ...!u th design? 4 w. - Y. ate: .LCY.+• 5.) Have you participated in a community derlgn prattKS before? ' Yes _, No 1G. sped(y: 6.) ,..., us why yop would like to be erleele:d as a 7.) please apecdy efeniVn 3) and ttme(sl ) a e to m`e'zc" M_ T_ 1V5T� Th,_ F_ 6 pm 630 . ._ 7 pm _ 7:30 pm .> 7s11� g.) Somnlents: 'ew. �a!J': 4Ldr✓ J. :s4 M Selection of Cninmunity Desi(m Committee Proposed Creekside Park Locatlon Interest Quesdonaim 1.) Nam-_I r.rr�ror.wm IN OAW�a"rA Phone Number. _ -- Oavpatton: (optional) 2.) How manv people ere in your fanulvl Agee? 0.30 yn...._ 11 -2o yrs. — 21-10 yra L 41.(,S yA. -___ j5+_ 3.) zH often would }rou err to use the azkr Dkr' s In. '!) a'en`att7 J] [laa7itlea ed You: like to�se5 in tided in the ees 0.S—' L 5.) Have you panldpatnd in a Community design ptuceea below Yee —, NoLg,,., Specify. 6.) Tell us why you wsild like to be x ct as a member of the cdosCy�mth.ct . _Y11R,6',_!•�u fit eeS WE) lD 7.) Mease >p� evenbn gs) and tbnc( you are avaWble to meet �L i V Th P F30—,— 6 F'm — bo94 pm — 7 pm 8.) Co iente: tcptu6 THANK You i7d r' Selcttion of Community Design Comnlittat Proposed Creekside Park Loc. -tIon Interest Quesdonalre 1.) Naate:%2�!�r•`.(2- l.. 'Yo'ooZp✓ �, A.fdress: 5o Vw we V �► its Fhons Numbs. �} I Otcopa.ion; (opttocu)) 7-) How many people are in y, ur f=Wyp? _ A;es? 0-10,m. _ 11•2o yrs. _.L . 21-40 yrr.._ 41.65 yes. -2. 65+ ' 30 How okm would you vmftt co use the park? _f.2allrS nr br.,�r.rCe a.fr ,�a 1, i 4.) What type of fadtltles iyoidd ycu like to u find�ded ki the desltpt l,o. a �r:l` o. 'Fhr .Ca.Y u - e r✓ may,,, _ Gee ..�D ro✓rt te.o a (l.3.S (v Ftr.� i-tesci_ _ 5.) 'Lve jmu puddpeted in a maimur3ty ddgn process before? t Y No_. "oeci.V. `rB5 (,J�a�q, ore? a.) Tell us wt vnu w tike to be ae�ected � As a memo a of the ` ta'osmitere d'tATS�P-E@S�9i1` nlT r.o ✓tr?;.l��r' UUi'lL !L! 7.) Flew apedly evadn�,(s) and tioub) ti an ava0:ble to =ce- M -LT!- iYY �L- M F- 6 pm -1- 63o pm -2=: 71-n _!- 7M pm 8.1 Comm miC -A*-AA59tMJ camA -h xe zia.- a✓ �rjLY ..w Lrt [Yq Liar; (.V . j FAIe w Fort U0'tl. ( 7'6t'BVC YCcNLI TF.-'C YOL1F Ago eourdy ru.Wt ftAw: A-.cA�srOu4 LjO FA s r r 70 X,T a a t9p -r#g . l iti ro Vrt.'rice `s -1 4 :4 p..arnt,).Ger) no 6. Tell us whY 7ov wouU hkt to K seW ed as a member of the tOm itt" Tray - _sae -- — 7.) Meax fpedfy eevvenlWn s) and m Hs) you are rraiLbla to meet 6 pro 1 :- T 6:30 pm W ) pm -_ 2_20 Fm 8.) Comments: - — - - THANK YOUI L- -�9 Selection of Cotnnunity Dcsi3n Committee a Proposed Creekside Park Location �• :• Interert QUCL�WfaFie 1. Name: '- SSA —t� � �. 9 r• T _ Ifione Number. j: . --- — Oaupadmm: (optim+:t) it ' 2.) How many people L'v in your famflyt _ Aan? 0.10 yrs. _ 11 -20 yrs. _ 21-10 yrs. _. 4165 yrs _ 65+ ' 3.) How often would you expert to use the park? 4.) What type of fadOties would you like to we indsded in the deal tn 5. Have you �,ate�ln a community design proms before? r ) Y p No.i. - -'— Yes Spedfy:__. -- l 6. Tell us whY 7ov wouU hkt to K seW ed as a member of the tOm itt" Tray - _sae -- — 7.) Meax fpedfy eevvenlWn s) and m Hs) you are rraiLbla to meet 6 pro 1 :- T 6:30 pm W ) pm -_ 2_20 Fm 8.) Comments: - — - - THANK YOUI L- -�9 v s' Selection of Cammmuity Design Cotnmitt,!e Proposed Creekside Park Location r �, interest Qt estionaim 1 1J Namr..ftlxN\ o - bcilPn� ),I�n �6)3ii 1378 Phone Number. M21 Occupation: (optional) 4- � v ' 2.) How many people am in your farW S "? 0--10 yrs. 11 -20 yrs. _ 21-41 ys X QS+ 3J Hnw open would you expect to use the park? cELCit• ('r.'Pntn, iT2 F. <P!f•, <•�. N,44 fP(,r Mr. Ftrnnl 4.) What type ct 6alities would you like to see included in the des �' 1 1 J 5.) Have you participated in a community desigr. proms before? Yes_. No jam, Specify: 6 ) Te0 us why you would like to be seleced as a mxml -;: of w: cc,madttee? _1 lt��ST tia �•ferh., tL�CL mil+ -� — � a. 7) please specify evening(z) ant: time(s) you are available to meet: MA Tom- W X Th? F- 6 pm _ 6•30 pm _ 7 pm 2L_ 730 Put t 8.) fbaamnts: 'V1 I J f Anrvi r1n y Ire ,'. hr., t3D THANK YOUt `llte Red l41 in ir,+ 3�� •AMC; L MaNw YaN •NOR[W V LNC I.N [[I aAUN o rvAN wN o cwxw i ox NAw ervA eo eLw rAn [aLON Beverly Authelet City Clark City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 -0007 NYY1el. ON, c3vtc ccI tft CNICL[ • o rox �o[e iw 4, CwLil Jwrvla Oiiii•IOOY IiW Reg -oroi ♦CL[ ..... . "; CU -iel December 16, 19ss Re: Los Angeles SKSA Ltd. Partnorohip, etc., of al V. State Board of Equalization, etc., at al. Loo Angeles County Superior Court no. C- 705263 Doer Beverly: He are in receipt of a copy of correspondence directed to your office by Dawn Stafford of the County Counsel's Offica concerning the above - referenced matter. M you know, as have agreed with the County or Can Bernardino to prcvido or service of tax refund actions d.rectly upon thtt Count- pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5161.. The county is thereupon required to notify the City that t',o action has been served and that the City is doomed served Additionally, we are required, within thirty (30) days of receiving the notice, to notify the County as to whether or not the City wishes to defend the action, using its own counsel. Based upon the fact that the matter appears to be one of virtually statewide concern and involves a tax collected by the County on behalf of the City, we would recommend that the City Council direct, by miruts motion, your office to forward correspondence to ra Stafford indicating the City's agreement with the representation of the City by the Ccmty of San Bernardino Of course, the city will be required to pay its pro -rate shore c' the costs of defonee of the action; however, we believe that that pro -rata share of the costs would be significantly less than obtaining independent counsel to represent the City in the action. Accordingly, please provide the City Council with this correspondence as our recommendation that the City permit the County to continue to defend the ma•tor on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. �I Beverly Authelet December 16, 1988 Page Mwo � r Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter in further detail, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, drewkI Assistant city Attorney AVA:ljl City of Rancho Cucavonga L \137 \LAUTHUM _3.a- a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONCA STAFF REPORT Date: January 4, 1989 To: City Council and City Manager From Elizabeth Stoddard, Finance Ranager Sub;ect: SURPLUS EOUIPNEN RECQf1ENDATION• City Council declare an Apple Ile Computer surplus and authorize the sale of the computer. D..ACKGROUND: Tho Apple Ile Computer System, disk drh a serial 1192 1180. 01864724, keyboard serial /D54040E A252064, monitor serial l06174C9, is being requeste.' as surplus. This system is not compatible with the present network of coma ter systems currently in us., thraugh the City, therefore, staff wishes to pro•eed with the sole of the ecuipment under the procedures set forth in 'he Purchasing Manual. Respectfully submitted, _Q 4 Elizabeth Stoddard Finance Manager ES /dah 33 i• — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA n:q STAFF REPORT '; '�� s n� r 1 p t Z Date: January „ 1989 t977 To: Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Acting City Manager From: Joe Schultz. Community services Manager By: Karen McGuira -Emery, associate Park Planner Subjectt Per Capita Grant Program - California Wlldl.lfo Coastal and Park Land Conservation Boni Act of 1988. The Park a'd Recreation Commission recosmends that the City Council approve the application for grant funds for the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal and Park. Ldnd Conservation Act of 1988 for the acquisition of property for the No_-th East Community Park site. The Per Capita Grant Program under. The California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988 is a non- competitive grant available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of ark lands. The City's per capita allotment for this grant is $285,000 eecauea 0� '.he escalating costs of land in the Community, it is the reaommondation of the Park and Recreation Commission that the allotted $285,000 be applied to the acquisition of 15 acres for the North East Community Park site located in the Etiwanda area. Proposed features of this facility will include a community canter and lighted spor�s facilitieo for the Community's use. 4 SA.4PLE RESOLUTION Resolution No: 89- O C) ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 for the following project(s): Acquisition of Land for the North East COmnunity Park WHEREAS, the people Of the State of California havo onacted the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act Of 1988, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring and /or developing facilitiee for public recraational and open space purposest and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration Of the program within the state, setting up ::ecessary pr= :eduros governing application by 'Ocal agencio:a under the programs and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Dopartment of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(m) to the states and WHEREAS, said application(s) contain assurances that the applicant must comply withs and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition er development of the project(o)r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT t:ESOLVED that the City Council HEREBY: Approves the filling of an application for the per Capita Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988 state grant assistance for the above pra,ject(s)r and Certifies that Raid applicant understands tho assurances and certification in the application forms and 3-E- el ]. Certifies that said eppllcant has or will have aufficiont Lunde to operate and maintrin the projects(s)1 and S. Appoints the Acting City Manager as agent of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to conduct all negotiations, gxocuto and submit all documents incluAing, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payments requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project(s). Approved and Adopted the __ day of 19 I, *he undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City council following roll ca -1-1 votet Ayes: Noes: Absent: C eT k 3 ( CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4. 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Sigwnd DellhAoe, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Approval of the inclusion of five new pro,lects into the Fiscal Year 19110/89 Canital Improvement Program. The new projects are: the design of traffic signals at the intersections o! Archibald and Lemon Avenues and at Haven Avenue and Severth Street; the design of parkway landscape improvements on the east side of Rochester Avenue between Base Line P.oad and Highland Avenue: the design of median island landscape fmprovements on Monte Yf:ta Court east of Eastwood Avenue; and the City -aide Beautification Master Program Review and Fee Nexus Study It 1s recommended that the City Council approve the following additions to the Fiscal Year 1988/89 Capital Improvement Program: - Design of the Rochester Avenue east side parkway landscape 1mprovearnts from Base Line Road to Highland Avenue. The estimated design cost of $14,000 will be funded from the Beautification Fund account. - Design of median island landscape improvements on Monte vista Court east of Eastwood Avenue. The estimated study cost of $4,400 will be funded from the Beautification Fund account. - City -wide Ceautlflcation Master Program Review and Fee Nexus Study. The estimated design cost of $40,NQ will be funded from the Beautification Fund account. - Design of the traffic signal at the intersection of Archibald and Lemon Avenues. The estimated design cost o! 53,500. will be funded from the TDA Article 8 account - Design of the traffic signal at the intersection of leaven Avenue and Seventh Street. The estimated design cost of $3,500 will oe funded from the iDA Article 8 account. 37 CITY COUNCIL SrVF REPORT January 4, 1989 Page 2 Backgreuni /Analysis Beautification Projects By petition to the City, residents in the vicinity of Rochester Avenue (between Base Line Road and Highland Avenue) requested Improvements along the east side of Rochester Avenue from Basa Line Read to Highland Avenue. Addltfonally, the residents in the vicinity of the Monte Vista Court cui -de -sac median island east of Eastwood Avenue requested that t{ie island be renovated and re- landscaped. Both groups of residents, dnd the City Council previously agreed to annexation into Landscape Maintenance District dl on the understanding that upon annexation of their neighborhoods Into the District, the City would proceed with the development of the projects. Therefore, with the completion of the annexations and the City Council's approval, staff recommends that the design of both projects be scheduled for the cement Fiscal Year and constructed in the first part of Fiscal Year 1989/90. This schedule will insure that the projects will be completed in coordination with levying of the Landscape Haintensnce assessments. In preparation for the establis` cent of parkway improvements along the east side of Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road tc Highland Avenue, the design cost for this project has been estimated at $14,800. The design cost for tha Monte Vista Court cul -de -sac median island improvements hac been estimated at $4,400 Per the requirements of A.B. 1600, a City -wid_ Beautification Master Proyrar Review and Fee Nexus Study should be coiducted this Fiscal Year 1988/89, Tha estimated cost for the consultant study 1s $40,C00. Funding for the Rochester Avenue Parkway, Monte Vista Hedlan Island, and Beautification Master Program Review will be transferred from the Archibald Parkway Beautification Project's construction phase. Owing to the scope of the project, the Parkway Study, while funded for completion during this Festal Year 1988/89, will not be completed as originally scheduled. The delay in cocpleting the Study will, in turn, result In the delay of the design and, ultimately, construction phases. Tie funds transferred free the construction phase to tha above projects will, therefore, be re- budgetod in the Fiscal Year 1989/90 Capital Budget I CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT January 4, 1988 Page 3 Traffic Signals At the request of the Public Safety Cowfssion, the traffic signals at the Intersections of A- chfbald and Item Aventes and at Haven Avenue and Saventh Street are propcsed Lo be designed this Fiscal Year 1988/89. 1'hfs expedited schedrle will enable } the signals to be installed early In Fiscal "ear 1989/90. The estimated cost for the desfin of each :'.gnat is $3,500. Funds ' for thaso projects will be drawn from the readjust-cant of funds t' within the TDA Article 8 account. n ' General Actual account numbers for the propose,; new 8mautiflcaticn oral Tinffic Signal projects will be identified during tlx upcoming ofd -year budget review. Respect, s battled, / RHH: 3� — — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT p .rE: Janusry 4, 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FiDH: Russell H. i'aguire, Cib Engineer BY: Judy A:osta, J.•. Engine, ring Aide 2"Impil, SOBJECT: Orderirg Use Annex Lion of Certain Territory to Landscap Fointenance District No. 3 and Stree& Lighting Haintenar District Nos. 1 and 6 for OR 87 -17, located at the nort� corner of Haven and Highland Avenues R :CON`Elbl1TION: It is reLNmnded that City Ccuncii aeop! the attached resolution ordering the annexation of OR 87 -17, located at the no.-Nieast corner of Haven and highland Avenuas, to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Strcot Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 background /Analysis Attached is the Consent and Waiver to Annexation fora sig,sed by the developer for the subject project. This fora enables the City to annex property to existing maintenance districts where all the property owners have granted their consent to such an anroxation without conducting a public hearing or posting. This fore of annexation is permitted by the Streets and Highwdyt Code. Also included in tea Certificatc of Sufficiency executed by the City Engineer. In is the resolution to be adopted by the Council to finalize the annexation. Res�peectfully u mftted, WaS:�N �lw� Attactwent RESOLIfTION NO. gq- 00,1 A RESOLUTION Or THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM0NGA. CALiFORHIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO L;XGSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING NAIN`rENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AVO 6 FOR OP 87 -17 ! WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucawngs, "alffornta, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant zo v, the terms of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972', being Division 15, Part 2 of the Straits and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance districts known and designated as Landscape Maintenance -- District No. 3, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Streot Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Maintenance 3 Ofstn-t'); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the ' Landscaping and Luting Act of 1972' authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this Lisa the City fnurcil It desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit 'A' attached t!reto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance 0 (strict; and WHEREAS, 311 of the owners of property within Jhs territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the Cw•v Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hear:'og or filing of an Engineer's 'Re;.art' NOW, THEREFOPE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLCYF: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: Tha: this legislative bady hereby orders the annexation of the proper as shown in Exhibit 'A' and the work program areas as described to Exhtrft 'B' attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedinas of the Maintenance District, .ncluding a evy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the• territory annexed hereunder. T I ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 aff Ot AANC80 CZ'c"ONQA COZJIiZ'Y' 01F UK &WAIWINO ` grATZ OF CAUTORNIA 1411 V =�, �� �Y EXHIBIT 'B' PROJECT N=: OR 87 -17 N0. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: .54 at. k0. OF ASSE.a. UNIT: 1.4 ,. STREET LIGHTING KAINTEHANCE DISTRICT No. of Lamos to be Annexed District No. 58UUL VbUUL it,,uuu 6 LANDSWE NAINTENAKE DISTRICT Tvrf Ground Cover Trees District No. Street Name Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Ea. 3 ___ ___ - -_ -__ — CITY OF WCIIO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: da..hary 4, 1909 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire. City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, traffic Engineer SUBJE.T: Execution of thn contract for the design of the addition of a to�Parsonass,, 9rinckerhoff, Foothill Quade rand Douglas, IS $171,500.00, wtlThepeproject i is funded through the 1988/99 Redevelopment Agency budget, Account No. 13 -50300 WC(iVEW ATI011• It is recom sided that the CitY Council approve the execution of the- contract to Parsons, Brfnckerheff, Quade and Douglas, Incorporated, for design of the addition of a loop on -ramp to the Foothill boulevard - Route 15 interchange for a maximum fee of $171,500. The prrsject is funded through the 1988 /69 Redevelopment Agency budget, Account Xo. 13- 50300. BMX8SL'MM AXALYSIS: Durfnq eirly stages of planning for the Yfctoria Lakes area and the Victo,•ta Gardens shopping mall, traffic studies showed that improving the �ooth,11 Boulevard - Rote 15 lnter:Lerge vould be an important part of provicHng for orderly development or that part of the City. This project was originally undertaken by tW City, adopted by Calb ans as a State project but w a great]/ delayed timetable, thus re- estabrrshed as a City project h is 1n the 1968 /09 Redevelopment Agmc)• bud9at for design and fght- of -wsy acquisition. or of construct wt 11 be included to the 1969/90 budget proposal. Ojalrficitfon statements were received by five engineering firms in response to the City's Request for Quilificatiois /Proposais On the basis of qualifications and project understanding, the fire of Parsons, Brirekerhoff, Quade and Douglas wss selected as first choice in independent rvaluatcons by staff and the project minagement consultant Z! 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF KPORT January 4, 1989 Page 2 Fee proposals ranged from $134,000 to $460,000, with the selected firm submitting 5167,600 This has1een increased to a auxlaun of $171,500 to allow for added soils investigation if required by CaTtrans. "„ Respectful eu;witted, ifs RHH. .ST_-4� >'o v Attachment 5 i PPAPOSALS oMCEIVED FOR DESIGN SERVICES - ADDITION OF LOOP W. TO RPUTES 66 -15 INTERCIMGE Consultant Submitted Fet Estfmt-� Parsons. Brinkerhoff Quads and Dot*las $167,600 WS /Lowry $133,875 Moffatt and Nichol $455,300 Ccutennial Civil Enginners $276,000 to $28E,500 ASL $420,000 41.(� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAlONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: .anuary 4, 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Mussell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Peter Tune, Administrative Analyst 5;ILIECT• Approve execution of profetsional services agreement with Landscape and Mater Manageaent Ccnsultants for design and operations traininr for the Red Hill Lake Biosystem Modifications, and approve the inclusion of a 10% contingency fee, for a total not to exceed $17,000 00. Project to be funded by account number 25 -4295 -7043 RECOMMEKDATIOW: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract documents for design and operations training for the Ded Hill Lake Biosystem Modifications, and approve the inclusion of a 10% contingency fee, for a total not to exceed $17,000.00 Project to be funded by account number 25 -x285 -7043. Background /Analysis Previous Council action awarded the contract to Landscape and Water Management Consultants. Staff has rece'ved executed con'ract documents and insurance documents from them, reviewed them and found them to be complete and to accordoace to the City's requirements Res pectfull submitted, , • tyw� 47 i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAhIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4. 1989 TO: city Council and Acting city Manager FROM: Russell N. Maguire. City Engineer BY: Willie yalbueas. Engineering Technician S'JB.IECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement. Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to Ladscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lightln2yy Nalntenance District No;. 1 ad 6 for DR 87-19 and OR Turner Avenue submitted northeast -orner vestments $Inc- REC010"MTION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR 87 -19 oral DR 87 -20, accepepting the subject agreement and security, District No. 3 Lighting Maintenance tDistrictallos. I and i6,and au hors 1 g the MayordaArthe City Clerk to sign said agreement. ANALYSIS /BACKGROUND DR 87 -19 end DR 97 -20, located o the northeast corner of Sixth Street and the planning eLaolshsioneorJu e��26t1987Dand1Mavy 13,D19f7ifor the division of 1 635 and 3.8 acres into 1 and 3 lots, respectively. The eIt rn stn n security togua antee the construction of the of siteImprovements in the following amounts: Faithful performance Bond: $352,000 DO Labor and Material Bond: $176,000 00 Copies of he agreesnnt and security are available in the City Clerk's Office Water has been District oTheaConsent and Waiver toeAnnexati�on form slbCucamonga d y the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's mffl.e. Respiti 5m.1tted, l i R}Di: •JAA• ' S Attachments "'/ Al RESOLUTION NO. Sq- 00,3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ANTI IPPROVEMEN1 SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87 -19 AVD 07 -20 WHEf1EAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, ha, for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on January 4, 1589, by Indumar Investments as developer, for the improvement of public right -ef -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the northeast cornor of Sixth Street and Turner Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreewnt and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in cocjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Comission, Development Review No. 87 -19 and Development Review No. 87 -20; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, Which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCIV CUCAMONGA.. HEREBY RESOLVES that said Improvement Agreement and said Imprnre%ent Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. yr RESOLUTION N0. U 9- 0 Q V A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ;GUM.;L OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OROER!1;;ir THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY rO A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING HAINTEIUWLE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 FOR OR 87 -19 AND OR 87 -20 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a sppecial maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the 'Landscaping and Lighting Act of 19720, being Division is, Fart 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of ;he 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 Distric`: ); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landsc +ping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorise the an "exation 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 referenced to tha Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District hava filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Eng'neer's "Report'. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAIX:HO CUCAMONGA HERECY kESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation or the proper y as shown in Exhibit 'A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit '8' attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including L)e Tery of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder 56 DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND e c�S CTTT Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA S/ COUNTY 0! SAM 3)QIiA3aDINO �> ffA'TS 0 CA%JF011NL► T _S 1�J ,rte 1� pt. V EXHIBIT W PROJECT NAME: OP 87 -19 AND OR 67 -20 No. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 5.4 .acres No. OF ASSESS. !MIT: 11 un,ts (pci 1,4,5,6 of PR 5499) r STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. of L s to be Annexed District No. 1 6 LANDSCAPE MAINTERMCE DISTRICT District Ho. Street Naar! Turf Ground Corer Trees S9• ft. SS. ft. Ea. - -- ___ 36 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the �.nexaticn to Landscape Hsintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 13063, located on the east side of East Avenue at Catalpa Street, submitted by Citation Builders RECONE404TION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13063, acceptingg 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 and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BACKGPAUND Tract 13063, located on the cast side of East Avenue at Catalpa Street, in the Low Density Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 8, 1987 for the division of 32.6 acres Into 74 lots. The Developer, Citation Builders, is SU:mftting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off -site improvements in the following amounts Faithful Performance Bond: s908,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $454,008.00 Ponumentation Bond: s 6,150.00 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 elem.ntary school districts The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the 0*4 Clerk's office Respectf Maitted, Attachments RESOLUTION N0. g5- o Cb a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUa:11. OF THE CITY OF R"CHO IWROV94W SECCURITY,,AIM FINALOK►P :F TFACT N0.13063, WHEREAS, the Tentative Kapp of Tract No. 13053, cons;ran of 74 lots, submitted by Citation Builders, T- 1divider, located on tht, east side of East Avenue at Catalpa Street has bean sub%itted ^.o tha City of RanGtia Cucamonga by said Subdivider icr approval by said City as p. .1d.J in the Subdivision Kip Act of the State of California, and in :oaplicnca with the e"uirasents of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, to meet the reodirealents establiIned as prere."uisite to approval of the Final Nap of said Tract said Subdivider has offared the vement Agreement subAitted herewith for- approval and execution by said Impro City, tagether with good and sufficient Iv�rov vent Security, end submits for approval said Final Kip offering for dedication for street and highway purposes the streets delineatud thereon. NOW, THEREFOR£, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorited to execute saw on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; ani 2. That said Improa sent Security :s accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof' by the City Attorney; and 3. That the offers Vor dedication and the Final Map delineating sane be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. 6-� RESOLUTION NO. &43, 0(),/0 A RESOLUTION 3F THE CIii COUNf:zL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAWhGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF- CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND STREET L_GIRLVG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS, 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT IJ063 WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Poncho Cucamonga, California, has prevtously foined a special maintenance district pursuant to the Ceres of the "Landscaping and Lighting let of 1972', being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, saiJ special maintenance district knotin and designated as Landscspe Maintenance District go. 1, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (hereinarter referred tc as :he 'Maintenance District "); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 3f the 'Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Counci, is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and Incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the amers of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to t•ye Mai -itenancni District have filed with the City Clerk their written cons ?nt to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report" NOW, THERFFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITr OF RANCHO CUCAKOHGA HEREBY RE;ALYES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders tho annexation of the proper as sho%n in Exhloit "A' and the work proyram areas as described In Exhibit 'R' attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, Including Tevy T of all assessaents. shall be applicable to the territory annexed harounifer .5.5_ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LAW SCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 t IMimoY WM. 1 % r 1_ 1 T— t sw w cr: OF R"CHO MCAMONGA si ~� COMITY OF SM IM]WARDINO `• BTATEO 1 CA3TJMRh -lA�� Sony W� AI N a' i� ll -- a it EXHIBIT 'B' PROJECT ME: Tract 13063 NO OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 74 d /tt NO. OF ASSESS. UNIT: 74 STKEET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Distrfct No. � 1 2 S No. of Lmns to be Annexed 58UUL MUL it) Z ;GOO--- 27 501.' 32 LANO.SCAPE MAINTERMICE DISTRICT Turf Ground Cover Trees District No_ Street Name Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Ea. 1 2.524 10.218 46 i a I — CiTY OF RANCRO CUCANtONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 19F9 TO: City Council and A ting City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City EngDleer BY: Willie valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation, to .andscape Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Res. 1 and 6, for MDR 08-19 located on the sou:hside of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue, and west of White Oak Avenue RECON401DATION It is recommendea that the City Council adopt the attach:d resolutions accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the Annexation to Nos. 1 Landscape and Maintenance authorizing the Mayor and the Maintenance sign trict agreement. ANALYSIS /BACKGROUND MDR 88 -19, located on the southside of Arm Route, east of Haven Avenue, and west of White Oak Avenue. in the Industrial Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 1988. The Developer, Intech ventu.'es, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the constrrctlon of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $150,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $ 77,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. The Consent and waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is also on file In the City Cler.0 s office. ReNJM4�4r itted, RH Attachments S& RESO!UTIOH No. � 9 pcD% A RESOLUTI0N OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF k1NCR0 RN D IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR IMINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0. 88 -19 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for it. consideration an Improvement Agreement executed an January 4, 1989, by Intech Venture+. as developer . for the specifically described 7bof public right -Of -way adjacent to the real therein, and generally locatad on the southside of Arrow Route, east of Haver. Avenue, and west of 0nite Oak Avenue;, and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, descrited in said Improvement Agree -nt and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction vith the development of said real property as referred to Vlanning Commission, Minor Development Review No. 80 -19, and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by and Improvement Security, which is identified in said NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security be approved and the Mayor Is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Clerk shall attest thereto. '5 RESOLUTION NO. 8 9— 00( A RESOLUTION nF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOAA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ',ERRITORY f0 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3, AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FCR MINOR DEV110PM -ENT REVIEW NO 88 -19 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formad a special maintenance district pursuant to the term of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 ", being Division 15, Pert 2 of the Streets and Hfglrvays Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape ;lalntenance District No. 3, Street Lighting Mafntenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Maintenance District "); and WHEREAS, the previsions of A:ticle 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 tf:ae the City Council 1s desirous to take proceedings to anntx the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and Incorporated heroin by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and 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 wrltt:n consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing filing of an Engln-ter's 'Report". NOW, THEREFORE, 1HE CITY CODICIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO01A HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION ;!: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the proper as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhib +t "8' attached hereto to the Maintenance District SECTION .I: That ail future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including TFeTTvy -of all assessments, shall he applicable to the territory annexed hereunder ■ r— fi 1V" /,,.,, ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 toothll hid_ c r — Site location /o9S5 AAOWW X'L" Q.c.CA. 9/30 f a W 11 01F sm BmAwulo xcra ,A�ox cry OF GA A F AIIRM N ,$ 1M Exklalr •e• PROJECT NAME: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REYIEk NO. 88 -19 NO. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 9.62 ac NO. OF ASSESS. UNIT: 19 units Y Y �• STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Y Otstrtct No_ k0. of b_ e Annexeedd _fit e 6 r } IANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ' Turf District No. Street Name Sa• ft. Ground Cover S0, ft. Trees Ea. 3 --- -" --- 23 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 19m.9 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Map, improvement Agreement, Improvement Securtb and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for Tract 12332 -2, locatel an tl:- east side of Haven, north of Hillside Channel submitted by M. J. Brack 6 Sons, Inc. RECOM 0114TION It 1s recorasended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 12332 -2, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenann District No 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Mos. 1 and 2, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreer -oc and to cause said map to record. ANALYSISAACKGROUND Tract 12332 -2, located on the east side of Haven, north of the Hillside Channel, in the very low residential O:strict, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 1986 for tho division of 101.4 acres into 151 lots The Developer, M. J. Brock A Sons, Inc., 1s subrlttingg an agreement and security to guarantee She construction of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $1,381,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $ 690,500.00 Mounaentation Bond: $ 9,950 00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of app.loval have been received from the high school and elementary school districts ani Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respect fuuy submitted, AA G-3 G-3 :1 Attachments RESOLUTION NO. V� C)0? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMP.6VEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, ANO FIIIAL NAP OF TRACT NO. 12332 -2 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12332 -2 consisting of 151 lots, submitted oy M. J. Brack 8 Sons, Inc., Subdivider, located on the cast side of Haven Avenue, north of the Hillside Channel, has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider for approval by said City as provided in the subdivision Map Act of the State of California and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, to met the re uirewnts established is prerequisite to approval of the Final Map 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 fir approval said Final Map offering for dedication for street and highway purposes the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY CCUHCIL OF THE CITY OF RtunuO CUCAMOHGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor Is authorized to execuo same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk 1s authtrized to attest thereto; and 2. That ::aid Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and 3. 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, WA RESOLUTION NO. V. • C--� I(—,) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TEIUTITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AND STREET LIGHTING MAIWTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR TRACT 12332 -2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cueamenga, California, has previously formed a speciaagl nainteance district pursuant to Part 2 of the StreetsdandpHighways LCOdetof Act e StRA of California. said S, special mintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance Di strict No. 1, Stret Maintenance Districte No. i2M (hereinaftera referred rtotaso Lighting the "Maintenance District'); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping the Msintengn atDiatrict; and or;ze the annexation of additional WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceeding to annexbthe pr referencedrto theNalntenance OA* District; and °11d WHEREAS, all of the owners of prope1't- within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written e consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA 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 described tar�th "B" attached Exhibit hereto and to the Mainte ancumOTstrict. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including ry a e of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder 60 5^ yy.i�q•. !r _` .FJ. �.�q...N'lti;.� ..: �'e�•1: - '. ... '.t ... a•_ .. 1: .. rr, .Pry„ '.'��•.• ... ... 'rT s eon. �T 1 � .� l ASfiri Tlk"NT a DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 •ice .r..n. u.r.. ow c • r __ - -� -_ •�\ • uv.w• u r.�- r ---- a w.r .unn - \ r r y y I 1 i. • w ) I I1'1 ...n. •T � r i � Y 1 .f1 I 1 �... t +�• a. • J w 11 I �I w I •® � 1 I I II A•� j 1 p . • • r•n � a + S,�i "" Y^ CPIs OF Z�APiCZO C�TCAiIA COUNTY OF t. A S SPATZ OF CAI�OBNU T .`Z t:XFSIDI.7 '8" P PRO.'ECT ME: TRACT 12332.2 N0. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 151 lots ND. OF ASSESS, L'NIY: 151 untts STREET LICHT1IYi MINTEWCE DISTRICT —�L o_ f Lams to be Annexed Dfstrtct No_ 5D0�— 2 98 - -- __- LANDSCAPE ISAINWXMr,E DISTRICT District No._ Street Nax Turf Ground Cover Trees 1 So• —ft- S4. ft. Ea. -° 847 i AEsawlOH NO. ��j• C.- l a,. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA RELCASINO A REAL. PROPERTY +NPROVEMENY CO.NTRA;T AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM FARMER JACK'S NURSERY LAND COMPANY y 181EWAS, tue City Council of the City of Rancho Cucnmanga adopted Resolution No. 83 -211 acce Ling a Peal Property 1 rr -•tnt :ontrect and Lien I Agreement from Fanner Jack s Nurse Land C � � Nursery Company. ana WHEREAS, said Roal Propert•, ImprovCwnt Contract and Lien Agreeaent was recorded in Official Records of San Bernardino County, California, an December 29, 1983 as Document No. 63- 306629; and required. WHEREAS. said Real Property Contract and Lien Agreogt is no longer Rancho CucanongaEdoesRherebylrreleaseysaid Rea?APropieerrty Impmveene tieConttract and Lien Agreodent from Parcel I of Parcel Map 8100 ead that the City Clerk shall cause Release of Lien to to recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. M DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: -- CITY OF RANCHO Cr rC OWNG A STAFF REf-ORT January 4, 1989 City Council and Acting City Naaagi;r Russell N. Maguire, City Engineer Nillfe Yalbuena, Engineering Techntctan Release of a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Nement releasing Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 8100, located on a th northdast corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, submitted by First American Title Insurance Company RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Resolution releasing the Red] Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, and authorizing the Heyor to sign said release and the City Clerk to record same. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS A deal Property Improvement Contract aid Lien Agreement was approved by Council on December 21, 1983, and recorded on December 29, 1983 as Document No. 83- 306629 In the office of the County Recorder, San Bernardino County, California. The agreemant was for the future construction of a Radian Island on Foothill Boulevard, adjacent to Parcel Nap 8100. The Developer has paid the sum of $22,382.35 for Parcel 1 of Parcel Nap 8100 for it's share of the contribution in lieu of construction for the said median Island. Respectful1 submitted, .�.o 0 ;. / Wi -- :Iy Attachment. CITY OF MNCHG CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russell N. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector SUBJECT: Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion PEr- AVENDATION: A K, �' It Is recommended that City Council accept the Pedestrian Bridge as complete and release the Faithful Perfor aco Bond. BACrGROUND /ANALYSIS Tract 12319, Pedestrian Bridge, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue. Per previous Council Action, the Improvements, tncludirg the Pedestrian Bridge, for the subject Tract were accepted and the Bonds were released. The Bridge was bonded -eparately and -;he Band remained in effect for the one year maintenance period. The Bridge has been Inspected and found to be acceptable Therefore, it 1s recommended that the Faithful Performance Bond be released. DEVELOPER: Lewis Homes P. 0. Box 670 Upland, CA 91786 Release Falthtol Performance Bond (Bridge) $28,500.00 Respectfull submitted, y RHM :S y Attachment 7D A RESOLUTION OF 711F LIT' COUNCIL OF THE CITE OF RANCHO CUCANOMA, CALIFORNIA, M.CEPTING THE PUBLIC IKPROYE14ENTS FOR TRACT 12319 FEDESTRI1L4 BRIDGE MD AUTEORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHFREAS, the construction of public improvewnts for Tract 12319 Pedestrian Bridge havo been coaplated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and WHEREAS, 3 Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work coplets. M, THEREFORC, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucewnga hereby resolves, that rjro work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of CWletion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. y l',. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA STAFF REPORT Date: January d, 1989 To: Mayor and City Council Prom: Jack Lam, Acting City Manager BY: Marti Higgins, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator# - SubJect: Replacement Signature Resolution for Emergency Management Assistance (H M.A ) Funding RECO�%XWDATIOH• It Is recommondad that Council approve Signature Resolution number 87 -XXX to replace previously approved resolution 387 -636 This resolution Is required by the State Office of Emergency Services, for submltxlrg Rancho Cucamonga's application for Rmergency Management Assistance (E H.A.) Funding. 8 CXORODHD_ The State Offlco of Emergency Services Administers a financial assistance program as offer6d by the Federal Emergency Management Association (P E.M A ) Every Jurisdiction In California Is eligible for this funding providing they fulfill the State's req,nlremants The funding allows up to 60% reimbursement of certain expenses a Jurisdiction has incurred for Ito Emergency Management Program. Expenses Include staff, certain administrative expenses and equipment The requirements for the funding include a Signature Resolution; a statement of staffing patterns; Emergency Budget; the Emergency Plan; a yearly workplan; a H I C A M Y D P (hazard Identiflcatlon, Capability Assessment, and Multi -Year Development Plan for Local Uovernments) and a Exercise Plan After a Jurisdiction Is accepted, quarterly staff time claims are submitted and paid On October Int of the following years budget I and yearly workplan are submitted for approval Since the October 1987 resolution wao signed the appropriate requirementa hello been submitted and Rancho Cucamonga has been accepted to recleve funds Mh Jh % 1 I OL A HESOLUTIOH OF THL CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIi'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA, LALIFORMIA, NAMING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE APPLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of (Governing Body) City of Rnnehc Cucaaonoa that the following named Individuals (Public Entity) are hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of Ranebo Cacaionam . a public entity eetabllohed under the laws of the State of California, applications and documents for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1 0, As Amended, (Public Law 920, Slat. Congress, 50 USr, App,,-2251-22971. Jack Lace Acting Dtractor of Emoreoncv Servtco (Signature) (T•,ped name and tytle) Duane Baker Administrative Assistant (Alternate Signature) (Typed name end Lytle) Mo. Marti Higgins Emeraencv Services Coordinator (Alternate Signature) (Typed name and tytle) PASSED AND APPROVED THIS IT$ DAY OF JANUARY 1989. Debrah Drown, Councslmember, Charles Buauet, Councllmember (Name and title) (Name and tytle) Dennis Stout, Mayor Bill Alexander, Councllmember (flume and title) (Name and Lytle) Pamola WrSaht, Councilmember, (Name and title) (Name and title) I, duly appointed and of (Title) (Public Entity) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a Reso,ut'on passed and approved by the of (Governing Body` on (Public Cntlty) day of . 19 Date _ (Signature) ?3 (Official Position) REWM IODATId1: It is recommended that the City Ccuncll adopt the attached resolution approving a Subordination Agreement submitted by Rooker T. Laster and Mtgdalia E. Laster and authorizing the ilgyor and City Clerk to sign same and cause the agreement to record. Background /Analysis A Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was accepted by the City Council and recorded on ^cumber 18, 1985, as document No. 85- 322754 in the official Records of San Bernardino County, State of Calffurnia for construction of missing off -sits street improvements including curb, gutter, asphalt pavement and appurtenant work adjacent to the property. In order to secure financing for his project, the lender regvires that the subject Lien Agreement be subordinated to liens in favor of the lender. Booker T. Laster and Mfgdalla E. Laster has submitted the attached Subordination Agreement for City Council approval. Attachment 74 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 T0: City Council and City Manager FRDM: rwssell H. Maguire, City Engineer BY: Willfe Yalbue.., Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of a Subordination Agreement fro: Booker T. Laster and Mfgdalia E. Laster for their property located at 5553 Crooked Creek Drive REWM IODATId1: It is recommended that the City Ccuncll adopt the attached resolution approving a Subordination Agreement submitted by Rooker T. Laster and Mtgdalia E. Laster and authorizing the ilgyor and City Clerk to sign same and cause the agreement to record. Background /Analysis A Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement was accepted by the City Council and recorded on ^cumber 18, 1985, as document No. 85- 322754 in the official Records of San Bernardino County, State of Calffurnia for construction of missing off -sits street improvements including curb, gutter, asphalt pavement and appurtenant work adjacent to the property. In order to secure financing for his project, the lender regvires that the subject Lien Agreement be subordinated to liens in favor of the lender. Booker T. Laster and Mfgdalla E. Laster has submitted the attached Subordination Agreement for City Council approval. Attachment 74 RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING A SUBORDINATION AGPIE14EIlT FROM BOOKER T. LASTER AND HMIGOALIA E. LASTER AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN 1W WHEREAS, a Real Property Iaprovament Contract and Lien Agreement for the installation of off -site improvements, including curb, gutter and pavement was approved by City Council on December 4, 1585, and recorded in San Bernardino County on December 19, iga5, Instrument No. 85- 322764; and WHEREAS, 'or the developer to secure financing for the project, the lender requires that the above- mentioned lien be subordinate to the lien in favor of the lender, and ' WHEREAS, the developer has submitted a Subordination Agreement to that effect for the City's approval and execution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Subordination Agreement be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Subordination Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonn-, and the City Clerk attest thereto. �5 ORDINANCE NO. 383 AN ORDINANCE OF 1NE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONCA, CALIFORNIA, AHENDIilG TITLE 8 OF THE RANCNO CUCAMONGI MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NHW CHAPTER 8.24 PROVIDING A PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL OF GRAFPIIL AND OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIALS FROM WALLS AND STRUCTURES ON BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY follows: Tilt City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as SECTION 1: Title 8 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is heraoy amendcd by the addition of n new Chapter 8.24 to read, in words and figurest as follows: "Chapter 11,24 "Removal of Graffiti "Sections 8.24 010 Graftiti sod other :nec :ihed dateriala Declared to be a Nuaeance. 8 24.020 Authorization to Anmove Graffiti and other unauthorized Inscribed Matt .old from Public and Private Property 8.24.030 Alternative Procedur-is Available "8.24.010 Graffiti and othy: Inscribed Materials Declared to b,. a Iluiasnce. "Graffiti on public or private property is a blighting factor which not only depreciates tl,e value of the property which has been the target of such vandalism but also depreciates the value of the adjacent and surrounding properties= and in so doing has a negative impact upon the entire City. "Graffiti also has been found to be a means of identaftcation utilized by gangs, and further, its presence may encourage furtner gang related activities. "En 19:6, the Legislature added Section 53069.3 to the Covsrnment Code which authorized the City, under certain circumstanced, to provide for the removal of graffiti an4 other inscribed materials from private ad well as public propertv. :he Council finds and determines that graffiti is obnoxious and a public nuisance and unless it and other inscribed materials are removed from public and private property, they toad to remain. Other properties then become "? G. 1 ,t Ordinance No. 383 Page 2 the target of graffiti with the result that entire neighborhoods are affected and the entire community depreciates in value and becomes a less desirable place in which to be. "It in the intent of the City Council to continue to pursue graffiti including that which is of a recurring mature. "8.24.020 Authorization Lo Remove Graffiti and other Unauthorized Inscribed Haterials from Private and Public Property. "Wherever the Haintanaace Superintendent determines that graffiti or other inscribed material is so located on public or privately owed, permanent structures on public or privately owned, permanent structures on public or privately owned real property within this City so as to be capable of being viewed by a person utilizing any public rrght- of-way in this City, the Haintenance Superintendent is authorized to provide for the removal of the graffiti of other inscribed material upon the following conditions: "(1) In removing the graffiti or other inscribed material, the painting or repair of a rare extensive area shall not be authorized. "(2) Vhere a structure is owed by a public entity other than this City, the removal of the graffiti or other inscribed materiar may be authorized only after securing the con,eot of the public entity having juriediction over the stru,ture and such entity executes a release and waiver approved as to form by the City Attorney. "(3) Where a structure is privately owed, the removal of -he graffiti or other inscribed material may be authorized only after securing the ecnaeat of the owner and the owner executes a release and varlet approved as to form by the City Attorney." "8.24.030 Alternative Procedures Available. "In the rvent the property oumer of rrivate property upon which graffiti or other inscribed material has been placed, declines to consent to removal th :rato by City or Earls or refuses to grant subject consent within a reaionable time after request made by City, the property 77 Ordinance No. 333 page 5 upon vhich graffiti or other inscribed materials has been ?: placed shall be subject to the abatement process set forth ry in Chapter 5.23. ISNCIION 2: The City Council declares that, should any provisiun, section, paragraph, suntence or wri of this Chapter be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action i.a a court of competent jurisdiction, or by roaeon of any preemptive legio lati om, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and %vrds of this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect SSCIION 31 The City Clark shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION bt The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cruse the sane to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage A+ at least coca in The Daily Report, r. newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of ganchr Cucarvoga, Califonda. /�4 JJ,.ie [ M.NIIN.N ♦NDn[" V Iln Li.NL N1 nAIPN O N.N[ON O COMO fox N.NTV. Je aas[tn K P. 0210a / F' ryj• it /,• NVN[L" 001. crvK' cLNll11 CINC[L /' V Y • o. eoa lou ^ uu, CAIIrODNla etett•lo `�/(r 1LltIN ONL 'rill i[II MEMORANDUM TOl Beverly Authslot, City Clerk FROHI Andrew V. Arosynoki, Assistant DATED: November 2e, 1988 REl Amendments to ordinance No. 181 An you will recall, at the last City Council meeting, Council Member Wright, with the remainder of the Council concurring, indicated a desire to include language, in the subject ordinance specifying the City's intention to continua to pursue graffiti, rarticularly in areas where the, problem appears to be of a recurring nature. More specifically, Council Member Wright indicated a concern that tha City staff not take the position that simply becauao graffiti continuos 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 to included in the ordinance. we would appreciate your asking council Member Wright to review the language to determine whother or not it coeports with her requirements. Planes 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 aa.:tian should be sot forth as follows: - graffiti And Other Inscribed jlgterials Daulared 52 pa a Nuleanco., legislative Intent." Additionally, tte following language should be inserted as a separate paragraph at the and of Secr•ion 8 24.010: "It is the intent of the City Council that City staff aggressively pursue tLe eradication of graffiti in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Furthermore, those areas whore graffiti is a continuing and recurring problem shall be given specific attention aKMFrN p gf2G2Y NgKT P 63.�p3 140morandUm 1'vgembO 2e to. 9ovor,Y Autholet• °ame ahell�aourcec or the Cit tonthe °eradicetiotOZ °ig.10 r R th ondom2�vont °read scat° the ° °f 4ra[fi oh 'tma of °the CAt ahoulenca Ag °SaWe Would a err on -g°Sn d len B baeSa.� have any one plember Hr'�nt °foi n8 the above- d you ge to C _ 4uaetto AVL:ljl °p f °'r1 tree t,., bar co 'monte. t, \171 \HAUMIS11P \R.C, 2.3.1 o Q� a�R, ,� FYI oucr Lt�l.ocal' CJ�l,s. .L9 �n J ORDINANCE NO. 386 AN ORDIW.NCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0: THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUMCIPl.L COr$ BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.23, IDENTIFYING AND PROVIDING A REMEDY FOR PUBLIC MUL ANCES WHEN FOUND TO CAST ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY fo llcvai the City Council o: the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as SECIION 1: Title P of the Rancho Cucamonga Wmicipat Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 8.23 to read, in words and figures, as follouai Chapter 8__23 NUISANCE ABATEMENT Sections: 8.23 016 Intent and purpose. 8 23.020 Definitions. 8.23 030 Abatement of violation aid public nuisance. 8.23.010 Alternative remedies. 8 .4.050 Maintenance of property - ..0 i.•.agcw.�. 8 23.06w Health a.-.A aafet7 - nuisancer. 8.23 070 Hnl.od of abatement. 8 23.080 Declaration n: nuisance. 8.23.050 Emergency abavment 8.23.100 Authority to enter upon laid. 8.23.110 Notice of heating. 8 73.120 Service of notice of hearing. 8.23.130 Prcof of service. 8 23.140 Hearing by Code Enfurcrmnat Officer. 8.23.150 Decision of Code Enforcement Officer. 8.23.160 Notice to abate. 8.23 170 Service of order to abate 8 23 180 Record of cost for absteren�. 8.23 190 Report - hearing and proceedings. 8.23 200 Assessment of costs against property - lien. 8 23 210 Duty to abate. 8 23 220 Penalties. 8.23.010 Infant and Purpose. It is the intent of this Chapter to identify and provide a reccedy for cartaic conditions which, when found to exist on land [thin the City, are detrimental to Public Health Safety, or Velfara, or which interfere with the reasonablo enjoyment of life or property, and thereby create a public nuisance. R 3, Ordinacce No. 386 Page 2 1 Y .I 8.21.020 Definitiona. For the purpose of this Chapter, the follwing words and phrases ere defined _d shall he construed as hereinafte- set out, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning was inteadadl A. "Code Bnforcameat Officer" - shall mean the City Hanger for the City and bin duly authorized representatives. B. "City" - shall mein the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. "Person" - shall moun any persons firm, partnership, 1 association, corporation, company. or organization of any kind 8.23.030 Abatem,tnt of Violation and Public Nuisance. Notwithstanding any other provision of tf- w —m cipal Code, whenever there is a condition or use existing oa private land and ouch use us condition is a public auiaauce and is a violation of any provision of the Municipal Code, the proceedings set forth in this Chapter mAy be used as ao alternative to any other proceeding or manner of getting abatement set forth in the Municipal Codc. 8.23.0 0 Alternative Remedies. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to supersede other provisions of this code, nor to prevent the City from commenaiug civil or criminal proceedings to abate a public nuisance under applicable Civi. or F.=1 Code provisions as an alteraativa or in addition to the proceedings ^et forth in this Chapter. 8.23.050 Maintenance of Property - Nuisances. It is a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or haviog charge of any property, improved or unieproved, within the City to maintain eveh property in s macner thlt is detrimental to public health, eafety or welfare, or which interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of life or property, when any of the following conditions are found to exist: A. Land, the topography, geology or configuration of which, ea a result of grauing operations, excavation or fill, cause" crouton, subsidence, or surface vatar :rainsge problem of such ungnitude ad to he injurious to the public or to adjacent propertiep 8 Buildings and structures which are: I Abandoned, boarded -up, partially destroyed, or left in a state of partial construction; 2 Open, unused or vacant, iacludinp foundations, basements, excavations, swimming )oils, walla, puss Ponds, shafts, and similar structures which are unfenced, unsealed, or unsecured; % i, A Ordinance No. 386 Page 3 3. Maintained in a state of substantial dttarioratiou, such as peeling paint on a facade, broken windows, roofs in disrepair, damaged porches, broken steps, or other such deterioration or disrepair ceasing a lack of weather protection, izpairieg structural integrity, or causing the structure W be uninhabitable, or unsuitable Eor its intended use; b5 7 C. Sube[antinl 'uck of maintenance, or neglect of property, including all yard arses, landscaping, pa,romeot, irrigation tyatems and y, similar improvematss �. 1. Overgrow, dead, decaying, diseased or hszardouv trees, vecds or other vegetatiout 2. Paved areas which have deteriurated containing lease material, potLo les, broken, raised or depressed sections, or insufficient to prevent mud and /or dust; D. Any device, decoration, design, sign, Fence, wall, structure or vegetation which Sy reason of its condition or inappropriate use or location is illegal or constitutes a hazard to persons or property; E. The accumu)atioo and storrge of items, equipment and materials either inside or outside of buildings and visible '_rom the public right -of- way or siLes of naiphboring properties which constitute an attractive nuisance or are is a condition incompatible with their origicalir intended use or otherwise is tae sse^ar detrimental to the public; P The accumulation of junk, trash, refuse, lusher, rocks, dirt, broken concrete or asphalt, scrap mztals, scrap plastic or polymer materials, scrap building materials, tree and landscape trimmings and other similar or related materials either inside or outside of buildings which have been unlawfully placed or retained on property or otherwise disposed of illegally or improperly; G. Local feeder trails which are obstructed, impassible or unsafet 1. Blocked by structvres, materials, equipmeot, or vegetation; 2 Lacking proper maintenance of the trail surface vice thi presence of patholes, large rocks, overgrown vegetation, ruts :aused by erosion, rubbish or debris; 3. Lacking proper mainteuace of ttail improvements, including but not limited to fencing, ,rading, drainage facilities, or gates and other &-cats control devises; /8B Ordinance No. 386 Page 4 H. Graffiti end other inscribed materials on strictures or property visible from the public right -of -way or from sitos of u. ighboriug properties when removal has not been affected in compliance with lueal ordinance. I. Property maintained, in relation to others, so as to establish a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjoetasot. 8.23.060 Health anti Snf�t �Huisr�.nf.e. It is a public nuisance for any persons owning, leasing, oecapyi� nB or Laviag charge of any property, avprovea or unimproved, within the City or any person r+ning, conducting or ptrtieipating in any business, operation or activity within the City to cause, pem.t or allow any of the following coaditirnat A. Breading aid harborage places ror invertebrate and vertabrr -s veccore under conditions of known public health significance including those for mosquitoes, files, and rodents( B. Hazardous & aterials which are corrosive, tonic, ignitable, irritants, infectious, strong sensitizes, generate pressure by decomposition or other means, or otherwise are present under circumstances that could endanger the public health and safety; C Incompatible materials unsuitable for co- mingling where circumstances suggeut a likelihood of explosion, spontaneous combustion, chemical reaction, fire, extreme heat, toxic substance formulation or other dangerous reac6oa so as to endanger the public health and safety; D Infectious snd ra'.ated wastes, and odors therefrom, including these from: hospitals and medical facilities, severe, cesspools, septic tanks, leach lines and fields (whether of individual or multiple ownership), toilets, holding tanks, seepage pits, butcher offal, pet dropping, excrement, urine, laundry vster, manure accumulations, dad animals, putrid matter, refuse, and similar material under circumstances Ondangertng the public health and safety; S Any Privy or Outhouses on premiser where domnstic water under pressure cs available; without suitable ahalter to afford privacy and protection for the elements; without an automatically self- closing door edequate to exclude flies from the pit; to disrepair; with vaults filleu with excreta not regularly and thoroughly disfofec�cd; within forty (40) feet of any dwelling, residence, school, church, hospital or public place of business, except with the permission of the occupants or operators of such dwelling, residence, school, church, hospital, or public place of buatnees 7Z C- Ordinance No. 386 Page 3 P. Any toilet, vasbroom, or bath or shower room for the use of employees, patrons, or the public where: the floors, walls, ceilings, lavatories, urinals, toilet bowl, bath or sbovers have accumulations of dirt, filth or corrosioa; lavatories a:e not supplied with soap, individual towels and a receptacle for their dieposall toilet ronme are not provided with toilet paper. C. The Keeping of an animal, fowl or bird: 1. Within proximity to any school, church, hospital, public place, business or building used for human habitation other than that of the owner of the animal, which causes detrimental aff�lcts to the health, safety or welfare of the public, or 2. In any yard, coop, corral, run or auilding which is in a foul or unsanitary condition{ 8.23.070 Hethnd of Abatement. All of any part of premlaes found, as provided herein, to constitute a public nuisance shall be abated by rehabilitation. demolition or repair pursuant to the procedures sat 'forth In this Clapter. The procedures ant forth herein shall not be exclusive and shall not in any meaner limit or restrict the City from enforcing other City ordinances or abating public nuisances in any other canner provided by law. 8.23.080 Declaration of Nuisance. Whenever the Code Enforcement Officer determines tEa a condition exists which constitutes a public auisence, as set forth in chit 'i enter, he shall cause to be served upon the owners of the property a "Notice or Bearing ", service of which as set forth haze.-n. 8.23.090 Emergency Abatement. When a public nuisance :Onstitutes an immediate hazard or threat of harm and the situation calls for abaram:nt sooner than the abatament procedures herein otherwise allow, the Code Enforcement Officer may take or cause emergetcy abatonent of such nuisance with such notice to parties concerned, or without notice, as the particular circumstances reasonably all ". 8.23.100 Authority to Enter Uoan Land. The Code Enforcement Officer, or tis assistants, deputies, employees or Contracting agents may enter upon the lard for posting or serving notice, or, also for abating ally such public nuisance and violation as herein provided 8.23.110 Notice of ileac ing. Notice of the time and place of hearing nt before the Code Enforceme OfFicar shall be titled "notice of Hearing" and shall include the following information: A. Title statement: Notice of hearing to datermine the existence of a public nuisance and to abate in whole or it part; 7`2 D Ordinance No. 386 Page 6 B. Data and time of the public hearing{ C. Location where the public hearing will take place; D. Nome and title of the hearing officer; B. Location of the premises within the City which are the subject of ,aid hearing, includiegs 1. Assessors parcel number (APN)l 2. Streit and number or J. A description of the location using street names, block numbers, and /or landmarks; P. Purpose of the hearings to ascertain whether certain premises, as designated, constitute a public nuisance subject to abatement by the rehabilitation of such premises, or by the repair or demolition of buildings, structures or improvements situated thereon; C. Municipal Code sectiou(s) which define the conditions on the premises to constitute a public nuisance; H. The conditions which constitute a nuisance must be promptly abated by the owner of the premises, or one!, nuisances may be abated by municipal authorities and the rehabilitation, repair or demolition will be assessed upon such premises and such costs will constitute a lien upon such land until paid; I. Description of the violations; J. Methods available or required to abate the violations; E Notification to all interested parties who desire to give testimony to attend the hearing; L Onte of mailing of the notice; M. Name and title of the issuing officer 8.23.120 Service of Notice of Nearing. The Notice and Order, and any amendment ar wpp)smsntal notice and order, shall be served upon the recorded owner, and one (1) copy thereof shall be served on each of the following if known to the Code Enforcement Officer or disclosed trop public records; the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; and the holder of uny other estate or legal interest of record in or to the 7 � E Ordinance No. 386 Pegs 7 building or the land. As used in this paragraph, all rrfereace to 'record" means matters of record in the office of the Recorder of ben Bernardino County which definitely and specifically de"ribes the premises involved. The failure of the Code Enforcement Officer to serve any person required herein to be sarvud #hall not invalidate any proceedings hereunder as to any other person duly served or relieve any such person from any duty or obligation imposed by the provisions of this section. Service of the Notice and Order shall be made upei all persons entitled thereto either personally or by mailing a copy of such notice an'; ordur by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to each such person at hie or her address as it appears on the last equalized asneo,ment roll of the County ur ea kuo%m to the Code Enforcement Officer. If no address of any such person so appears or is known to the Code Enforcement Officer, then a copy of the Notice and Order shall be so mailed, addressed to such person, at the address of the property involved in the proceedings, or posted on the building or premises involved. A title search may be conducted by or for the Code Enforcemant Officer to determine the proper person or parsons to whom the original Notice of Nearing should be sent 8.23.130 Proof of Servica. Proof of service of the uocice and order shall be certified to at the Limo of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the person affecting service, declaring the time, date and manner in which service was made. The declarations, togetbdr with any receipt card returned in ackawledgement of receipt by certified mail, shall be affixed to the zopy of the notice and order retained by the Code Enforcement Officer. 8.23.140 Noarinn by Code Enforcement Officer. At the time stated in the notices, the Code Enforcement Officer shall hear and consider all relevant evidence, objections or protests, and shall receive testimony from owners, vitneoses, cit; personnel and interested persons relative to such alleged public nuisance and to p.oposed rehabilitation, repair or demolition of such premiaes. The hearing may be continued from time to time. 8.23.15r Decision of Code Snforcement Office.. A Upon or after the conclu.ion of the hearing, the Coda Enforcement Officer, based upon such hearing shall determine whether the premises, or any part thereof, as maintained, constitutes a public nuisance as defined herein. if the Code Enforcement Officer finds that such public nuieance does exist and that there is suf`icient cause to rehabilitate, demolish or repair the some, the Code Enforcement Officer shell make a written order setting forth his findings and ordering the owner or other person having charge or control of such premises to abate such nuisance by having ouch Ordinance No. 386 Page 8 premisar, buildings or structures rehabilitated, repaired or demolished in the meaner and by the manna apecificAlly set forth in the ordor. Such order shall set forth the times within which such mark shall be commenced and completed by the owner. B. Within tan (30) days from the darn of the wiling of the order, the owner or person occupying or ccntrel:ing such lot or premises affected uay appeal to the City Council. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. At a mating of the City Council not more i than thirty (30) days thereaft,r, it shall proceed cl hear and pass upon the appeal. Notice of the bear..,{ date shall be served upon the appellant at letat ten (10) days before the time fixed for the hearing, and shall be served in the mnuer set forth In 8.23.120. The decision of the City Council thereupon shall be final and conclusive. 8.23.160 Notice of Abate. The "Notice of Abu a contain cho following informatioo. In. the absence of emergency cir , the notice may not require abatement in less than tan (10) days. A. Title statement: Notice to abate. B. onto the notice was issued. C Municipal Code section granting authority for the abatement proceedings D. Description of the property, location' 1. Assessor's parcel numbs: (Atilt); 2, street and number or 3 A description of the property location using street names, block numbers, and /or landmarks. E Name and address of the property owner as shown to the County of San Bernardino Assessor's Tax Records, P Specific conditions which constitute a public nuisance and the required method of corrc.:tion. G. vumber of days in which said nuisances are to be abated. N Failure to abate said nuisaucca within the allotted time period shall allow tl.e Code Enforcement Officar to abate such nuisances by public employees, private contractor, or other persons, and the cost with all directly related tnvestigativs and administrative costa shall be billed �V V Ordiwnca No. 386 Page 9 directly to tbo property ownor or levied ana assessed against the property as a special asset sment lien. I. Any appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date of the Notice, who will sat the acme for hearing before City Council sad notify the appellaot of the date. J, Failure to abate or appeal within the times allotted may also make the property owner subfect to criminal and civil remedieo. R. Name and title of issuing officer. L. Street address and mailing address of City offices. 8.23.17U Service of Order to Abet'. A copy of the order of the Code rd Enforcement Officer ordering the abate ment of [he nuisance shall be served upon the owners of. the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.23.120 and shall contain a detailed list of needed corrections and abatement methods. Any property owner shall have the right to have any such premises rehabilitated or to have such building or structures demolished or repaired in accordance with the order and at his own expense, provided the ssme is done prior to the expiration of the abatement period sot forth in the order. Upon such abatement in full by the ovuer, them proceedings under this Chapter shall terminate. If such nuisance is not completely abated by the Owner as diructed within the designated statement periodv then tbu Code Enforcement Officer ie authorized and directed to cause the same to Fe abated by City Poress or private contract, Pad the Code 9oforcemeat Officer (or his designated agents) is expressly au.horized to corer upon the premises fur such purpose. Upon requests other City �eparrments shall cooperate filly and shell render all reasonable assistance ii abating any such nuisance. 8.23.180 Record of Cost for Abatement. A. The Code Enforcement Officer, or such other City official en may be designated by him, shall keep an account of the cost (including rneident4l expenses) of abating such nuisance on each separate tut or per cal of land where the worL is done and shall render an Itemised report in writing to the City Council shoving the cost of abatement and she rehabilitating, demolishing or repairing of the premises, buildings or structures, including any aaivage value relating thereto; provided that before the report is submitted to the City Council, a copy of tht saw shall be served in accordance with the provisions of 8.23.120, together with a nntrce of the time when the report shall be heard by the City Council for confirmation. 72 �( Ordinance No. 386 Page 10 B. The City Council shall oat the matter fc: hearing to detcsina the correctness and /or reaveaableuesa, of such coats. C. Proof of the service shall be made by declaration under penalty of perjury filed with the City Clerk. D. "Incidental expenses" includes, but is not limited to, the actual expenses and costs of the City in the preparation of neticess specifications and contracts, and in inspectioy the vorkt and the costs of printing and mailing required under this Chapter. 8.23.190 Ha�ort�Hearin, and Proceedings. At the time and plsca fixed for rate iving sad eons ideric8 the report, the City Council shall hear and pass upon the report of such coati of abatement[ together with any objections or protects. Thereupon, the City Council may make such revision, correction or modification in the report as it may deem just, after which, by motion, the report, as submlt:ed or as revised, corrected or modified, shali be color mod. The decision of the City Council on all protests and objuctions which may be made shall be final and conclusive. 8.23.200 Assessment cf Cnsts Against Pro es rtg - Lien. The total costs Ear abetLng such nuisaace, as vo confirmed by the City Couloe il, shall constitute o special asoeswmont against the respective lot or parcel of land to which It relates and, upon recordation in the office of the county recorder of a "Notice of Lien ", as ao made and confirmed, shall cos+titule a lien on the property for the amount of such assessment. A. A demand for payment shall be served in accordance with 8.23.120 of this Chapter allowing thirty (30) days from the date of service, or mailing, for payment of the total assessment prior to the recordation of a "Notice of Lien ". B After recordation, a certified copy shall be sent to the tax division of the county auditor- coetroller's office, whereupon it shall be the duty of the auditor - controller to add the amounts of the respective assesmenta to the next regular tax bills levier against the respectivu lots and parcels of land for municipal purposes. and thereafter the amocwaa shall be collacted at the samot time and in the same manner as ordinary auntcapaL taxes are collected, and shall he subject to the same penalties and the same procedure under foreclosure and sale in case of ielinquencr as provided for ordinary municipal [axtlst or C Atter ouch recordation, such lien may be foreclosed by judicial or other sale to the manner and rouses provided I -y law. ? `3T- Ordinance No. 386 Paga 11 8.23.210 Votty to Abate. No person or entity shell cause: permit, maintain, eoadu,-t, or otherwise oil" n public nuiaeace as defined herein to person win ice control of City. It Property, busine s,y operation, are interest therein exist located within the Jxty to remove, abate, and prevent the recurrence of a or condition [may be deemeduto be a co tinuationrof [the original cOnditLo auto of s Open Public 8.21.220 Penalties A The owner or other person buildings, premises, or property who in this Chapter, Jr who violates at 8.23.160, is guilty of a misdemeanor. having charge or control of any such maintains anl• public nuisance defined order of statement made pursuant to B. Any occupant or ledges in possession of any such building or structure who failo to vacate the building or structure in accordance with an order giien as provided in this Chapter is p,tilty of a misdemeanor. C. Any person who removes any notice or order posted as required in this Chapter, for the purpose of interfering with the enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. D. A misdemeanor violation eb,Ll be puaishible by a fine of up to 01,000.00, or impri$onmont for a period of up to six (6) months in jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment. E. Any condition which constitutes a public nuisance an mat forth in this Chapter shall be deemed a separate offense for each day the violation laists. SECTION 2: The City Council declare$ that, should any provision, section, paragraph, mentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action i,, a court of compecaat Jurisdiction, by reason of any preemptive logislation, the remaining p r paragraph, sentence$, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to ue published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Oaily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California ris J ORDINANCE NO. 387 AN ORDINANCE 07 THE CITY COUNCIL UP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, t_.LIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF TIC RANCHO CUCAMOHCA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.25 PROVIDING A PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL OF ABANDONED, WRECKED, DISHANILED OR INOPERATIVE VEHICIM FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC PROPERTY NOT INCLUDING HIGHWAYS The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION is Title 8 of the Rancho Cucamonga Nun eipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a now Chapter 8.25 to read, in words and figures, as follows: Chaotet 8.25 VEHICLE ABATEMENT Sections: 8 25.010 Findings and declarations. 8.25.020 Definitions. 8.25 030 Ezclusia , from a ;plication of Chapter. 8.25.040 Chapter not er:luaive. 8.25 050 Admiaistratio. and enforcement generally 8.25 060 Removal eootracis. 8.25.070 Authority to dete -mine administrative costs. 8.25.080 Authority to cause kbatement and removal. 8.25.090 hotice of intention aid removal. 8.15 100 Request for public Leering on question of abatement and removal; notice of beet+ng; abatement by City when hearing request not filed. 8.25 11U Hearing procedures. 8.25 120 Appeal. 8 25.130 Removal of vehicle to s rapyai •r dismantler's yard; reconstruction of vehicle. 8 25 140 Notice to department of motor vehicles 8.25 150 Assessment of costs. 8 25 160 Parking abandoned or dismantled vehicles 8.25 170 Failure to remove abandoned vebicle unlawful. 8.259010 Findings and Declarations. In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the State of California, under Section 72660 of the Vehicle Code, to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public ^uiaances, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga hereby makes the following findings and declarations: 7q Ordinance No. 787 Page 2 The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles, or parts thereof, on private or public property, act including highways, is hereby found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and cafety of minors, to create a harborage for rodents and insects, and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle, or parts thereof, on private or public property not including highways, except as expressly hereinafter permitted, is .itchy declared to constitute a •public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with Lhd provisions of this Chapter. 8.25.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be construed as hereinafter not out, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning was intended: A. The term 'vehicle" means a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, except a device moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. B. The term " highway" means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street C. The term "public property" does not include "highway ". D. The term "owner of the land" means the owner of the land on which the vehicle, or parts thereof, is located, as shown on the last equalized Assessment roll E. The tam "owner of the vehicle" means the last registered owner and legal owner of record. F The term "city" means City of Rancho Cucamonga. C The term "Code Enforcement Officer" shall mean the City Nanager for the City and his duly authorized representatives. 8.25.030 Exclusions from Application of Chapter. This Chapter shell not apply to: A A vehicle, or parts thereor, which is completely enclosed within a bu.lding in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property; or U 0 Ordinance Mn. 387 Page 3 6. A vehicle, or parts thereo. which is stored or parked in a lawful manoor on private property in counectiva with the business of a licensed dismantler. 3othing in this section shall Autlwriee the maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under provitiona of law other than Chapter 10 (commencing with 68etloa 22650) of Division 11 dt the Vehicle Code and this Chaptet. 8.2.5.040 Chapter not Exclunive. This Chapter is not the exclusive regulation of abandoned, vrecled, dismantled u- inoperetive vehicles within the City. It shall supplement atd to in addition to the othat ret.ulatory codes, a:atutas, and Ordinances heretofore or bereaftar tuyctcd IT the City, the State, or any other legal entity or agency having jurisdittiun. 8.25.350 Administration and Enforcement ':eneral�. Except as pr de din, the 7thervise ovid her provision of this Chaptca ohslt be administered and enfurced by the City Nant.Ear, the Code Enforcement WGuet, or their duly authorized desilnees. In the enforcement of this Chapter, ouch officers and he•i deputies stay enter upon private or public property to eranina a vehicle or parts thereof, or obtain information as to the identity of a vabicle de,lared to be % nuisance pursuant to this Chapter. 8.25.060 Removal Contracts. When the City Council has contracted with, or granted a franchise to, any person or peraona, such peisya or persous spell be aithorized :o enter upon private property to remove of cause the removal of a vebicla, or parts thereof, daclared to be a nuisance pursuant to this Chapter. 8.25.170 Authority to Determine Administrativa Costs. too City Council shall Lrom time to time determine and fix an uouot to be asseseed as adminis:rative costs under this Chapter. 8.15.080 Authority to Cause nbate=nt and Rezoval. Upon discoveriv; the existence of an abandoned, wrecked, diamantled. or ino;erative vebiele, or parts tnereof, on ptivate pronuty or public property within the City. the Coda Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to cause the abatement and removal thereof in accordance with the procedure prescribed here +n. °..25.090 Notice Cf Intention and Removal. A ted (10) day notice of intention to abate sod row-ve the vehicle, or parts thereot, as a public .wisance shall be mailed of registered or certified mull to the owner of the land and to the owner of the vehicle, unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification numbers are net available to dettrmine oveership The notices of intention shall inclide the tollovtog information: V Onlinr,aee No. 38' Page 4 A. T tle statement t Notice of Intentioa to abate and remove a aban.oned, wrecl ad, dismantlad, or inapvrative vehicle or parts thereof as a public nuisancel B. N me and address oft The owner of the land as shown on the laat equalised asset amont roll; and 2. Toe lam regiutered and /or legal owner of record of the vehicle, if ku.:iun. C. wescription of the vehicle (or parts of a vehicle); including make, model, licenee number, cod vehicle identification number, if known; D. Poscription of toe l..corioo of Me private property or public property wh,re tbo vohrcla (or parts od a vebiclo) is locatud; L. Notica that within ter. (10) days cf the date of mailing of the notice of intention to abates I. Removal of the vehicle lot parts of c vehicle) shall be required; or 2 A written requeat for a public hearing oay be submitted to the Code Enforcement Ofilcorl or 3 The property owner mcy submit a sworn .•rittsu stateanrnt denying reeponoibility for tha presents of -he vehicle (or parts of a vehicle) on their la•tt vith reasons fir such denial, which shall be construed an a requee: fee a hearing at which :heir presence shall not be requiredi and 4. Failure to temove -he vehicle, ec failure to respond as specified in Sections 2 or 3 aoove, shall gr of the Coda Enforcement Officer the authority to remo.,e and sbato ton vehicle (or parts of a vehicle) as a public nuisance and saseos the .osta, along with any administrative torte, •o tb.t owner of rho land without a public hearing F Any interested party may aptear it person at any teariug requested l.y the owner of the vehicle or the ovicer of the land whe.e the vehicle . .acated or, in Lieu thereof, may submit a ova n written s,etemir.t in ci,, for ,ousrderation at such hearing. III Ordinance No. 387 Page S C. Municipal Code Sections which: 1. Declare the vehicle (or parts of a vehicle) to be a public nuisance; and 2. Authorise the removal and abatement of the vehicle (or parts of a vehicle) by the City; C. He" and title of issuing officer; I. DAte of eiiliug; J. Mailing address of the Jity and /or abatement Authority. upon request by the owner of the •ehicle or owner or the land received by the Code Enforcement Officer within ten (10) days after the mailing cf the notices of intention to abate and remove, a public hearing shall be held by the Code Enforcement Officer on rha question of abatement and removal of the vehicle, or parts thereof, as an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or imperative vehicle nd the assessment of the administrative costs and the cost of removal o t e vehicle, or parts thereof, against the property on which it is locmead. If the owner of the land subedts s sworn written otatement de ing responsiLility for the presence of the vehicle on his land within such ten 10) day period, said statement shall be construed as a request for a hearing which does not require his presence. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed, by registered or certified mail, at least ten (10) days before the hearing to the owner of the land and to the owner of the vehicle, unless the vehicle is In such conditioa that identification numbers are not available to dater no ownership. If such a request fur hearing is not available to determine owns .hip. It such a request for hearing is not received within said ten (!0) days attar mailing of the notice of intention to abate and remove, the City shall have the authority to abate and remove the vehicle, or parts thereof, as a public nuisance without holding a public hearing 8.25.110 Uea_iuq Prneedures. All hearings under this Chapter shall be nerd before the Code R.foicemeot Officer vh,, shall hear all faces and testimony (he /she) deems percicent Said facts and testimony nay include teatimony on the cnnditiou of the vehicle, or parts thereof, and the circumstances :oncetniug its IOtatifn on the said private property or public property The Code Enforcement Officer shall not be limited by the technical rules of evidence The ownet of the land my appear in person at the heating or present a sworn written statement in time for consideration at the hearing, and deny responsibility for the presence of the vehicle nn the lend, with his reasons for such denial 2J Ordinance No. 387 Page 6 The Coda Enforcement Officer may iuposs such conditions and take such other action as deemed appropriate under the circumstances to tarty out the purpose of thin Chapter Me may delay the time for rcmaval of the vabir,le, or parts thereof, if in his opinion, the circumstances juati£y it. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Code Enforcement Officer may find that a vehicle or parts :hereof has been abandoned, wracked, dismantled, or in inoperative an private or public property and order the same removed from the preperty as a public nuisance aid disposed of a bereinafter provtdod and doturaioe tba administrative costs and the cost of rr=vsl to be charged against the owner of the land. The order requiring removal shall include a description of the vehicle, or parts thereof, and the correct identification member and license number of the vehicle, if available at the site. If it is determined at the hearing th.t the vehicle was placed on the land without the consent of the owner of the land, and that he has not subsequently aciuiescad in its presence, the Code Enforcement Officer shall not assess the costs of administration or removal of the vehicle against the property upon which the vehicle is located or otbervise attempt to collect such costs from such owner of the land. If the owner of the land submits a sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on his land but does not appear, or if an interested party makes a written preeovtation to the Code EnErrcemeot Officer, but does not appear, he shall be notified in writing of the decision. 86259120 A ?peel. Any interested party may appeal the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer by filing u written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, within five days after the decision. Such appeal shell be heard by the City Council -biQ. may affirm, amend or reverse the order or cake ctber action deemed appropriate. The clerk shall give written not of the time and place of the hearing to the appellant and theme persona spt_.ried in Section 8.25.090. In conducting the hearing, the City Council shall not be limited by the technical rules of evidence. necona crucuon of vehicle. Five (5) days after adoption f the order declaring the vault le, or part* thereof, to be a public nuisance, or five (5) days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision is such notice is required by Section 8 25 110 or fifteen (15) days after such action of the governing body authonziug removal following appeal, the vehicle, or parts thereof, may be disposed of by removal to a scrapyard or autcaobile dismantler'• yard. After a vehicle has been removed it shall not thereafter be conetructed or made erable. V Ordimuce No. 387 Page 7 8.25.140 Notice to Department of Motor Vehicles. Within five (5) days after the date of removal of the vahiclet .r- parts thereof, notice shall be given tot he Department of Motor Vehicle@ ideutifying the vehicle, or parts thereof, removed. At the same time, there shall be transmitted to the Department of Notor Vehicles any evidence, of registration available, including registration certificates, certificated of title and licenss plates. 8.25.150 Assessment of Costs. If the ad•doistrative costs and the cost of removal which are charged against the owner of • parcel of land pursuant to Section 8 25.030 are net paid within rtirt. (30) days of the date of the order, or the final disposition of An appeal therefrom, such costs shall tae assessed against the parcel of land pursuant to Section 38773.5 of the Government Code and shall be transmitted fo the tax collector for collectioe Said sasessmeut shall have the sane priority as other city taxes. 8.25.160 Parkins Abandoned or Uismaatlad Vehieics. It is unlawful and a misdemanor for any person to abandon, park, 'scorer leave or permit thr abandonment, Parking, storing or leaving of any license or unlicensed vehiclet or parts thereof, which is in an abandmod, wrevkao, dismantled or imperative condition upon any private property w public property, not including highways within the City, for a period in excess of five (5) days unless such vehicle, cr parts thereof, is completely enclosed %,thin a nuiiding is s lawful manner where it is pot plain./ ••.sible from the street or other public or private property, or unless such vshicle is stored or parked in a lavfu-, manner on private property in connection with the busineta of a licensed d.gmastler, licensed vehicle dealer or a junkyard 8.25.170 Failure to gemnve Abanruued Vehicle Unlawful It ie unlawful and a misdemeanor [or Any pe reom v> fail or refuse to -amave an abandoued, wrecked, dismantled or imperative vehicle, or parts thereof, or refuse to abate cui.h nu.aancu when ordered to do so in accords.ca wish the abatement provisions of a Chanter or ato.e law Were such state law is applicable. SUTION 2. The City Council declares _het should any provi ion, section. paragraph, sentence n- cord of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court & ^-non in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any pr-emp•ivc legie.atiaj the remaining provision[, sections, paragraphs, se one s ,nd swrde .,' th - Ordinances shell remain is full force and effect. SEr"0..., i The Keyor anal, algb this Ordnance and the City Clerk snall cease lmi o be •mblished -'thin (iftern tl`) days after itn passage at least on, rlv daily Resort, a amespape- of ge -.swat circulation published in the C t, +f jnta•io, California, and .- culatw. it she City or gaucho Cucajonga Californ � -J CITY OF RANCHO CUJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FkOM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Senior Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MASTER ENVIRCHMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEAVERVIRONMEN.fAL IMPACT ....n F -JM urVAIL compreliensive study to Identity the enr ronmen characteristics and constraints of the General Plan area As an MEA, the document will provide a central source of current environmental information to assist in Identifying long range, area wide, and cumulative impacts on individual projects in the General Plan area. GENERAL PI AN TECHNICAL UPDATE - CITY OF RAN:;10 CUCAMONGA - e project s e prepara on♦— ^eviea, an sop ono a Technical update of the General plan consisting of statistical information and implementation measures, and revisions to the Comvunity Design sect'an of the Land Use and Development Elersent. WSrOVENDATIOH: It is recoaaended that the City Council affirm the Tin ngs o e Planning Comfssion by certifying the Master Environmental Assessment (MEAVEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) with I Statement cf Overriding Considerations and then approve the Genere+ Plan Technical Update BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION' On December 7, 1980, the City Council cOnt'r,uec Vie public erg on the subject items until the January 4, 1989 meeting This continuance was directed to provide time for staff to add certain Council requested revisions to the two subject document• Staff Ind the environmental consultant have drafted changes )•-jrsuant .o ..ouncfl direction which are attached with this report Tne chances dre ds follows In response to Cbuncilmember Wright's concern regarding Fish and Game Department's coments, we have added to Section E - Biology Page 36 after the 3rd paragraph) the follcwing mitigatior ;assage xh 1 V CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE January 4, 1989 Page 2 The City requests, on a continuing basis thrnugh County planning officials, expanded biological studies for all proposed developments within the Sphere of Influence. Raquirements for the preservation of sensitive natural areas have been used, in tnose developments which the owners are contemplating arnexation to the City. This erocedure is a direct result of existing General Plan policies. 2. In response to Councilzemuer Brown's concerns about Impacts to air quality, staff has drafted changes to the Statement of Overriding Consideration: and to Part J of the MEA/EIR. Refer to Attachments 1 and 2. 3. In response to the Mpyor's concern about the identification of aggregate resource sites and the potential impacts due to mining operations, staff has drafted additions to Section D - Soils (page 24, after the first paragraph). Refer to Attachment 3. These impacts are taken from the County's EIR for the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project. Also, staff checked on the City Attorney's concern regarding the amount of available aggregate material listed in the General Plan Th e State's -%M Designation Reprrt Ro. 5, January, 19 °7, lists all resource reserves in "Million Short ions". This is the unit of measure used in the General Plan Update. 4 General Plan Tables Tables III -1 and III -2 have been revised to Include vacant acreage totals and an estimate of the amount of Flood Control land which may be developable in the future as requested by the Mayor. Refer to Attachments 4 and S. 5 References to the City's underground utilities policies have bbeen included as requested by the Mayor. Refer to Attachment The revised pages have been included in Attachments 7 and 8 for incorpo -ation directly Into your copies of the MEA/EIR and General Plan Update Many of the pages have beer. amended to include the update mitigation measures witl cross referencing footnotes to the "response to comments " In aldition, it was noted !hat some of the roadway designations "bled out" in repruducing the Circulation Map (Figure III -3 in the General Plan Update). Therefore, we have touched up the map to accurately Portray the rra&ay designations and Included it in the Council packet. 27 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT GENERAL pLjM TECHNICAL UPDATE January . 1989 Page 3 recent III. ALTSOH: After Public testimony, if there are no reviewing tho response 4o cosseen s, co3iffcattons and taking p additional unanswered Cityenvironmental iron i1tal 'Ovee the rMEA /EIR by the adoption of the certifying Resolution adertStatement, ies nthe HEA /ElR aitt Considerations. If the City Update asntbe RanchopCucamonga General Plan bynethe adoption of cfithe would attached Resolution. Res Tully Br le City lanner BB:LH /AN:mlg Attachments: -40s 1-6 (under a separate cover) Revised General P1a" pages a n a separate cover) l Revised ,ye IR pages (under a separate cover) Res olutionaCertifyingiNEA/EItt Figure III -3 Resolution Approving General 71tn Technical Update M �r C RESOLUTION No, �f - xcp A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CFMNONGA , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE MASTER ENVIRONHWAL ASSESSMENT AND EAYIRONHENTAL IMIACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, A4o MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. ii) The City Council of the City of Rancno Cucam 32a, adopted the s General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan on April o, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81-70. (it) There has been presented to this Council in - o:tjunct-,on with 3 this Council's consideration of the adoption of the General Flan Technical Update, a final #aster Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report with a Planning Comission recommendation to certify the environmental findings. (iii) On September 28, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed hubl(c hearings on a General Flan Technical Update and Plaster Environmental Assessment and Environmental, Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Technical Update. (iv) The final Master Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report referred to to this resolution consists of that draft document dated July, 1988 entitled 'City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Enfromaental Assessment and General Plan Environmental Impact Report', written comments on that draft report and written responses thereto submitted by the staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and testimony presented during the hearings on the recomm-,nded adoption of said General Plan Technical Update insofar that the testimony pertained to environmental matters. Heroinaftar, the above - mentioned documents will be referred to as 'the final MEA/EIR'. The enteraty of the final MEA /EIR hereby is lncoroorated In this Resolution by this referenc_. (, a Ail legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NO`J, THEREFepr, it is hereby found, aeterv3tned and resolves by the City Council cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga as fol!ox: 1 The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby take the following actions with respect to the final AEA /EIR: �I CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. XEA /EIR General Plan Technical Update January 4, 1989 Page 2 (a) Ce:- clfies that the final MEA/EIR has been prepared on the General Plan Technical Update in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21G70 et seq. and in accordance with the regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, that the Council certifies that it consfderee, the contents of the final EIR/MEA in considering the adoption of th- General Plan Technical Update: (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 updato of statistical information and Implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1918, and revisions to the Ccwunity design section of the Land Use and Development Element. (c) Finds that the final MEA/Eln does identify physical environmental impacts inherent in the project and that changes or alterations have been incorporated in the project which mitigate or avoid all significant environmental effects thereof 1•hor than a cusulative contribution to the degradation of air quality; (d) Finds that notwithstanding the unmitigrated adverse environmental impacts specified in paragraph b above, that specific enommic aid social considerations make unfeasible any project alternative specified in the final EIRil1EA and constitutes an overriding basis for Council approval of the project; and (e) As to those impacts identified in the final MEA/EIR which cannot feasibly be avoided by mitigation measures and project alternatives, adopts a statement of overriding considerations in substantial form to that set forth in Exhibit 'A' hereto and incorporated by this reference. 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAV'.ONGA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL UPDATE, AND RAKING 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 GLmeral Plan on April 6, 1981 by the approval of Resolution No. 81 -40. (ti) 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, an 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 Update. (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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. The City Council does hereby take the following actions with ^espect to the General Plan Technical Update: (a) Find that ail environmental concerns have been addressed by the final MEA /EIR as recommended for certification by the Planning cormission; (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 information and implementation measures, inclusion of provisions of the Surface Mining and Reclanation Act of 1975, and revisions to the Community Design section of the Land Use and Development Element. (c) Adopt the General Plan Technical Update, as drafted, as the approved General Plan for the City offR Rancho �Cucamonga. yY 5. PLEASE REFER TO FIGURE 111-3, CIRCULATION PLAN WHICH IS ON TOP OF YOUR AGENDA. ij Yy CITY OF UNCtIO CUCA51ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 TO. Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PEPMIT 08 -03 c - Appeal o e ann ng Commission's decision approving a development of a ret...l center and service station totaling 4,416 square feet on 0.63 acres of land in a Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APR: 208 - 192 -06. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 58 -09 - WHEELER 6 WHEELER ARCH - Appeal Ot the ann ng om s' sloe s rec son ai f pproving a request to reduce a required parking setback along Foothill Boulevard from 50 fe -t to 40 feet and along Vineyard Avenue from 50 feet to 43 feet for a retail center and service station in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) or the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast .orner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APH: 208 - 192 -06. 1. RECRP!ENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City LauRTT approve Conditional Use Permit 88-03 and Variance 88 -09 through adoption of the attached Resolutions. 11. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission rev ewe and approved the development of a gas station, and retail building and a Variance to reduce the landscape setback along Foothill Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feet and along the south property line from 15 feet to 5 feet. Following the P anning Commission meeting, residents of the Villa Paloma Cendominlum project appealed the Planning Camissioo's decision due ':o the insufficient landscaping and buffering that would be provided between the cooraercial and residan•fal projects. After fi,ing of the appeal with the City Council, several meetings were conducted with representatives of the epplicant, the appellant, and City staff to discuss various alternatives to resolve the concerns of the Villa Paloms .".ondoainiuo resfdents. Based on the outcoae of these meetings, a revised plan was prepared which seamed to adfress / 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 88 -03 - WHEELER a WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 2 the concerns of both parties. The revised plans were then reviewed by he Planning Commission and approved on November 30, 1988 which included the Conditional Use Permit for the service station and retail building and a Variance to reduce the landscape setback along Foothill Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feet and along Vineyard Avenue from So feet to 43 feet. Following the Planning Comalssion's meeting of November 30, 1988, Hr. Barrie Chase, representing the lease holders of the Red Hill theirroppositionitodthe proposed roject forithe foi..owingxreasons? A. Appellants did not receive proper notice of previous public meetings as required and thus were depr,ved to due process of law; and B. The Variance, particularly the additional landscaping require. nt along the southerly boundary, restricts the existing Ingress and egress to the parcel to the east, especially for large delivery trucks, therefore causing additional hardship an the appellants, and within the C astcwilligreatl;fbe, increased causing jsubsta substantial to he business and lnvftles. In addition, the relocation of the existing driveway would disrupt traffic flows to detriment of the appellants business; and 0. The appellants have full dominion and control over the driveway currently it existence and do not and will not grant right of lot way of en%ry for reconstruction Appellants v o not andovwwill not consenitgto any relocation of its driveway without detail traffic flow studies and a negotiated agreement with appellants. III ANALYSIS: A. Motif cation o� Appellant: 'n f Iidentii reviewing notification was sent to Mr. Davenport and Mr. Alex for both the original Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 1988, and a City Council meeting of Nevczber 2, 1988. B Inmress end Egress for Delivery: During the course of the rev ew g a Dro ec , much some was spent in analyzing he truck movements to serve not only the subject si "e but also the projects to the east. Currently, In -N -Out Burgers receives their truck deliveries via the existing driveway located along 9� CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP W-03 - WHEELER A WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 3 the south boundary. As a result, they were very concerned about the ability to maintain that delivery service. Truck movement patterns prepared by the applicant indicate trucks entering off the vineyard Avenue drive approach can still make the turning movements through the service station and parking areas to the roar of the Red Hill Liquor Store and In -N -Out Burger. C Traffic: Ouring the adoption process for the Foothill BoTrd Specific Plan, much time was spent in analyzing the existing and anticipated traffic volumes along Foothill Boulevard and alternatives to minimize the potential conflicts from traffic entering Foothill Boulevard In this particular area, due to the small size of the parcels, it has been anticipated for several years that a cormon Drive would be provided on Foothill Boulevard to serve In -N -Wt Burger, the Red Hill Liquor Store and the subject site. A condition was placed on In -N -Out's approval in 1979 requiring their driveway to be combined with the Red Hill Liquor Store in the future. By doing so, three separate drive entrances along Foothill Boulevard would be combined into one driveway on the Red Hill Liquor Store site. In addition, the existing drive approach and alley accessing off vineyard Avenue would be formalized into a drive approach for the new retail center This would all - access not only to the corner parcel but also to the Red F' r fquor Store and the In -N -Out Burger site. it it is true that traffic on the Red Hill Liquor site might be n,rcreased due to people exiting onto Foothill Boulevard via the Red Mal Liquor site, staff feels that in the long run, the single drive approach on Foothill Boulevard makes for safer eating into the flow of traffic. In addition, the driveway on vineyard Avenue would continue to allow patrons of the Red Hill Liquor Store and In -N -Out to exit northbound onto Vineyard Avenue. The issue of reciprocal access across the adjoining properties 1s consistent with the approvals of new developments to allow safe access to public streets. In discussions with the property owners of the Red Hill Liquor Store, In -N -Out Burger and the subject site, they are to agreement with the proposed access for the three parcels. 0. Control of Driveway and Parking Lot Reconstruction: During the course a e rev ew or e project,'Stdtf has been in contact with the property owner of the Red Hill Liquor Store. The owner has continually voiced his approval and consent to the reconstruction of the parking lot and the realignment of the driveway along Foothill Boulevard. The appellants are stating that they have full control over the property and will not ?"Y- CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT s CUP 88 -03 - WHEELER d WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 4 grant the right -of -entry for the improvements to be done. The issue of who has control over the driveway and parking lot reconstruction between the properly owner and the lease holder is not appropriate for the City to decide and should be resolved by the two parties. Because no subdivision map is involved, the City does have the ability to require the applicant to provide the necessary improvements on the Red Hill Liquor Store site. It 1s then the responsibility of the applicant to obtain Lie necessary agreeaents to complete the work. If these agreements cannot be obtained, the construction of the gas station retail buildings on the corner cannot begin. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This iten has been advertised in The Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing and notices were sen ot—t M propei! owners within 300 feet. /Br Ully to 1 Bul ner 88:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Letter of Appeal Exhibit '0' - November 311988 Planning Commission minutes Exhibit 'C' - November 30, 19&8 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution of Approval for Variance 88 -09 Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 88-03 CID �rlll, e CE; ..a vo sw uiv unuAn u vmos REAL ESTA•E CONSULTA4- xXmX= sse (619)967 -8414 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO: City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga teethe Cucamonga, CA An appeal in hereby filed against: 1, Resolution 88 -175A approving a modification to Coadi- tionel Use Permit 88 -03 and a Resolution 88 -175 approving said Conditional Use Permit 88 -03 APN 208 - 192 -06) 2 Resolution 88 -174A approving a Variance 188 -09 (APN 208 - 192 -06) Said Resolutions have been approved by Planning Commission September 14, 1988 and Novambnr 30, 1588. Appellants ere: Michael 0. Alex Mary S. Alex Hugh M. Davenport Agnes E. Davecport Appellants are the owners of a ground leas, on APN 208- 192 -07 and uwners of the building (Red Hill Liquor) located at 8939 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said property Is Immediately adjacent to the subject property to the east and Is materlsily affected by the above ree•slutions. The gtounde for appeal are as follows: 1 Appellants did not receive proper notice of previous public bearings as required and thus were deprived of due process of law; and 2 The Variance, particularly the additional le.dscapiug requirement .long the southerly boundary, restricts the existlug ingress and @Steve to the parcel to the east (APN 208- 192 -07), wspecially for large delivery trucks, therefore causing additional herdabip on appellants; and is7 e0 WX 1l:9 GaL50M. G 9ACa HEAL ESTATE CONSOVAN' (619)967 -0114 3 The existing traffic, within the pr:Ject and parcel to the cast, would greatly be locreasel, causing substan- tial rlek to business iuvitees In cddltion, the relocation of the existing drivowsy world disrupt traffic f!ov to the detriment of appellants' business; and 4. Appellants have full dominion and control over the driveway currently in existence and DO NOT and WILL NOT grsat right of way of oLtry for dctveway removal and parking lot reconstruction. Appellants DO NOT and WILL NOT consent to any relocation of its driveway without detail traffic flow studies and a negotLatod developers agreement with appellants. Please set this matter for hearing before the City Council at your earliest convenience Dated: December 8, 1988 Enclosed: Check for $126 00 appeal fee Autborization for CHASE. to act Michael C. Alex Mary S. Alwx Hugh M. Davenport Agnes C. Davenport Byl B.P Chase, AgeLt A.P. Chase Chairman Mc Niel stated that with such ma3or changes it would be best to continue the item. Mr DeMarco stated he would like to amend the current Resolution and art on It without continuing the item. Commissioner Tolstoy wanted Phase II started prior to occupancy of Phase I Mr Buller stated the Item could be placed at the end of this evening's agenda to allow the applicant to work with staff to condition the Resolution At that time the Commission could decide to approve, deny, t. - continue. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, s ^.onded by Emerick, unanimously carried, to direct staff to redraw conditions for cos sideratlon at the end of the agenda. G ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88 -39 - WHEELER AND WHEELER MqUest to reduce the roqu re par ng se ac a ong pot oulevard from 50 feet to 40 —et and along Vineyard Avenue from' 50 feet to 43 feet for a retail center and service station in the Community CLSamercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APR: 208 - 192 -06. M ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-03 - WHEELER AND e development ot a reta center and service s on In ,416 square feet on 0.63 acres of land in the Community Commercial Dist ^trt ;Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN 208 -192 -06 xo:t Murphy, lisociate Planner, presented the staff report and referenced two setters before the Commissioners - one from B. Chase, a real estate consultant to the lessees of the liquor store, and one from Donald Bollinger, the ittor,ey fir Jr -N -Out Burger C,missioner ,dlstoy asked if the City requires standard trash enclosures to have screening above the bin to prevent trash from blowing out Mr Murphy confirmed that it did Lhai-man Mc Wiel opened the public hearinq Paul Wheeler, Wheeler and Wheeler Architects, stated they represent Park AC-ams D ^velopment, who has extensive experience 'n tnis type of eevelopment He said they had worked with the appellants and he felt the compromise was a good one Peter Marrow, 1463 Albright, Upland, stat -d he was the original owner of the property and was the lessor for the liquor store He fully suprArted the service station and felt it was a good p:o3ect that would be beneficial to everyone Planking Commission Minutes -11• November 30, 1988 Marjorie Mikels, 6300 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamon3a, attorney fo- 'a Paloma Condominium Homeowners' Association (thn appellant), coamlended staff members for resolving the issues concerning the neinhbors. She reiitioned that there were still two concerns. They did not want the location of the trash enclosures to be only three feet from the wall and she suggested that, the trash enclosure be moved adjacent to the Red Hill Liquor trash enclosure. They were also concerned that the center would generate considerable traffic and no provision had been made to regulate the traffic. She requested that 'NO LEFT TURN' signage be installed. She also requested the City staff approve the la-,.scaping material, size and spacing Commissioner Blakesley asked about the likelihood that the condominium developmW would move the sidewalk Ms Mikels stated that Hawk Development owned the area and she did not have the answer John Bruno, 957 South village Oak, Covina, stated he was the attorney for Red Hill Liquor, which is on a ground lease and included easements He stated they had riot received not'ce of prior hearings Michael Alex, 2464 Ocean view, partner in the iiquor store, stated their leasehold ran for another six years He indicated a representative of Park Abrams had indicated they wanted to buy their leasehold and they agreed to an option He stated there had been an informal meeting with the planning department, which suggested that all three properties share a common driveway. He stated they had signed a proposed site plan only because they were under the impression that Park Abrams would be buying their leasehold. He stated that following the City Council meeting he contacted Park Abrams and they had indicated they were not interested in purchasing the leasehold He objected to the driveway being moved and felt the front of his property would be used for a drive for In -N -Out and the service station. He stated they had signed the original site plan, but it had been changed several times since then and he had not signed a new site plan. He felt the current plan buried his liquor store Hugh i4venport, Box 371, Etiwanda, partner in the liquor store, stated they ownra the leasehold on the south side where landscaping was being proposed He felt that trucks could no longer use the alley for deliveries He also felt a divider should be placed on vineyard. He said the liquor store would bn liable for everyone driving on their property ad that Lhe liquor store owned the lease on the alleyway 'tarry Chase, real estate consultant representing Mr Alex and Mr Davenoort, stated the leasehold Interest would be greatly burdened by the project and would be subject to s lot of through traffic He felt the parking was Insufficient for the Improvements bei.ig proposed He felt the project was taking the parking from the liquor store an: the store would be greatly hurt He felt the prrject should be denied or continued to iron out a deal. Mr Morrow stated he held the ground lease He saie the easement on the alley was recorded, but he neld the lease on the ground He stated the alley was provided for lr -N -Out Burger and the use of the corner parcel Planning Camnission Minutes / lJ Ql- November 30, 1988 Mr. Bruno stated the liquor store had the use of the property for the next seven years and improvements on the property would have to be approved by Vie liquor store owners. Norman Miede, attorney for the applicant, stated this was a domestic issue which needed to be resolved as a private property issue. He stated Mr. Morrow's lease with the liquor store owners provided for development of the property. Mr Wheeler stated the trash receptacle was the same distance from the condo development as the cor/o development trash was from their property. Me agreed with staff that traffic mitigation measures could be taken in the lliture if necessary, but were not required at this hue. hearing no further testimony, the publ`c hearing was closed Commissioner Blakesley felt it was a difficult parcel for development which had complex considerations and required certain tradeoffs He felt the screening on the trash enclosure would be sufficient to mitigate concerns and felt the City Engineer could deal with any traffic yroalcros. He did not feel the drive aisle would be detrimental to the liquor .tore and supported the project. Commissioners Tolstoy and Emarick concur ed Comsmissioner Chitiea stated she would like a divider on Vineyard. She concurred with Commissioner Blakesley in regard W the trash enclosure with the inclusion of architectural enhancements She suggested planting a vine to grow up over the enclosure. Commissioner Tolstoy didn't fee that was a current issue. He fe" Engineering staff had rooked into it and given several options if it presented a problem in the future Bill Silva, Oeputy City Engineer, stated he staff report referred to a strip on Vineyard There is no place to pus a median island on Vineyard as it exists, and if it we necessary to o,i back and retrofit in the future, it would require additional right -of -way. It was anticipated that the traffic would be self - regulating and that the primary entrance would be from Foothill Boulevard At build -out 'NO LEFT TURN" signage could be added exiting the property going south oa Vineyard. He anticipated traffic would turn right Commissioner Chitlea felt it might be wise to reconfigure the property now to allow for two feet to be dedicated to future right -of -way to allow for a fnur- foot meelan Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that the service station at Baseline and :arnelian was an example of self - regulation He did not anticipate having to instal a median island Mr Murphy suggested wording to modify conditio.i 12 requiring that the south joundary landscaping be approved by 0e City Planner prior to issuance of building permits / 0 Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 30, 1988 Chairman McWfel stated that one of the objectives of the Foothill Boulevard hazards PThir sooetioes required rsmaller parcels toeshare edrivevaysCe traffic the Mr. 8 appeal untucs active temwould be returned to tyCocilnlessthe appellants withdraw the appeal Chairman Mc Niel reopened the public hearing. Ms. Mikels stated the Homeowners' Association planned to withdraw the appeal Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed approving MEnvira�ntal sAssesseenbseconded nd yYarlanee 88- 09opand� Resolutions Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88 -03 with modifications to require landscaping be approved by the city Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Motion carried by the following vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, IOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried J MOOIFICATIOW TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -19 - SIERRA VISTA BAPTIST C - A requesu w uucw -_ Base Line southeast corner of of Jasper previously a approved ittanCeu�t - APH ty located 13t tho Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report Chairman Mc Niel asked why the Water District would refuse to allow sumeone to landscape a small portion of their property Mr Buller responded that they prefer to work with another agency Comissfoner Rlakesley fell tie church should pay for the landscaping, no matter who performed the work. Mr abutted, stated that did the not abut this landscaping sectio Howe section this immediately was originally zoned residential, which would have included contribution to the City Beautificat'on Fun. Russ Maguire stated that the fee structure for the Beautification Fun is based on actua density an it would not be possible to calculate the lost fees He further stated that Beautification Fees would equate to much morn money than would actually be spent on the groundcover being planned / � Planning Loatuission Minutes -14- November 30, 1988 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCA 1ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 30, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 88 -09 - WHEELER AND WHEELER c 1,11q5e%-E 15 reduce ,e required pa ng se ac a cn9 Foothill Boulevard from SO feet to 40 feet and along Vineyard Avenue from 50 fee. to 43 feet for a retail center and service station in the Community rcial Foothill Boulevard Specific , located at the so he st cnerofoothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - AFW: 208.192 -06. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND C� USE PERMIT 8843 WHEELER AIM WhLEM re i cancer aria service s on totaling 4,416 square feet on 0.63 acres of land in the Comaanity Coemrcial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific plan, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN' 206-192 -06. BACKEROUND: On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission rev ere and approved the development of a gas station and retail building on this site. In ccnjunctlon with the approval of the Conditicnal Use Permit, the Planning Commission also approved a variance to reduce the parking ssiback along Foothill Boulevard free 50 feet to 40 feet and to reduce the parking setback along the south property line from 1S feet to 5 feet. Following the Planning Commission eaeting, an appeal was filed by representatives of the Villa paloma Condominium project stating their opposition to the project in the following areas: 1. The project would result in dangerous left turns from the site onto the southbound lanes of Vineyard Avenue. The setback variance along the southern bovndary perimeter permits higher Intensity use than would otherwise be permitted. / 0 PLANNING CO!MISSION RESOLUTION NO. YA88 -09, CUP88 -03 - WHEELER AND WHEELER November 30, 1988 Page 2 3. The setback ierlance atong the south boundry reduces the landscape buffer between commercial and residential uses. Light and noise spill -over effects a,md be acceptable with the standard setback The visual auffer would be acceptable with proper landscaping in the standard setback area. 4. The trash enclosure located next to the residential property will create visual and odor nuisances. The proposed relocation of the perimeter wall along the street frontage of the Villa Palo= Condominium project will reduce their usable area in private patios and reduce the landscape transition/buffer between living units and the perimeter wall. Following the filing of the appeal with the City Council, two meetings have been conducted with representat'ves of the applicant, the appellant, and City staff to discuss various alternatives to resolve the concerns of the Villa Paloma Condominium residents. Based on the outcome of these meetings, a revised plan has bean provided which seems to address the concerns of both parties. The revised plans, however, require a variance to be granted for the parking setback along Vineyard Avenue which was rot previously discussed by the Planning Conission. As a result, the City Council continued the public hearing on the appeal to the December 7th meeting to order to allow the Planning Commission to review the revised plans. II ANALYSIS: A. LANDSCAPED SETBACKS: The original plans reviewed by the ann ng ss on provided 8 parking spaces located along the south boundary or the project (see Ext.ibit 'D'). With the parking located in this area, a 5 foot landscaped setback was provided between the parking area and the perimeter wall for the Villa Paloma Condominiva project. To address the concerns of the Villa Paloma residents, 4 pa•allel, compact parking spaces are being proposed along the south boundary.(See Exhibit 'e'). This will provtdr a 14 foot landscape setback to buffer the proposed retail and gas station uses from the condominium project. in fact, with the use of compact spaces, the width of the parking stalls could be 9 feet (rather than 10 feat as shown) thus providing tte total 15 foot landscaped setback required by Code. Because of t:�e alignment of the stalls, however, the parking is encroaching into the required setback along Vineyard Avenue by 7 feet (43 feet provided versus 50 feet required). Whlle thq parking setback along Vineyard rn PLANNING Co"ISSION RESOLUMN NO. VA88 -09, CUPBS -03 - WHEELER AND WHEELER November 30, 1988 Page 3 Avenue does not meet the requirement of the Foothill Boulevard's Specific Plan, staff feels that the Intent of the activity center Is still being met with the plan proposed The existing wall to the south affectfvely blocks visibiM'y of this area. B. PARKINS SPACES: Inc original plan provided by the applicant indicated .a 1 parking spaces would be located on -site. The recent plan Indicates that 18 parking spaces will be provided for the retail and gas station use. The reduction of 3 parking spaces on site was based on an interpretation ride by staff regarding the parking requirements for the gasoline station. The Code requires that automobile serv'ce and gas stations provide 3 spaces plus 2 spaces for each service bay In that this is a self -serve gas station and the cashiers window and office 1s located within the retail space of Building B, staff determined thAt the parking for the gas station was being where herethe cashiers window would D for the mini- market e located. C. VINEYARD DRIVEWAY: Te other area of concern noted in the 1p—peai r&jards the turning movements from the Vineyard Avenue driveway, especially turning left into the southbound lanes. No restrictions were placed on left turn movements out of the driveway because the Engineering Division is of the opinion that the driveway will be -elf-regulated by the amount of traffic on Vineyard Avenue; that is, If the traffic volume is too heavy, drivers will not make the left turns. Also, southbound drivers on Vineyard Avenue will be more likely to make a left turn onto Foothill Boulevard with the loft turn phase of the signal and use the Foothill driveway rather than make a left turn into the Vineyard Avenue driveway across opposing traffic. If problems are experienced at the driveway man the future, the City will restrict the left turn movements by first signing and striping and secondly, If necessary, erecting a median barrier. A similar procedure will be followed if problems are experienced at the vineyard Avenue driveway for the Thomas W pry project to the north. D TRASH ENCLOSURE: The original plans submitted by the applicant TF-dMati-d—a-T-r—ash enclosure that abutted the wall of the Villa Paloma project. With the revised plans, the trash enclosure has been moved three (3) feet off the property line. With this adjustment, landscaping can be provided between the enclosure and the wall. In addition, the conditions of approval require a trellis to be provided over the enclosure. With these modifications, the i acts oche trash enclosure should be minimized. 7 Q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. VAGB -00. CUPBB -03 - WHEELER PAD WHEELER Noverber 30, 1988 Page 4 modifications, the impacts of the trash enclosure should be minimized. E. PERIMETER WALL: The final area of concern brought up by the VMa FaMtt residents was the relocation of the randominium projects perimeter wall along the vineyard Avenue frontage. In reviewing the plans, the perimeter wall will not have to be relocated in order to provide the right turn lane —Tor Foothill Boulevard. ;That is being requested, however, is a sidewalk easement In order to relocate the sidewalk away from the curb. In preliminary discussions with the appellants, it appears that this may be acceptable. If, however, the necessary easement cannot be obtained, the sidewalk would have to be cvi. adjacent. III. FACTS FOR I- INOINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve TFe .err ia'nco and the Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be made A. VARIANCE 1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code; and 2 That there arc exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the sam zone; and 3 That strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone; and 4. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone; and 5 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Footniil Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (DG 161 PLANNING CDWiS3I0M RESU.ulION No. VABB -09, CUP88 -03 - LMEELEC AND KNEELER November 30, 1988 Page 5 T. That the proposed use, together with the -,onditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements In the vicinity; and 3 That the proposed used compllws with each of the applicable provisions cf the Foo0ill Boulevard Specific Plan. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has bean advertised in the Daily Report newspaper as Public !leering and notices were sent to a proper cwners within 300 feet. V. RECOIMENOATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission cons er a public input. After receiving all testimony, staff recommends ttlat the Planning Commission approve Variance 68 -09 and CWPMionall )Vse Permit 88 -03 through adoption of the attached Brad Bu11 / ragep City P1 mer Attachments: Exntbit 'A' - Revised Area Plan Exhibit 'B' - Revised Site Plan Exhibit 'C' - Previous Area Plan Exhibit °D' - Previous Site Plan Resolution of Approval for Variance 6849 Resolution of Approval for Conditional use Permit 08 -03 /Q7 s.� L 1 • n :C._ W 1 T • M _ � � ��7 i 1 51 -� c 1 ' I li• Iii = >�' _J3 �-LZ. � I j i I 7. .may_•. !il• 3AV CLVA3NAy1 . <•.lI1: . —_. ` I CITY (F ME.M111 RA.NCI IO CTrC -k-\K?NG-k Tm.F AamrEa Ag!�4 Ae-4,v PLANNING DIVISICh E\HINT A SL ALL � .......•�, i ' Ilia �. ,._,� - •�•„ I. ! •f•. fI � . I Ir 11' ^ .�? ' a ..'sr•e,'I I '. 1� • i f lrr„ '1�rrr1-1'71 q _ ,_ c III - t -V— - _•� �F :C r... /0O VORiH CITY (TC rrEsv �czz�q�_aq RA:*4- -T p CC'+1:vi0I' C`xA T�� ��•sEO �� a as/ M-A.\`VING DIV6M EXHIBfi B SGCE �s� r' L( -7 O o� o , 0 M 's 7 3 II I .. ^... -, Ir-C 1 •Gi - � I II IA I IR anv GbYABfai Il� l f 1 !I r //o 1 r • r_ _ I l - r 1 l i } Ia CITY OF ITEM 4&AcAQ909_ R.1- C FK) CLC.1MONGA TITI F ��►' /OL4` I%4L°/JJ�4� F'I.A.W\G DIN GON L \FIIRIT _e,_ Li :l ii!�'lll�l III ... -.l ll i� �f•'� _ _'ti I lt�J�IS �wti -�/1 '.J 4 - I''!"r l�A•'''L� I11 /l .- >, T. I- ' ;OMOLM RUIxj 4 CANOPY "- \t )RTI CITE' Of f rrE\Il RANCHO CLC -XiiO'.\ -k TITI F PLAN \I\G DI\ LSI01\ E\HIR1T — 4X.�LL — � ta.a RESOLUTION NO. Fq- L-)fl A RESOLUTIGN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOAGA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 88 -03 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL CENTER AND SERVICE STATION TOTALING 4,416 SQIUUiE FEET ON 0.63 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMRINITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPEC71C PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND WING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (1) On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No 88 -175, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 88 -03, which provides for the construction of a retail center and service station on .63 acres within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2). (ii) The Planning Consmission's rpproval of the aoplication was timely appealed by adjoining residents to the City Council. (111) On November 2, 1988, the City Council conducted a d:iy noticed public hearing on the application and continued that hearing t.3 December 7, 1988 and referred the revised site plans to the Planning Commission for review to cidress the appelant's concerns. (1v) On hovember 30, 1Y88, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. After concluding said hearing, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88 -175A, modifying the original approval to address the concerns of the appellants (v) The original appeal was suhsequently withdrawn by the adjacent residents. NO The modification to the Conditional Use Permit was, however, appealed by the lease holders of the Red Hill Liquor Store within the time limits prescribed by Cit.) Ordinance. (vii) On January 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. (viii) All legal prerequl sites to the adoptior of this Resolution have occurred 0 Resolution NON, THEREFORE, it 1s hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1 This Coancll hereby specifically finds that all of the f•_, set forth in the Recitals, Part A, /of 1this Resolution are true and corn / i CITY COUKIL RESOLUTION N0. CUP 88-03 - WHEELER d WHEELER f.RCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 2 2. Dsed during the aboveere orenced�publicihearingeoneJanuary t4, 1989, i including written and oral staff reports, togeti+er with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds ppas follows: satheast corner, of oothf1I Boulevardpcod Vineyard Avenue with atwidth of 151 feet and a depth of 183 property and 1s presontly undeveloped; and designated for commercialruses and Ir east of is The property to the west is designated for wmmercial uses and is vacant. The property to the south 1s designated for res'dentlal uses and is developed with condominiums. recommended conditions of approval,tcompiiespwith lall minimum developmenthe standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and (d) The development of a 4,416 squaw foot retail center and service station 1s consistent with the comnorclal designation of the General Plan 3. during the above-referenced public thearing eand eupon pthe especific tfindingscof facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and ee•neludes as follows: le Mreposed e accord with the General pn, the objectives afthF th BulevardSpecificPlan, o d the purposes of the district in which the site 1s located. (b) That he reposed applicable thereto, will not go letrimentalt to g oetherPubiiciheal h,isafety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable Provisions of the Footh'li Boulevard Specific Plan. 4 This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered to conpl'ance with the California Environmental Quality Act or 1910 and, further, this Council hereby issues a Wgctive Ceclarttion. S. Base 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commissiongherebycapprovesntheeappll ationpsubjecth to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and inc orpolated herein by this reference. CITY COUNCIL REVOLUTION NO. CUP 80-03 - UNEELER d WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 3 A. Planning Division 1. The site shall be deve.oped and maintainel in accordance with the approved site plan, which includes architectural elevations, exterior material and colors, landscaping and grading on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Foothill Ooulevard Specific Plan regulations. 2 Tha design of a Uniform Sign Program shall compliment the architectural program. The sign pro gram shall include all on -site signage including monument signs, wall signs, directional signago, service station signs, etc. Th Program o Uniform Sign Prram shall be subject to approval of the Planning Coimaission prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Trash collation shall occur between the hours of 9:00 A.m and 10:00 p.m. daily. 4. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. S. The entire site shall be kept free of tray d debris at all times, and Jr, no event shall trash and debris rem. , for Dore than twenty - four (24) hours. 6. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to c ly with the following standards, which shall be incorporated into the Declaration sc Grants of Easements shall be retarded prior to any lease agreemenorlotse ageementson site. a Noise Levels: All convaercial activities. shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 6D dBA during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 10 :00 p.m. b. Loadingg and Unloading: No person shalt cause the loading, ,mtoading, ripening, closing, or other handling of boxes. crates, containers, building materials, 9 g o cans. or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise specified herein, to a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. All street furniture including benches, trash receptacles, light fixtures, etc., sha13 be of a traditional design to blend with the architecture. Sample designs and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. / � / CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION A'0. CUP 88-03 - WHEELER 3 WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 4 8. Additional tree wells shall be provided on the south side of Building "B ". The tree loa:ations, typ., and size shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The trash enclosure design shad have edestrian access, roll - up /overhead doors, trellises, and overhead screening to prevent trash from blaring off. The c'esign shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The hardscape and softscapo trea'r -Ilt along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue shall br consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan including. but not limited to, the following: a. Placement, type, and size of trees; and b. Use of pavers as an accent at the coh,er and as sanding and borders for the sidewalks; and C. Design of tree well grates. 11. The final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issurnce of building permits. 12 Extensive landscaping, including densely planted evergreen trees, shall be provided along the south boundary. The species, size, and spacing of tlhm trees shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 13. Conditioh :al Use Permit 88 -03 is contingent upon approval of Varianca Sri -09. 14. The three billboard, shall be removed. 15. All rock to be used in the project shall be native stone. 16 The parking stalls along the south boundary shall be redesigned to be 9 feet in depth, thus providing a 15 foot landscape setback. B. Engineering Division I The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for 66 XV electrical) on the project side of Vineyard Avenue and along the south project boundary shall be underground prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, wihicheve, occurs first as follows: a Vineyard Avenue - from the first pole cputh of *he south project boundary to the first pole on the nortn side of Foothill Boulevard. //-5— CITY COUNCIL RESOLUiI0;1 NO. CUP P8-03 - WHEELER d WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4. 1989 Page 5 b. South Project Boundary - from the pole at the west project boundary to the first pole east of the east project boundary. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to ret)ver one - half the Ci v adopted cost for undergrounding from future developmentilredevetopmmant) as it occurs on the opposite side of Vineyard Avenue and the property south of the project site. 2. P.elocation and modification, as necessary , of the traffic signal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. Provide necessary right -of -way and construct right turn lanes on Vineyard Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engines. 4. An fn -lieu fee for one -half the cost of the construction including landscaping and irrigation for the median island within Foothill Boulevard and for one - fourth the cost of constructinn of the special pavers to be placed within the roadway at the intersections of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. The fee for the median Island shall be based on the length of the project's Foothill Boulevard frontage. The fee for the special pavers shall be based on the square foottge of the intersection. 5 The developer shall coordin.te with the developer of the Thomas Winery project for the constructs ,)n of intersection improvements including relocation of the traffic signal so that the improvements can be completed as a single project. 6. The decorative pavement to be cnnstnrcted within the public right - of -way shall be subject to the spprovai of the City Engineer. 7 The developer shall obtain a right -of -entry for driveway removal and park-ng lot reconstruction from the property owner to the east prior to the issuance of any permits. 8 Drainage facilities to protect the site from dratnaye to the north within Vineyard Avenue shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to public improvements acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. 9 The drive approach on Vineyard Avenue shall be reduced to a width of 35 feet at the right- of -wdy line. //(0 - | �E. 1|g f ! l ! l `cf� ■ 1 ■� ci2R | � # 9| � � � & , :� |! |# | |h si` | 13% �2� ■ it j F § �e!!a, |• |� \ | f | | | | q UP'S �1��.�� ■| w!:! 22�ts aa,l�p| \r ��� /�| I $ §� S i ��! } |. || |f I p` $ e � Ria E r ��FY U1111 = _ :arEgq =1FY tt.¢f F�cle�f cFrp ttsr rk t-�SP r frjFic$F[ E EFAF; F; ! FE `rS� erE; ii E1E ;elf s��i[ x I RE pp3 t`: � E fff i F�t�cii�.kf =cri r :cE c. ji 7F - e !E ri aFF s" 'IJI i £1 t=4 -ro ! , is NSF n6 Fsi= - ^i- Ij� cEa cj_ it F ft FEFi sa8! �_ d-� =s cxE! `a Er Beat rdpcs FIRS S PA= c F tg; fc g " -Sa >t,FAFcP?r'$tEc #.gr =tr scE at N r FailkFr i3 5 � f£ R F!L t gc,Q cfaS1ij Mir �E�£'3 =° sA � x =E =�E I s� FlIji if mil ei E ce �33i Iz=, t£tgiir =E e { gs Lek rE� iii rLipF'I r 'I -eS °ee~ .c S tE I dE rrt I , = -FE ccI s R, pllirPj ir£a tE FfE£i I a i C a-��li ' R -t -Ei' R -�R ti `a tt _ �E e��i , ad� i�Sr Er ti r.EsH r�as r >E r _ •a " F F f 1�i N P "t� ctPFA r =rt 9 �EF c c aF tE:t E FEr �r_°f �naF„aiii saE� 'FCC � w Fel_ ,EEa F- i ;if ff�a Ei s E E Ott t f cif tr tc tl�xE =F E i g E F i t � �t. �Fe $=R j Eg aF �ttfsa i� lot �t�cg -c- E E if t i, t'- Eef'i= �vY4 c tEZf c �a t HE �t F ,� }•� ���" ii f �F � c E^ e� ap Ea-j �E E if� #�i f f W pEE c�Ell EYr IF [QN1 it all! y Fi;g _t[ _Fgss Wfi Fs� F c fi Rd S.tQ=E 3i E F old Ir\ ! \ 't\ '.\ I. I TH lic a OIL i d 4t t� x L tit IF EEg{ it t ,t wt .e r its flat teas 2 I� or/?f!, i aeE' a x e ;Ex Rehr w;, if= yj c! a�t P• w I` _ € Ir I� I�� I� I_ I� I_ I•� e 1_„ piI f�8 F• E g r � ��'�': R .141 :.EE o seE 'SSd gNEI ff- jgR a E Exx sC ! a qu i'� E� tI + itE Eli fE y s� qE? 3�� cs x t { ;E iLEi` 'FR a� � � is i- 3�Sc Epe * fill- ogle a r - r R E3 =r 3 t IM U.-Ft •� � FIN! inlg :i [Eta ` ° -- i8 ! Nt ifija! 6 S: w F @ t .�Q! � �af _� �df $! €3 e i�J ftR t ee it �g ii11? Piiti tiff si xqI$ sr c F nc i�lt[ jib sEp fit tip ! aat& Ei s lyf �g• lit _ts jj� -Fr a[ ii E! P_r5 xP. f �{{ 3 It 3aB =? s °a_5 v_F aa[i ' fic Fia-: iF=3 E3 fYJ [ l'i a$ g fH3s ! rF f ss:s "1r %_ ��`Gs t� it st.I R ra E lit sliFJfl �RYc -, II eft j%Ij Elf rt`E [ fs �r� E I t 5 [x it. w R f ! • [` is fYa ; :I�:r y5ic� of =; fin 3 E wt fE fr S�FR Egli F ;i Ink JIN fv � � it R I ° I 13 ii �EEt n E Ei g`I i i� a � r r �6R QHE fFid r r r� 1��� s it it sF I I� IY I• IY f< I- � tittt�[ iREs Be Fft kit c 'fie r c€ 4 R a q�—� s e icr e .{ 7t F s i [— � tfiR a 9 c' •i�tc''F 5�r 3 iac? i F fl °c s ^Sidi caf a.a py Irv, p�*e a TZ w lit ! ! r � jR _t[j Frd A A3: j t t phi:? ill ss ss RR I— F r hill lit it Rill A ��, on � S� -i Apr rjt Fi A % �A t fs at !c'r it s . P I I I I I Q r r i rif 'r A! rk k r n Pt 41 J3 1 c` 3 Eo + R d al T =P P Err vin ell ass. a e i = cs�Fe FE s { a! F ell r� " E i e r ,': r P 1_ °FF p= lit FMS iFr- = Prr,a i % �� /�./ � ` • -. _ , �a � 11 | � • i. / k( | \�f� �h■9�| ��! #_� § \ ft f� Pa �... f UF H |A\ �1 Ir f h� I F ' tr I / � \ ■ d� f'!| 7� � it Ulf f . -: E # , � \ \f q ■ 7 � \ � RESOLl1TION N0. g J- �($ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RA.WHO CUCAMONGA AP7ROVING VARIANCE NO. 88 -09 TO REDUCE THE 50 FEET T040 FEET�AX) ALONG FOOTHILL AVENIU," BOULEVARD 50N FEET TO 43 FEET FOR it RETAIL CENTER AHD SERVICE STATION IN THE COMMUNITY CG411ERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THC SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING F:NDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. (1) On September 11, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88 -174, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, a variance to reduce the requirec parking setback along Foothill Boulevard from 50 feet to 40 feet and along the south property lire from 15 feet to 5 feet for a retail canter and service station in the Coemun'ty Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Doulevard Specific Plan. III) The Planning Coamtssion's approval of the application was timely apocaled by adjoining residents to the City Council. (111) On November 2, 1988, the City Council conducted a Ouly noticed public hearing on the application and continued that hearing to December 7, 1988 and referred th_ revised site plans to the Planning Commission for review to address the appellant's concerns. (iv) On November 30, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. After concluding said hearing, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88 -174A, codifying the original approval to address the concerns of the appelants. residents. (v) The original ap)eal was subsequently withdrawn by the adjacent (vi) The vodification to the Variance was, however, appealed by the lease holders of the Red Hill Liquor Store within the time limits prescribed by City Ordinance (v11) On January 4, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. B Resolution NOW THEREFORE, it is iereby found, determine! and resolved by the City Council of the City of Ran:ho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council her,!by specifically finds ':hat all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. /d V CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AO. VARIANCE NO. 88 -09 - WHEELER 8 WHEELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1909 Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council wring the above - referenced public hearing on January 4, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testiangy, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) lire appplication applies to property located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vinelard Avenue with a width of 151 feet and a depth of 183 feet and is presently undeveloped; and (b) The property to the north and east is designated for commercial uses and is developed with comvrcial buildings. The property to the west is designated for eomsercial uses and is vacant. Thc property to the south is designated for residential uses and is developed with condomint ns. (c) Due to the small sim of the parcel with the limited points of access, it is essential to provide adequate buffering between the proposed retail and service station uses and the residential use to the south. In order to achieve the desired buffering, the Parking is aligned in such a manner that it results in an encroachment into the Vineyard Avenue setback. 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 and concluies as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development code and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intendea use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) -That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or oat:rially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity 1) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE NO. 88 -09 - WHEELER 6 Wh£ELER ARCHITECTS January 4, 1989 Page 3 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, ° and 3 above, this Counell hereby approves the application. /j I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 4, 1989 Kayor and Members of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner The planning Commission recommends that the City appeal requesting the deletion of a condition ,tallatian of landscaping and irrigation or the a fee, in -ileu of construction, for the ndscaping along the Base Line Road frontage If, Council determines that the condition is not is Instance, a Resolution deleting the condition fo• your adoption On July 22, 1987, the Planning Comas! aster Plan for a church facility cons ce building, classroom building, approving the project, the Planning e requirement for the undergrounc sties in oroer to put more eomhasif two conditions were placed on the d g landscaping to be provided along ndaries. The intent of these Condit se areas which wsuld be visible from Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant contacted the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District about installing the landscaping on the District's pr perty located between the south boundary of the church and the Base Line right -of -way. At that time, the District indicated that they are not willing to work with individual developers. Staff has been in contact with representatives of the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and confirmed that the District, while not willing to work with individual developers, may be receptive to working with the City as part of the Base Line Road beautification project Staff will continue to pursue the inclusion cf this site as part of the 10)-7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RE: CUP 87 -19 January 4, 1989 Page 2 beautification of Base Line Road with the Water District. At this time however, funds are not available to install no landscaping on the Water District's property. Therefore, the Planning commission required the church to other install the landscaping or c Due to '.heir inability to enter onto he Water District's property isdrequesting ae modification^tocdelete this requirement. equirementtist Church III. S On November lnph P^o Commission nc �ic hering h recere iut the prposeddeletionofthe landscape requirements along Base Line Road and the west boundary. After considering all input, the Planning Commission determined that the main focus of the landscaping should be placed along he Water District's property between the church and Base Line Rod boundaryaofathe dproject,tcurrenttlly ~eundcr the Jurisdictionh w of the Flood Control District. Due to he church's Inability to enter the Water District property, the Planning Commission modified their original approval to allow he church to either install the landscaping construction, and for the Irrigation Improvements in that fee, in -lieu of area. In requiring the iasta`lation of landscaping or the contribution of the fee, the Planning tommission noted that several other projects have been required to other agencies' td -lieu of property install landscaping or a xir Examples include, but art not limited to, the following: A. The project at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and 24th Street was property alongtthe southaside of Metropolitan Streets Nateh [hlstrict's B The projects 1Gated at he southeast and southwest corners of Milliken and Banyan Wert required to install landscaping and a Community Trail along ho south side of Banyan currently within the Metropolitan Water District easement. In fact, the project at the southwest corner of Banyan and Milliken was required to purchase the pr required landscaping. perya Metropolitan Water District and then C Industrial project lorated in close proximity to Interstate 15 In-lieu Of have tically construction, 'or athe efuture in contribute stallat on of landscaping and irrigation along the freeway right -of -way. l,�$ } Y V. CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE: CUP 87 -19 January 4, :989 Page 3 IY. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing n e a �epo�r_t newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners w n i6•UTeet of the site. 4eq ly s d .+' BCr BB:SM :ko Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Appeal " Exhibit "B" - november 30, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit "C" - Planning Coamission Resolution Exhibit "D" - November 30, 1988 Planning Comaiss•lor Staff Report Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval /J9 albw LLVYWI //�� ���� V V� nCllun �. nti-lavcwu IIIMVCIMII 1 �� i.IAWM MCO`Y n.1Y� �„ an,wb buol,r win wnl r .rll.o cuwlxu wn. CITY OF Fli. : :a ? Dece'ater 8.1988 DEC 09 1333 aq lye .4, city of Rancho Cucamonga 7181sI�IuI�IT12131!1�16 ro R.O. Box 807 i i' Rancho Cucamonga,CA. X1730 i 1b whom it may concern: T Ile world like to request being on the agenda for the next regular meeting of the City Council. " Our purpose is to appeal a decision mace by the planning commis- sion related to our contribution to the beautification of the property cvnod by the San Gabriel Valley Hater District. Sincerely, (�CL1LdEi �1� CC�i2Ct.. Elinor Stallard, Moderator ES /3c Chairman McWiel stated that one of the objectives of the Foothill Boulevard hazards PThfswSometimes required smailer parcels toesha eedriveays traffic itemBwould be returned the o cityaCouncil unlessci the w active appellants withdrew the appeal. Chairman Mc Niel reopened the public hearing Ms. Mikels stated the Homeowners' Association planned to withdraw the appeal. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Tolstoy to adopt the Resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Variance 88 -09 and Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 80 -03 with modfrtcations to require landscaping e approved by t the fCity Planner prior to issuance of building permits. AYES c0%e "SSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSfOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried f 0 4 R t J MOOIFICATI0V TO CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 87 -19 - SIERRA VISTA BAPTIST CHURCH request o delete Eel a n con al Elons per a m ng an scap ng a ong lase Line Roau '.nr a previously approved church facility located at the southwest corner of Jasper Street and Lomita Court - APR: 202 - 020 -13 Brad Buller, city Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Mc Niel asked wily the Water District would refuse to allow someone to landscape a small portion of their property. Mr Buller responded that they prefer to work with another agency. Commissioner Blakesley felt the church should pay for the landscaping, no matter who performed the work Mr Buller stated that the church was landscaping streets they immediately abuttd criginallybu onederesidential, abut section Incl Included However, area to the City Beautification Fund Russ Maguire stated that the fee structure for the Beautification Fund is based on actual der-ity and it would not be possible to calculate the lost fees lie further stated that Beautification Fees would equate to much more money than would actaally be spent on the groundcover being planned /.31 Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 30, 1988 Chairman Mckiel opened the public hearing. Clark Lewis, P.56 Berkeley Court, Ontario, Chairman of the Church Board of Trustees, appreciated the work that the staff had done. He agreed the former conditions should be eliminated. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Coamissioner Blakesley supported the first part of the modification but felt condition 10 should be reworded to have them co,.trlbute to the Beautification Fund. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated there was no formula to calculate the fees. Chairman McNiel asked If there was a commitment from he water company that they would install and maintain the landscaping Hr Maguire stated a fee contribution, in lieu of construction, could be set up as a condition The actual cost of the construction could be detemined after working with the water company, and the City would be maintaining the landscaping. 8111 Silva, Deputy City Engineer, suggested modifying condition 10 to require the applicant to install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute to the future City beautification project. Motion Moved by Blakesley' seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution approving Modlflcatlun to Conditional Use Permit 87 -19 with modification of condition 10 to require the applicant to install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute to future beautification Motion carried by the following vote AYES COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHIT:EA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, 1OLSTOY NOES. COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS NONE - carried M + f + + K ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 87 -01 - HARRY C'S - A consideration to modify, suspen , or revo a an entertainment Permit granted for a disc Jockey doing vocals and playing records nightly in ranjunttfon with a restaurant /night club, located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard L ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 88-01 - HARRY C'S - A request to conduct live comedy ac s. spor s ce e . ties promoting sports teams, lip -sync contests, hai,- and clothing fashion shows, and a request to continue 'disc jockey' doing vocals and playing records nightly 1n conjunction with a restaurant /night club, located at 10877 Foothill Boulevard Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 30, 1988 RESOLUTION N0. 87 -128A A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFYING COIDITIONAL USe PERMIT N0. 87 -19, FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHURCH FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHHEST CORNER OF JASPER STREET AND LOMITA COURT - APN: 202 - 026 -13 A. Recitals. (1) Sierra Vista Baptist Church has filed an application for a modification to Conditional Use Pera't No. 81 -19 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter In this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit t iffication is referred to as 'the application' (11) On the 30th of November, City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a d 1988, the Planning Coaraisslon of the uly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it 1s hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on November 30, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property at the southwest corner of Jasper Street and Lao :ta Court with street frontages of 270 feet along Lomita Court, 575 feet along Jasper Street, and 325 feet along Sierra Vista Street, and is presently developed with the church administrative office, and residential uses )and smdevelopedywit a th single f ilydresidences desThe property to the west 1s designated for and developed with flood control facilities. The property to the south is owned and operated by the San Gabriel Vailey Municipal Water District, and (c) The conditions requiring the installation of landscaping between the south property line of the churcn site and the Base Line Road right -of -way would require the applicant to landscape property not within their control and outside of their ability to obtain permission from the property owner / 3 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 87 -128A CUP 87 -19 - SIER -- VISTA BAPTIST CHURCH November 30, 198 - Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission curing 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 the proposed modification is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site 1s located. (b) That the proposed modification, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safaty, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity (c) That the proposed modification complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application by deleting condition number 6 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 -128, and modifying condition number 10 to read as follows: 10 The applicant shall either install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute, in lieu of construction, to the future City beautification project, for the area between the church property and Base Line Road. The area shall be annexed into the City Landscape Hafnterance District. Also, additional dedication for the landscaped area to be maintained by the City may be required. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1988. PLANNING CONMYSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST /3 J PLANNING COMMISSI6H RESOLUTION NO. 87.128A CUP 87 -19 - SIER— VISTA BAPTIST CHURCH November 30, Ig& Page 3 Cucamonga' darhereby certify Lthatitheinforc4ngiResolutl nCwas dulyanand City oflRan ho Cucamona. at passed, adopted of 2heaPlannfrg Commission held on the 30ti day of November, 1988, by the following vote_to -wit, AYES: CONl1ISSIONERS: BL- KESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: C"ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMIISSIONERS: NONE i 3S CITY OF P.ANCHO CUCATIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Noveater 30, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -19 - SIERRA reques o e e cer a n conditions per n ng to landscaping along Base Line Road for a previously approved church facility located at the southwest corner of Jasper Street and Lomita Court - APN: 202- 026 -13. BACKGROUND: on July 22, 1987, the Planning Comrmission reviewed and .,pprvea Master Plan for a church facility consisting o` a worship center, office building, classroom building, and mul%.'- Cnbuilding. approving development the Planning Commission placed two conditions on the of thesit requiring landscaping to be provided between the church's south boundary anJ the right- of-way for Base Lire Road. These conditions were are follows: 1. Extensive landscaping shalt be provided along the south and west Line Raad curb face to soften the impacts ofut the retalning wall and buildings from Base Line Road; and 2 The applicant shall obtain approval from the San Gabriel Valley 14uniclpal Water District and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to landscape the area between the church property and Base Line Road with Phase I and either install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute to the future City beautification project for the area. The area shall be annexed into the City Landscape Maintenance District. Also, additional dedication for the landscaped area to be maintained by the City may be required. The intent of the conditions was to fully landscape the 35 by 150 foot strip between the church property and Base Line Road that is currently under the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the San Gabriel Valley tiunicipal Water District In its present state, only a portion of this area 1s landscaped. / 3 PLANNING c"ISSIO" STAFF REPORT i CUP 87 -19 - SIERRI. .STA BAPTIST CHURCH •. November 30, 1988 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: The applicant has indicated that they have been in the District has Gabriel are not willing tosworktwith Individual developers. Because of this, the applicant does not have the ability to enter onto the Water District property and install the requl•rd landscaping. As a result, the applicant is unable to rulfill the conditions of approval and is requesting a modification to delete these requirements. Staff has met with the applicant and discussed the matter with the San Gabriel Valley Municipal 'gater District. Based on these conversations, the Water District has indicated that, while not willing to work with the individual developers, the Districts may be receptive to working with the City as part of the Base Line Road beautification stic Staff sascorrespondence o the W District requesting that this issue beplc dupon the next available agenda for the Water Board to discuss At this time, no date has been established to discuss this item. Staff Is, however, in the process of preparing working drawings for the Base Line Road beautification and will continue to beautification of Bases inclusion of Line Road The Condition of Approval also requires the applicant to contact the San Bernardino County Flood Control District about landscaping their property. At present, the Flood Control District property is wasdpiaced on as a District property t emphasis te east on landscaping I[I CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing In e a y eport newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners wiiF ni— 'iDD -f"eet of the site. Commission IV appprove 5e moalfication�to Conditl nalt Use ePermit 87 19 deleting the requirements for landscaping the Base Line Road frontage area through adoption of the attached Resolution In addition, staff should be directed to pursue the beautification of this area with the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District as part of the beautification project for Base Line Read. Respectfully submitted, /Brad Buller City Planner BB :SM:mlg / 7 PLANNING coIMISSIO'+ STAFF REPORT CUP 87 -19 - SIERR# ,, 1STA B9PTIST CHURCII November 30, 1988," Page 3 Attcchments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from the Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Flap Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Resolution for the Modification to Conditional Use Permit 87 -I9 /3? Attention: Mr Brad Bueller, In response to our meeting on Nov. 2,1988 and your telecon with Mr. Bill hhitesides at San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, we are requesting the following amend- ment to our resolution No. 87 -128. Section 3: COP N0. 87 -19 Planting Division: Ite 6. Delete requirement for church to landscape property not owned by the church between church property lines and Base Lino curb face. Item 10. Delete requirement. Reasons for this requested amendment are as follows: 1 The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District has refused to deal with us 2. They feel that it is not the church's responsibility to landscape their property. 3 They have indicated a willingness to improve the landscaping of their property if the city would approach them with a request 4 The church's south property line does not abut the San Bernardino County Flood Control District property only the San Gabriel Municipal Water District property. We would appreciate that this matter be heard at the first possible Planning Co ission 5-..-y� ARCHIT'ECT'S FEOfRING OF OUR F MTRE BUILDING W A "•IY W.WIf 4C.ILLfr rtKl dwdw / ���{'Xn�.�•�� Ir4Uf I IVVV1 VIV I•I nqr� fICO+D.HXY }y rlir C Cy1 V fY.•.f0 C4.Mw f.r.) fy1 r {rt.•d C4.CIw fryY November 7,1983 - — r _ City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Base Line Rd. Rancho Cucamonga,CA. 91730 ' 3 i.::,i Planning Department +� i Subject: sierra Vista Baptiot Church Resolution No. 87 -128 Attention: Mr Brad Bueller, In response to our meeting on Nov. 2,1988 and your telecon with Mr. Bill hhitesides at San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, we are requesting the following amend- ment to our resolution No. 87 -128. Section 3: COP N0. 87 -19 Planting Division: Ite 6. Delete requirement for church to landscape property not owned by the church between church property lines and Base Lino curb face. Item 10. Delete requirement. Reasons for this requested amendment are as follows: 1 The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District has refused to deal with us 2. They feel that it is not the church's responsibility to landscape their property. 3 They have indicated a willingness to improve the landscaping of their property if the city would approach them with a request 4 The church's south property line does not abut the San Bernardino County Flood Control District property only the San Gabriel Municipal Water District property. We would appreciate that this matter be heard at the first possible Planning Co ission 5-..-y� ARCHIT'ECT'S FEOfRING OF OUR F MTRE BUILDING meeting. P.m* you for your cooperation and conside ration. Sierra vista Baptist Church 3ww-� A Elinor Stallard, Moderator l qc I It tiJ�l in ....... CITY (T / i RAN K) CUCAINKX*�GA PL&NINING MOON 3 V v NORTH /ian .Iq /yUp ITEM TITLE. _ GQC/fT /0,A/ IW O EXHIBIT' -ALE% - 0 a CITY OF RA:•CHO CUCA�jGA PLANNING DIVLSX)N G� NORTH rrF I. V-/9 ti/ao FXHIISIT -/ SGgLE,�__ CITY OF /�/3 RANCHO CUC1%IONCA PLANNING DIVISION TIT1E _�E �4,t� EXHIBR C'? SCALE- NOKrH RESOLUTION N0. Z'9- o J tQ A RESOLUTION OF THE CIl 'OUNCIL OF THE CITY Or RANCHO Cucmoiiii, CALIFORNIA, WiilNO A REQUEST TO DELETE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -:q PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPING ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED C19JRCII LOCATLD AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JASPER STREET AND LOMITA COURT A. Recitals. (1) Sierra Vista Baptist Church has filed an application for a moofflcation to Conditional Us., Permit No. 87 -19 as described in the title of this Resolution. hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit modification is refarred to as 'the application'. (ii) On the 30th of Noverber, 1988, the Planning Commission of the C.ty of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the applicatiop. After receiving all publrc input and concluding said hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Celetion of Conditica No. 6 and the modification of Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. 87 -128 to either install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute, in -lieu of construction, to the future City beautification project. (111) The applicant has filed a timely appeal of the application request. (iv) On January 4, 1909, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive input on the appeal and concluded said hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been occurred. P. 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 all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on January 4, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property at the southwest corner of Jasper Street and Lomita Court with street frontages of 270 feat along Lomita Court 575 feet along Jasper Street, and 325 feet along Sierra Vista i Street, and s presently developed with the church administrative office, and i'/� CITY COUNCIL RESOLD; ;O:t No. Rf.: CUP 87 -19 January 4, 1989 Page 2 (b) The property to the north and east is designated for residential uses ;nd is developed with single tastily residences. The property to the west is designated for and developed with flood control facilities. The property to the south is owned and operated by the San Gabriel Valley Nunicipal Water District, and 128A, that the developereitherninstallethealandsc piinngsandnirrigation or contribute, in -lieu of construction, to the future beautification project for Base Line Road, remains an important and necessary condition. 3. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above referenced public hearing and the conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Council hereby approves the application subject to vie conditions set forth in Resolution pis. 87 -128 and as amended by Resolution No. 87 -128A. / P 21 RCSOLUr10N NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, B- A— MOafyia.;c,f COMMON OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -19 PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPING ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHURCH LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JASPER STREET AND LMITA COURT A. Recitals. (t) Sierra Vista Baptist Ci::rch has filed an apcciicatlon for a modification to Conditional Use Permit Ila. 87 -19 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Ilse Permit modification is referred to as "the application ". (11) On the 30th of November, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of RAnchu Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. After receiving all public input and concluding said hearing, the Planning Commission approved the deletion of Condition No. 6 and the modification of Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. 87 -128 to either install the landscaping and irrigation or contribute, in -lieu of construction, to the future City beautification project. request. (IiI) The applicant hrs filed a timely appeal of the application (tv) On January 4, 1989, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receife input on the appeal and concluded said hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have been 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 all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Fait 4, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 Based upon substantial evldlnce presented to this Council during the abcve- referenced public hearing on January 4, 1989, Including written and oral staff reports, togetner with public tastimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property at the southwest corner of Jasper Street and Lomita Court with street frontages of 270 feet along Laafta Court, 575 feet along Jasper Street, and 325 feet along Sierra Vista Street, and is presently developed with the church administrative office, and CITY C70NCIL RESOLUTION ?A. RE: CUP 87 -19 January 4, 1989 Page 2 r 4aysC{q�!QNt P .�• � .. - � =✓scc/ -TtfE cr/ai�/ f���S'- fy_c',o_ �ii� - .. -..�. Y; -- /s Also, additional dedication for the landscaped area to be maintained by the City may be required. j� (b) The property to the north and east is designated for single family residences. The property residential uses and is developed with to the west is designated for and developed with flood control facilities. and operated by the San Gabriel Valley --�- The property Is owned - s. District, S �_ -- (c) The requirement of the Planning Commission Resolution 87_ landscaping and irrigation or 128A, that the developer either install the in of construction, to the future Deauttfication project for _ ;a contribute i -lieu Base Line eOaa�de, remains an important and necessary condition. 7,ie �rWI.vs 6f' �1�6s iiT7_42— C''GH //�IBUf /GCi -bVCyP •/- � P- . r "- - 3. Based on the substantial evidence Presented to this Council f hearing and the conclusions set forth in �•--•-- -�-r = - - -� '• during the above referenced public 1 and 2 abovvee thhis Council herebyAtQGV_.�rIES paraggrlaphs -�l A'E%fb..._. j r 4aysC{q�!QNt P .�• � .. - � =✓scc/ -TtfE cr/ai�/ f���S'- fy_c',o_ �ii� - .. -..�. Y; -- /s Also, additional dedication for the landscaped area to be maintained by the City may be required. j� DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I. REC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 4, 1989 Mayor and llaabers of the City Council Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner II. BACKGROUND: The amen en o the services as a III request, the ap application reques the northeast corr of these requests 1 regular meeting of ssion recoonends that the City Plan Amend<went 88 -06. If the nce should be adopted. arty Ambulance, is requestl c Plan which would allow amb y permitted use within atiun. Concurrently with tted a Conditional Use ishment of an ambulance sery Avenue and the I -18 Freeway. y the Planning Connission at S: Currently, ambulance services are a R use In the General Commercial District c c Plan and are not permitted within any oth wanda Specific Plan. Only one small area on hill Boulevard, west of Etiwanda Avenue, is Commercial land use. The Office /Professional District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan allows various commercial uses such as business support services, financial, Insurance and real estate services, and medical - rvices. Restaurants and automotive service stations are nditionally permitted within the Office /Professional District. An ambulance service use would be of similar intensitj as the above l.sted uses In addition, it should be noted that Public Safety Facilities' which include ambulance services, are conditionally permitted in the Office/Professional designation in those areas elsewhere in the City governed by the Development Code. a�4l CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ESPA 86-05 January 4, 1989 Page 2 The applicant has pointed out to the Planning Coemission, that a location to the Ettwanda area 1s necessary in order to meot the Conditio minute response nal Use PermitprocessAf time. fords thePlanning Commission the the ability to review each project on a case by case basis regarding issues such as compatibility, access, screening and buffering. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In reviewing the proposed amendment, the ann ng an ss on determined that the following findings could be made: a. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment provides for the development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the district that 1s superior to development otherwise allowable :nder alternate regulations. b. That the proposed Specific Plan Mendaent provides for development within the district in the manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management of the City; and c. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment 1s consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Daily Report newspaper as a public hearing. - QIellyFttd, B6:BN:mtg Attachments: Minutes of November 30, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Staff Report Of November 30, 1988 Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval Ordinance Adopting Etlwanda Specific Plan Amendment 88 -C6 I Joe Muscola. 10536 Sunburst, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the house behind the proposed Londominiums. He asked if the condos would be one- or two -story and also asked if single family houses were being planned as one- or two -story. Mr. Thompson stated the single family houses would possioly be built next spring and would probably be two - story. Mr. Horner stated that the conceptual plan indicated two- story. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Chitfea requested that all wood fencing exposed to Public view be stained, as well as treated with a water sealant Motion Roved by Tolstoy' seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 13062 with amendments requiring a final acoustical report prior to issuance of building permits and staining of the exposed wood fencing. Motion carried by the following vote AYES COIt4ISSIONERe OLAXESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES COMTISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried C ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88 -06 - h.RCP AKooULAr - reques a ambulance sere ces as a co To y IT- permitted t use within the Office /Professional Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -37 - MERCY request es ao s an a u ante service a ng FIST squareTeot on 35 acres of land in the Office /Professional District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, located at 7649 Ettwanda Avenue - APN: 227- 191 -16 Beverly Nissen, Ass stant Planner, presentees the staff report Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing Dick Gleaner, L D King Engineers, state) the applicant agreed with the staff report with the exception of two items They would Tike to have provisions made for the parking of two ambulances on the premises They also wanted to delay he freeway lanascaping in lieu fee for five years Fred Beaux, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned why there were no provisions for employee parking Hearing no further testimony, the public hearino was closed Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 30, 1988 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not ob9ect to an ambulance service being established in the Office /Professional District, but felt it would be more appropriate to have it in a central location Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Don Reed, 9650 Apricot, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of Mercy Ambulance, stated this would be the third location in Rancho Cucamonga. He felt this location was appropriate to reach the Etiwanda area within the ten- minute City- mandated respoise time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he felt they would be able to reach Terra Vista and victoria within the required tiee limit. Mr. Reed stated he felt they would and he knew of no other available locations that they could afford. Hearing no further testimony, the public tearing was closed. Commissioner Chitiea felt parking for a second ambulance, could be added without a problem. Commissioner Emerick stated that the landscaping along the freeway had been discussed in Design Review and it had been pointed out that it would add value to the property. Commissioner Blakesley stated that if the operation was run as indicated, then he saw no need for employee parking to be added. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how much parking room would be availdble if two ambulances were stored at the location. He suggested a supervisor might want to visit the facility. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated there was room to park four vehicles Chairman HcNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Gleener asked if the freeway landscaping in -lieu fees would have to be paid up front. Mr Buller stated they general'y must be paid prior to issuance of building permits Mr Gleaner asked if the fees could be prorated over five year; Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed Mr Buller stated that it is the Position of staff that fees are paid at the point of issuance .. ^f building permits. He flit the applicant could aopeal that decision to the City Council. The Conditional Use Permit approval would not be final until the ar4endment on the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment was approved by City Co6:c11. /5/ Planning Comnission Minutes 4- November 30, 1996 Commissioner Chitiea asked why landscaping would not be installed immediately if fees were paid. - working had not sly t accepted that e y masterplanofalandscaping atndOtthe rCity does lnotshave pl �s or irrigation and maintenance Conditions available. He stated the City needs in provide a plan for Ca ?Trans to approve. Bill Silva, Deputy City Engineer, stated it had been proposed that CaiTrans allow individual developers to Install and irrigate their own se5wents, but CalTrans insists that the landscaping be done in large segments recoommendingv approval hofi Environmental Dits.;essment and Etiwan u da Specific Plan Amendment 88 -06. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, HCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE - carried Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Blakesley to adept the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 88 -37, with modifications to allow for two ambulances. Motion tarried by the following vote AYES: CDk4ISSIONERS BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS* TOLSTOY ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PAP.CEL MAP 11030 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A su v son o acres o a in parses m e errs ista Planned Community, located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APR: 1077- 421 -OE Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, presented the staff report He added wording to the Resolution to require that the traffic signal at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue be modified and upgraded. Chairman MCNiel opened the puolic hearing. Ralph DeMArco, applicant, stated he was available to answer questions Commissioner Blakesley asked why Parcel 11 was not split into a parcel for Major 3 and another for Major 4. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 30, 1988 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE. November 30, 1988 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad B.11er, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIMANDA SPECIFIC PLAN MLROMEMI H-06 -- MUCT NiBL?IpA't^ reques o ala Ambulance ry ces as a cn ona y Dermttted use within the Office /Professional Districts of the Etlwanda Specific Plan. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 88 -37 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mercy Ambulance, is requesting an ame n% the Etiwanda Specific Plan which would allow ambulance services as a Office/Professional al c zone odesignationrnitted These applicant the concurrently submitting a Conditional Use Permit for review by the Planning Commission for the establishment of an ambulance service at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and the I -15 Freeway. Ii. ANALYSIS• A. General: Currently, ambulance services are a conditionally paimed use in the General Commercial District of the district Specific and are Only are Thsmall any other Ecivand the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Etiwanda Avenue, is designated for General Commercial land use (see Exhibit "A %). The Office /Professional District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan allows such commercial uses as: business support services, financial, insurance and real estate services, and medical services. The Office /Professional District conditionally permits restaurants and automotive service stations. An ambulance service use would be of similar intensity. The location of those areas designated Office /Professional (see rxhibit W) are generally adjacewt to highly traveled thorcughfares and commercially designated areas. Office /Professional Districts are also located adjacent to Medium, Low - Medium and Low Density Residential Districts. However, greater setbac s 26 feet) are required when any PLANNING c0WISSIC `TAFF REPORT ESPA 08-06 - MERCY .%9ULAWCE Noveuber 30, 1988 Ptgc 2 _ commercial or office district use is located contiguous to a residmitial area (see Article 5.23.309). In addition, the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that any commercial or office use be designed with sensitivity in order to miniei:e impacts on any surrounding use, of lesser or equal intensity (see Section 5.23.311). The Conditional Use permit proses: affords the Commission the opportunity to reviews the specifics rnl ^g each site relative to compatibility, buffering, Finally, it should be noted that "Public Safety eaeilities' whin: include ambuiance services, are conditionally permitted to the Offiee/prof*.isfonal designation in those areas govarned by the Oevelopcxnt Cede. B, Enylro ntat �ecUT -sis -and fGu ditno hds environmental it; acts as a result of the project. if the Planning Comaissior. concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate if the Specific Plan Amendrnt is approved. III 'ACTS FOR FINOINOS: Before approving the Specific Plan Aacndment, e ,Om ss on just dsteraine that the amendment wili riot be detrfirental cIW.ct$. rnp significant addition, the Proposal must be consfs;ent with the intent of the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. ty CORRESPOht)ENCE: Tj1s Specific p`sn Amendment has been advertised as a pU511c heiring in the Daily Report newspaper. V RECONMEMAT1OX: Staff rerom.lds that the planning Commission a op to ution reconeeod :ng apDDroyal tc the City Council for Etiwanda Specific Plan Aamndoe�t 86 -t1G, allowing ambulance services as a Ccnd.tlonal Use within the Office /professional District, and issue a Negative Declaration. Res _ 11y fitted, Bra er City anner / BB:BN:mlg / h�/ PLAOIN6 COy1ISSI0'`,'TAFF REPORT ESPA 68-06 - NERCT - IBULAACE Abve*er 30, 199a Page 3 Attechaents: Exhibit "A" - Etfwanda Specific Plan Nap Exhibit "V- Applicant Statment Resolution of Approval with Conditions (�- 3 A ETIW,IXD,l SPECIFIC Pf ^ D= VE�OPNE%-Z DISTR:C $- MEN"Z%' PROJECT DESCRIPTIOY, This a?nlicatien 3s to request an amendnenz to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow for ambulance servicn in the Commercial zoned Of- 'ice /Professional (OP) areas. Curr -ently ambulance service is permitted only inane areas fine ?lanaeRegula orvcial (GCI as specified in the Eti Provisions. Our Proposed site location is at 7644 Etiwanda Avenue, Etiwanda 91759 APS: 1100 - 041 -01. This site will meet the `nneeedsOfthe city and surrounding community as determined conducted on the north and so;--% community sections o-` Etiwanda, in a2Z: ion to aceting the time constraints as mandated by the City of Rancho Cucarwnga Ordinance So. 569, Section b.18.0 -0161, and will be an asset to the community. Presently, the only area within the Etiwanda specific Plan which is designated as GC is located on Foothill Blvd., west Of Etiwanda avenue where the Circle K Food Store is located. Our in request to allotfforrbambula nce.- usvtoeulili areas to theaformentionedd commercial OP, ^ location would have a positive impact on.the surrounding community. /-57 / RESOLUTION No. 88 -233 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANOA SPECIFIC 9LAN AMENDMENT 88 -06 ADDING AMBULANCE SERVICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE OFFICE/PROFESSIONA. DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (1) Mercy Ambulance has initiated an application for Etiwandr, Specific Plan Amendment 88 -06, described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Specific Plan Amendment request is referred to as 'the application'. (ii) On November 30, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prereq.tsites to• the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it 1s hereby found. determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as f lows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on November 30, 1988. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testioony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The areas recommended for amerding include all areas designated as office /Professional. (b) The addition of ambulance services as a conditional use within the Office /Professional District will not be incompatible with those uses currently allowed under this use designation. (c) Ambulance services is a conditionally permitted use in the Office /Professional District of the De•alopnent Code. 3. Based upon the !ebstantial evidence presented to this Commission & -fng 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: Q / �L PLANNING COiMISSIr* - RESOLUTION NO. 88 -233 ESPA 88-06 - MERC: ABULANCE November 30, 1988 Page 2 (s) developpmien of proposed coonprehensivelAmendment aed urbane Community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. (b) developrat within the Districtlin r Amendment r coprovides sistent with the Gern.r„1 Plan and with related development and growth management of the City; and (c) with the objectives opfsc the lEtiwanda Sp consl5tent ecific Plan 4, ants Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered to compliance witti the Califonna Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Comission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planninp Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recomeends approval of the 30th day of November 1988, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 88- 06 (b) Councils approveoasndsadopthet wandrecommends ific Plan Amendment No. 88 -D6. (c) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Comission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 30 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1908. PLANNING DNGA PL'3'X'NC COIMISSIC �ISOLUTION No, 88 -233 'r ESPA 88-06 - MEIICY MNLAICE NOvenber 30. 15" Page 3 regularly Brad Buller. Secretary of the that Planning of the C1ty of Rancho 1. Brnge, le hereby certlf on he eh Introduced ay Of rungs at a regularpmeetlny99Qof the Plann/n3aCO�etsslcln held on the 30th d{y of Noveeder, 1938, by the folloring vote_to -wtt: AYES: C"ISSIONERS: OLAKESLEY, CHITIEA; EMERICK. MCHIEL, TOLSTOY HOES: CO WISSIOHERS: MORE ASSENT: COMISSIBNERS: MORE /�C) ORDINANCE N0. 3 V V AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-06, ADDING AMULANCE SERVICES AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 30th day of November 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code and recommended to the City Council addition of Ambulance Services as a conditionally permitted use within the Office /Professional District, and duly advertisseddpublic hearing tI Sectiona658548of the CaliforniaiGovernment Code findings: SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has made the following (a) That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment provides for the development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the district that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations. (b) That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment provides for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management of the City; and (c) That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. project wiSECn�o0�eate a Council has found that this the environment and approves Issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 4, 1989. SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ordains asToTl ws.. That pursuant to Section 65850 through 65855 of the California Government Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves on the 4th day of January 1989, Etlxanda Specific Plan Amendment 88 -06, adding Ambulance Services as a conditionally permitted use within the Office /Professional District. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT FDATE. January 4, 1989 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cynthia S. Kinser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOP14ENT REVIEW 87 -71 - CCMHERCIAL CARRY INC. - -An appeal of the conditions of Approval for the gram ng 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 Jerey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APN: 209- 143-7, 8 and 9. I. RECCMMENDOTION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny this appeaTan up o d the Planning Commission decision. If the Council feels that a relief from the conditions of approval may be appropriate, the applicant should be directed to apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance. it. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of December 7, 1988, all o e n ormatlon regarding the background of this project was not available. This report will provide supplemental infomation. The staff report of December 7, 1988, with Exhibits, is also provided. In early 1985, Commercial Carriers submitted an appplication for a Minor Development Review in order to occupy the subject site (see Exhibit 'C') for vehicle storage and distribution. At that time, staff determined that since the applicant was proposing to occupy the site 'ae is', no Development Review was necessary. The application and fee were returned with the understanding that as long as no modifications to the site occured, Development Review would not be required. The applicant was also notified that Cade requirements to this area prohibit open vehicle storage within 120 feet of the street. In February 1986, the applicant acknowledged that trucks would not be parked or stored within 120 feet of the property frontage (see A *•achnent "1') The Development Code requires a Minor Development Review for the 'new construction, expansion, or significant reconstruction of parking lots' and /or the establishment and /or construction of an outdoor storage area on the same site as, and in conjunction with, an existing business.' Further, the Industrial Specific Plan CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. January 4, 1989 Page 2 states that within the Minimum impact /Meaty Industrial district "All materials, supplies, equipment and operating trucks shall be stored within an enclosed building or a storage area. Such storage areas within 120 feet of a street frontage shall be screened." Currently, the applicant has vehicles parked and stored within 120 feet of the street frontage, thereby violating the Industrial Specific Plan. In late 1986 the applicant requested a per.;it to grade and pave the project site. This triggered the requirement for a Minor Development Review and the applicant was notified of the need to submit the necessary plans. In late 1987 the applicant had yet to submit the requested Minor Devetooment Review application requested by the staff. In order to work with the applicant, staff issued the grading permit on October 2, 1987 with the condition that a Minor Development Review was to be submitted by October 28, 1987 (see Attachment '21 The applicant submitted the Minor Development Review application on November 19, 1987. Upon review, the application development standards. The plans eview. In Feb ary d1988 the which were found to be Inc applicant to revise and rest applicant submitted revised pl deficient. At this point, i applicant was not willing to requirements. In order to re the application, approval wa conditions that would bring development standards. Thes e appealed to the City Council. was found to be deficient in several applicant was advised to revise his nt standards and resubmit them for applicant resubmitted revised plans omplete. Staff again advised the rbmlt the plans. In June 1988 the ans which were found to be once again t becamK apparent to staff that the submit plans consistent with the code solve the issue, rather than denying s granted in July 1988, subject to the site into conformance with the are the conditions that are being Ili. ANALYSIS: It is staff's opinion that the "oil chip coat' consiI75Tes paving, therefore triggering the requirement for a Minor Development Review. One of the findings for a Minor Development Review requires that 'the proposed project is In compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Cody,' thereby prompting staff to place conditions on the project that would bring the nen- conforming site in to conformance with City Standards. On October 26, 1988 the Planning Commission heard the applicant's appear request and determined that the proposed project did require a M1nur Development Review. CITY COUNCIL STtFF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Ccmmercial Carriers, Inc. January 4, 1989 Page 3 Further, the Commission found the Planning Division conditions should be retained and that the Engineering Division conditions should be modified in regards to to numberr of driveways permitted Revieewa 07-71 subject ®tosmodifiedefconditionse(seen Exhibit o�A'lt thereby denying the appeal request. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND OPTIONS: At issue here is whether or not 04 'oil cFr p coo cons to es paving, thereby triggering the requirement for a Minor Development Review. If the Council determines that it does not, to application and associated conditions of approval should be obligation t voided. omply with vthe open storrne still the Code and would be required to discontinue open space storage whin 120 feet of the public street. If the Council concurs wit th? staff and Planning Commission determination test the site improvements do constitute paving, Code provisio provisions clearly stipulate thatr thevoslttoenmusReview, mt all applicable standards. The City Attorney has determined that any deviation from these standards would require approval of a Yarianre by the Planning Commission. The following options are available at this point: 1 Det-mine that ine portTviltute paving. thereby invalidating the Develoia Review. 2 Determine the City P Planner ®anning Commissiontacti and actions. uphold 3 Determine that the improvements DO constitute paving, but instruct to applicant to file for a YarlAnce for relief from specific Code requ'rements. Staff needs appropriate direction as to these or other options. d. A;n'en B B:CK:vc I CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Comercial Carriers, Inc. January 4, 1989 Page 4 Attachment "1" - Letter from Applicant, February 7, 1986 Attachment 02" - Letter to Applicant, October 14, 19? Attachment "3" - City Council Staff Report, December 7, 1988 Exhibit "A" - Resolution of Approval with Conditions Fahfbft "B" - Letter frog Applicant, November 4, 1988 Exhibit "C" - Sfti Plan Exhibit "D" - Driveway Locations Exhibit "E" - Planning Commission Staff Report, October 26, 1988 Exhibit "F" - Planning Commfssion Minutes, October 26, 1988 Exhibit "O" - Planning Commission Staff Report, September 14, 1988 Exhibit "N" - Planning Comission Minutes, September 14, 1988 / �P J e COMMERCIAL CARRIERD INC. AVrOMCTIVE GAR /EROIVISjov RYDER. YSTEM, INC. 810 64VHOh all 48017 February 7, 1986 City of Rancho Cue &ZOn9a 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucanona, CA 91730 Attention/ Mr. Coleman, planning Department Dear Mr Coleman/ REPLY TOs COMMERCIAL CARRIERS. INC. 2210 S. AfaneG 9J810 P.O. Box 178 90801 Lon Bexh C&PIui1 2138.15 M With reference to our facility located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard, it is our intentions to not park or store any any tractor /trailer unite within 120' of the existing property line. MGKtvc cc, L Shockley J Cate I Yours truly. N. C ireelic Terminal Manager /y�inr.Mal�:,lT e�la �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 14,_1987 ��r Grant Becklund Gabel, Cook and Becklund 647 H. Main Street, Su,te 1 -B Riverside, CA. 92501 SUBJECT- 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr Becklund: rm aaw b. wn. a,.s. 6mamf4 Cu 117x V14)MMI Recently a Grading Permit was issued for the purpose of grading and .ocurferina tha Darkina lot of the above described property. The mentioned n Development Code Secttan 17.06.020.0.3 as ene cr er whore a Minor Development Review is necessary. Please submit that attached application, $62.00 fee and appropriate plant (the grading plan would be adequate) to the Planning Division by October 28, 1987 If you should have any further questions or cemaents, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P�ANYI NG DEPARTMENT e r Associate Planner OM:js Attachments !�7 A � "AzasrA�'r 2 DATC: TO FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I RECCFl1ENDATTOR: Staff recommends the City Council deny this appeal rem an- - uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Minor Development Review 87 -71. If the Council concurs, adoption of the attached Resolution of Cental would he appropriate. II 84CKGRCUim: un November 19, 1987, the proper.y owners filed an aDD ca on for a Minor Development Review requesting to grade and Dave approximately 12 acres of land. The applicant proposed to pave the existing site which is utilized for truck parking and storage on July 1, 1988, the City Planner reviewed and approved Hfnor 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 conformance with the City's current development standards, such as landscaping and screening. on July 12, 1988, the applicant appealed all of the Conditions of Approval to the Planning Caxmissicn. At its meeting of September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Division conditions should be retained; however, that the Engineering Division conditions should be mudlfied in relation to the ntmber and location of driveways This item was therefore continued in order for staff to work with applicant to modify the Engineering Conditions of Approval. ,afro ►�f.�a.�-f , 4 CITY CCUHCIL STAFF r 'ORT NOR 87 -71 - COMMERCE,.. CARRIERS, INC. December 7, 1988 Page 2 On October 26, 1488, the Planning Coorission approved modified Conditions of Approval for Minor Bev opment Revitw 87 -71 (see Exhibit 'A *); V this action, the appeal request was effectively denied in part. On Novembsr 4, 19138, the applicant appealed the Planning Comraission's decision to the City Council (see Exhibit 'B•) M. ANALYSIS: A. Plann_ing_Tssues: The subject site consists of three leg parcels 'w are currently improved with a single -start office building and a metal warehouse building (see Exhibit '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 B ulevard currently has substandard parkway landscaping with parking beginning 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 frau face of curb. Further, the site is 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 landscaping and parking improvements to meet Code standards. The applicant never applied for variance from these Code re quirements. 8 Engineering Issues: The site currently has four (4) existing driveways into Jersey Boulevard. Two of the driveways provide access to the main portion of the site, while the other two only provide access to the parking Strip iamrediately adjacent to the street parkway. As discussed earlier, the Plannir.9 Division is requiring that this area be landscaped. If the Council sustains that requirement, then there will be no need for tnese two driveways. The site driveways are shown on Exhibit *V. M CITY COBNCII STAFF r 'ORT MDR 87 -71 - COMMERCI. CARRIERS, INC. December 7, 1968 Page 3 The City has established an access policy for arterial streets to atilmlze potential traffic conflicts Essentially the policy statas: 1. Driveways shall be separated by 300 feet, 2. Driveways shall be aligned with those on the opposite side of the street if they are within 235 feet of one another: and 3. Driveways shall be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersection. Based upon these criteria, staff initially felt that only one driveway could be allowed for the site. However, after the first Planning Commission hearing, it was decided that an additional driveway was necessary for the site. The two "approved driveway locations" sham on Exhibit "D" are, in staff's opinion, the best locations considering the constraints presented by the existing driveways on the opposite side of Jersey Boulevard and the Red Oak Street intersection. Additional access may be obtained through shared access arrangements with adjacent properties. Furthermore, the installation of street lights and sidewalk were required along Jersey Boulevard to bring the st -eet up to full City standards, as required by ordinance Re. 58. Iv. FACTS FOR FIWINGS: The Minor Development Review permit process is n en e o assure that such limited projects empty with all applicable City Standards and ordinances... The City Plan -erT authorized to impose reasonable conditions upon an approval consistent with this purpose. Absent a - ariance request being approved by the Planning Commission, the City Planner could not have approved this permit request without the conditions of approval because the requisite findings listed below could not iave 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 of the Industrial Specific Plan, or the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 170 CITY COUNCIL STAFF Y"'DRT MDR 87 -71 - COMMERCI._ CARRIERS, INC. December 7, 1968 Page 4 3. That the proposed project together with the conditions health, ,Glsa safety, 4P t.,r welfare or dmateriially lnjuriausbito properties or ieprovarmts in the vicinity. 4. That tte proposed protect w!ll comply with each of tha applicable previsions of the Industrial Specific Plan. Re t lTy t er i6/r / City P n er 86:C.%-nlg Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Resolution of Approval with Conditions Exhibit '8' - Letter from Applicant, November 4, 1988 Exhibit 'C' - Site Plan Exhibit 'D' - Driveway Locations Exhibit 'E' - Planning Comission Staff Report, Octobe- 26, 1988 Exhibit 'F' - Planning Co mission Minutes, October 26, 1988 Exhibit '6' - Planning Commission Staff Report, Se teaber 14, 1988 Exhibit 'M' - Planning Commission Minutes Se terher 14, 1988 Resolution of Denial 1 ( 1 N4l � RESOLUTION NO. 88 -224 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CIX;AyONP, PLANNING COMJ(ISSIOH APPRO'/INNG M==R DEVELOPMENT RE' .Eli NO. 87 -71, AN APPLICATION. FDA THE GRADING AND PAVING OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF CAND FOR TR= P,IRKING AM) STORAGE LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMM IMPACT /NF.AVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, ADM MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209- 143 -7, 8, AND 9. A Recitals (i) Ccm;ercial Carriers, Inc has filed an application far the approval of Development Review No. 87 -71 as described in the title of this Resolution. Harelnafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On July 7, 1988, the City Planner of the C1Ly of Rancho Cucamenga reviewed and approved the application subject to eight statea conditions. fill) The City Planner's conditions of approval for the application were timely appealed to this Commission on July 18, 1988. (iv) On the 140 of September, 1988, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and continued the item un•il October 26, 1988. W On the 26th of October, 1986, the Planning remission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting prior to the adaption of this Resolution (vi) All legal prerequisites 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 gancho Cucamonga as follows: 1 This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth :n the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct 2 Besed upon substantial evidence oresented to this Commission dur'ng the above - referenced meetings on September 14, 1488 and on October 26, :988, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hertby spKificatly finds as follows: 1 7J EXHIBIT "A" PLAN1111M COFMISSIC ESOLUTION N0. 88 -224 MDR 87 -71 - Caawercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard, an irregularly- shaped pm+cel with a street frontage of 814 feet and an average lot depth of 673 feet and is presently impm ved with an office, warehouse, and parking lot; avid (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 pars, the property to the south of that si.e consists of warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, arA the propert, to the west is warehouse; and (d) The application applies to a site that :s currently impro°-d with an office building, warehouse building and parking lot and is considered a legal non- ronforning lot; and (e) Municipal We Section 17.06.020 B authorizes ti,e City Planner to imoose 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 compieticn; and (1) 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 Stanlards 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 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; 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 thiis site. Further, driveways should align with driveways on the opposite side of the street or by off - setting a safa distance to avoid conflicting left -turn movements. The City's access polity also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet from Intersertlons; and ti) The applicant has not filed any application for variance from the Industrial Specific Plan Standards and requirements. rAI PLANNI.9G COMMISSC _SOLUTION NO. 88 -224 MDR 81 -71 - Commercial Carriers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 3 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission herety finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project, together lith the conditions of approval, is consistent with the objectives of tho General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with Lhe objective of the Development Code and the Purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the rroposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed use, togetner with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following conditions: Planning Division 1. Construct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage. Streetscape landscaping at an average 35 foot setback from curbface aid a minimum 25 foot parking setback from curbface. This will require removal of existing paved parking areas within the setback areas. b. A screen wall at the back of the streetscape landscaping setback, to screen the storage area from view from the public right -of -way. Screening shall be masonry, concrete, or other similar materials. 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. Parking lots shall be planted with 1 tree per 3 parking stalls and a 5 foot planter is require6 around the perimeter. 17 �' PLANNING cCINISSI — ^ESQ mou NO. 88 -224 C MDR 87 -71 - Caaaem al C; riers, Inc. October 26, 1988 Page 4 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans, including screen wall design, shall be submitted and approved within 90 days. 5. All improvements regjlred 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 driveways will be allowed onto Jersey Boulevard. One shall align with the eastern driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. Tie 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 CUCA40NGA 4c- I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Canuission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly int.oduced, 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 C"ISSIONERS: NOES: C0MISSIONERS: ABSENT: C"ISSICVERS: 1 7 � z |l�� ! | cis! ! z ,.!t :f | ! '$tic, I � kRr &�•| & 'f � ! | Ulf | . ��.a. |• ■• � | | � I ■ | ■ � | �!\ ¥E- 2 A l 4c S —; - -I)f p! a 3 .| | § |it]!!\!�� � 5 = ;k!!� �.b ! : ! ! �''! | E! 'f All ail k R 2: - |@ -R " /` [ | i /�|I a |\ { b \ . •qA J� g | Lj =wr ! a | 7 g � || || | S.. §f E & § N Roe` F EJ ra.E Arta i f3FF�F r 1p i lLZ�F _I > +cF: I s � ;-VFs` e� ; ;e£ REV 101= + € =l F I st":a lIT l ='=Fe =_�- a �:. £pia dE= tt�•> fir I I f. I r ., I I 113 is =Fpg ' r crf� -t� t= a 4 �£ s- =0 F= F - r,gF,aa_t t�s ?ielF it- ME E °_Fr rE Ig= F2 _� j ull. t n if t�7+ E Stt iti�t�f J { = g Ii I F° aaF �.'r cs a: 2 �_t ig a3 s£ a!_` a i -ttF st .;it _r = tr rlSF as !_I= �r I� tip —rd �f �jrf t sa all F t �r- "! =tea li ii�t r i t+�aia5ifi £i��� apa• c war. ZOEF-Sm Rcr� Fti j d! a t - a F rF_ =l�f jF c� :st +fit � faf 11 1-2 a 14 ii> ri t ._t F?F trc� r:�32 ^iE� iFt€ z co y W 1 r.• .F r M i ,t. =L;E F - ire ^�F 3P¢ i e t.: t ! if F CF IF 15 a- 7t 1t rt is tp r� ? tE -qst it ?i ,r ca pf.0 �S t SS Ci c�ri jf Sjsp .E1 �E tf� =k it.'S .2 3 �j s S E F k L rj i rilte r ip-Ps£! = AF it I "_- A r- •Sri _p rj zeF ¢f .EP�i a ^g ;:,sf�^ "B �'i i• A ££Q 9 'EE-" o x�t: f���c #REFi�¢'i£s a'F "t ': := iec• iYila -Et r is J J Et =iD 1 A =a ' sAA� ta;- GCB ^ �•Fx F F 4c- 4 {� F: 3_- -Y sqf _� rk a wff? i5e FsY�i §F t Nit j r �* 3 k' ;3t1 s :i� dk �. s.rF- OF, d i3 i $Y;; ifr of st jttF 's -E^ a. -- EE it Et= L rj i rilte r ip-Ps£! = AF it I "_- A r- •Sri _p rj zeF ¢f .EP�i a ^g ;:,sf�^ "B �'i i• A ££Q 9 'EE-" o x�t: f���c #REFi�¢'i£s a'F "t ': := iec• iYila -Et r is J J I Of _iF- _xx ax Mx- -i F 3 k E ; a e1 F er,_. is $ rr'sr sg g g s Oft t j t -2:�F R e. t3FriiEs a == f.� g -e£ E rx: 3 a r afg; 13 it ;o f E4 F _ sEg c r +1i r -it! gEc !�3I 6 'F E tF eR 3FarS i E!s'� j�4S fit F refs 3 -. c ca: sF rc'Ea E�. :s E 4 aiff A - r r E at!% °c l�� c Fi �Ffi _r s ag r as = Fs R= £ fit FF ?�Fi I I c r - f E s s i t' Irma c {F s� r1'cff Ph ri r i' s r. 8dC Iq ;£y �A ?Fc- rRF fill IfcE3 c = ° 1 eep Lit z _F �4 E1 iac? ski are J J n U C: c .ft „ : M. g s _f g for s3stF a F= it rr� a� F'ts � = li =rs I Zit _ ;a• r t ?� ;- rF£ Y - Fr RIM ?1 s? F Flt t r g: S i BFI s s ££ f F fFF c r ar�; ss §� s 3 ag ft£` i= e£= ZFg FEii e r e # ;S s I,F ':-I I- I I I l� • r F? •c; -1 3 Ea ?F 7���R ��rEE i= �F�ef s s rr ■ t r i �� F ;Rif I i. g 3 6s * rz, i PC i A I � � R c a F�R {i j`e t• ! S Yr Z r EFg 'E °eel t x+ eRx F 6c� az �iF;tr r �* is aj eF F= xF = Ex r ?a [� st sppF Fl F F� pa t: a� t g= ii r rt F° s 8i rE A I � � R c a F�R {i j`e t• ! S Yr Z r EFg 'E °eel t x+ eRx F 6c� az �iF;tr r �* if =3 -s UZi Frx go J r. n Ia a 4Y� riSi� 2E7 $ ' -•� C V , Fes" fig tit° -s iir :it is t r: f� r � �^ R E _ iti =F "q all ff= E� r ?3 ;F. E r ?q s F1 r � r cFr F! 171 gEE s z 44 r itg2 it c$ -t 'Fl j 'T F F !° P E 41 � #i' � re ` � __�;`'�►� FF r r Fr r �� sd c. r rzF - $� tz c3 -, °- s Si 8 r F=�iE ^g F �Er F _�• FF g- pfy R I f . °FFll ri M J J =' - ! b �l �� — �■� �!9!� , n! l��� . ,. a!r !� | Ir � \ � � / ®k! ir ! Ir f Air f�� �� |f � | f ■ � �� U� U Z` � �� t■ � e ! �i ! � � � ( #! q� «R � « � � J U df ' R 2 �/ J J a GAVE-L-, COOK & BECKLUND Civil Engineering a Surveying a Structures a Environmental a Planning 4 November 1988 City of Ranchc Cucamonga P 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attar City Clark Re: Minor Dovelopmont Review 87 -71 Gentlemen: RECEIVED CnY FRANCHOCU0 MONGA Nov 071938 On behalf of Commercial Carriers, we wish to appeal the decision Of the Planning Commission to deny our appeal of the Conditions of Approval for this project. This site has been used an a storage and repair facility, by Commercial Carriers since their purchase of this facility in 1985 Commercial Carriers docided in 1986 to piece 11/2 inches of an oilod snip coat surface on the existing storage areas located at 10807 Jersey Boulevard to ansist in controlling the duet generated by its unpaved condition. This surfacing required 'hat some grading be done to prr,,are the oubgrade for placement of the chip coat and a grading permit was applied to do this work Subsequent tc 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 Revior be submitted for Planning'a review. This request was honored and resulted to the Condition" of Approval dated July 7, 5988, which were that appealled to the Planning Commission The Conditions of kpproal for MDR 87 -71 would require that Commercial Carriers expend approximately $250,000 to complete the followings 1 Tear out the existing street improvements that presently do not match recently constructed improvements on the north aide of Jersey CQ, 2 Rerove the existing parking lot 9 —Mi5in entrance to the B n office building with landscaping. EXHIBIT " 647 North Main Street, Suite I.B; Riverside, Calif. 92501 Telephone VIA) 7888092 I I r .. , Q.ABEL;-"COOK & BE.CKLU•ND Civil Engineering a Surveying a Structures o Environmental a Planning 4 November 1908 Appeal of MDR e7 -71 Page 2 3. Remove from existing usable storage areas approximately one acre of land to aonatruat new parking areas and lacdscaping. 4. Construct new driveways, aiduvalko and street lights on Jersay Boulevard. 5. Construct landscaping and screeniaS wails along Jersey Boulevard. to feel that these requirements are excounive in both expense and project area lost for the construction of these improvements In 1 Cht of whs.t in being proposed, i.e., chip Beal coat on existing storage area. Therefore, we wish to appeal all of the C,nditions of Approval for thin Minor Development Review. Eaclooed is tan required appeal fee of $126.00. Should you have any qusatiocs or require additional information, planes do not heeltate to call. Respectfully, Gabel, CooK d 8acklund. Ice. Grant Becklund Civil Engineer Enclosure / U 64, North Main Street, Suite 1$, Riverside, Calif. 92501 Telephone (714) 788.8092 i i L �1 LI �rrl�I - -- � 1 \ AREA V� \ -jj,> �� `► � v IiORTH CITY O � � � ITEIi: MDR 87 -71 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "C" SCALE: �z I A r-cEPn8W �- Z I b1 ti - IQ r r 9 KEO OAK i ?� — — 00 G3, - REM LL .tEy'ur&Ed INPPROVED r i ee DR1VEe.IAjI � � Lo CATT9/✓ CS ' •i m LOCAnon/ l di i ; 1 E • • —� �— TiNb" D�C1VEWay RWcrAL 4EZpJIRE,D- ; Z {JI ,! � . � O y I7 a 7 ' L-t to `Y EzEi'nuG DRIVEWAY R�HOV.1t Reo ✓1 ED - .o = # rs .+_ --- SNA4((aD 4ct-55 W �1 4 _ LL_ � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 26, 1988 TO: Chairman and Henbers of the Planning Coamission FROM: Brad Dullar, City Planner BY: Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOMENT REVIEW 87 -71 - C"ERCIAL CARRIERS INC. — 7Gi-appeaT oFi} —ie ccn ons or approva or a I. ng and paving of approximately 12 acres of land for an existing site within the 141nimLn Impact /Heavy Industrial District of the Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jorsey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenues - APN: 209 - 143 -7, 0 and 9. I. 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 Boulavard II, BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1988, the Manniny Commission heard MMs appea . There was a consensus of the Caramission that all of Planning Division conditions be retained; however, that the number and location of driveways could oe modified. The project was continued in order for staff to meet with the property owner concerning the driveway Issue. III ANALYSIS: The origtnal 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 eugineer. Finally on October 12, 1988 a meeting was held but only the engineer could attend. He was not able to commit for the Property owner, but felt that two driveways as discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting were acceptable. The Engineering Division has revised the original special conditions of approval to reflect this additional driveway. The revised special conditions read as follows: X87 EXHIBIT "E" PLANNIIC COWISSI( AFF REPORT MDR 887 -71 - Cosme,%Ial Carriers, Inc. Mtober 26, 19e8 Page 2 Engineering Division: i I. All existing driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 2. IMO driveways will be allowed onto Jersey Boulevard. One shall alion with the eastern drivsway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. Tho second shall bd located 100 feet i, 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 approvA) of the City Engfneor if shared access agreements can be obtAlned froe the adjacent property owners. Refer to the attached staff report of September i4, 1968 for discussion of the entire appeal. As indicated at that meeting, the Plann rig Coomafssion had a consensus that the Planning Division con -4itions of approval would not be modified by the Comission. As directed by the Commeisslon, staff tAs worked with the developor and modified the Engineering Division renditions as stated above. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Coameissfon approve nor Development Review 87 -71 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Res ull hied, /Br ler City anner BB:CK:vc Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Driveway Constraints Exhibit 'B" - Planning Commission Staff Report of 9 -14 -88 Resolution of Approval R 1 /ic�cPrdcE ,� `'� 1 9 .SN/tt6p BLESS --A- _ "i__ 4 RED 04) I — • rust g i DRrvF_w ; Yr IG' I� _ 1 ' AAgtevF - =D � Aervdavy t Z I T Y€ �• 1 . 1 � 1 w g �ZJ I b _ r ym �„�,�,�, ActLP776LGr .,. •rte OFF - sirc _ ° 189 1 LL Q O o r`-y ww¢ C5 W Q�i .■ P. MINOR OEVELCPMENT REVIEW 87 -71 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS INC - An appeal, of e Coilditions of prova tor tne gra rgi-' and- paving'2aV apprOAiiutely 12 acres of land for an existing site within the Minimum Impart /heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Specific Plan, lo•:ated an the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Y.neent Aveive - APN: 209- 143 -7, 8, and 9. (Continued from October 12, 1988) Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman ItNiel opened the public hearing. Grant Becklund, Civil Engineer for the applicant, stated that Ryder Trucks had Purchased icle maintenance ante been therelastt year put down a 1/2° layer of gravel and asphalt emulsion. They did not feel it wan fair to require them to speed approximately (250,000 and lose some of their parking aroa and disrupt their administrative center because of loss Gr parking area just because they hao tried to control dust. As the company did not have the money to do the required improvements, 'if the Minor Development Rovies was denied, they planned to tear up the asphalt. Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of what had happened to the appeal. Ms. 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 CoaaoiSSiGn 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 Manson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if grading was done at the time tha asphalt was put down and if the yard had previously been used for vehicle storage. Mr. Ber Lund stated tise yard had always been used for venlcle storage and minor grading was dose 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 11 there would be a way for code enforcement to force the applicant to stop using 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 Coamission Minutes �o 5- October 26, 1988 EXHIBIT "F" Mr. Becklurd stated that it would only cost $40,000 to tear out the asphalt as opposed to the $250,000 to perform the changes being required in the Ninor Development Review As this property was not being u.ed to its ultimate use and would probably be developed in about five years, they felt they would be throwing away the $250,000. He stated that when Ryder bought the parcel in 1985 they submitted a Minor Development Review, but they were told by Planning that there were no requirements to upgrade, as the property was a conforming use at the time. He stated that tha City recently told him that if they tear out the paving, they would apply to the County Mricultural 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 Chittea, to adopt the Resolution approving Minor Development Review 87 -71 Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES COMIISSIOI:ERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried p. ENYIRONMEfTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEYELOP4ENT REIIEW 88 -14 - UK ARCHITECTS - TFe—Cevelopment of an au o ve an g ruc repair center o a ing 33,238 square feet on 2.8 acres of land to the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the industrial Area Specific Plan located at the r.arthwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 8th Street - APN: 209- 031 -78. Steven "ayes, r.xsistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chittea asked to see the color sample board She asked If the pink color had been discussed Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Greg Simonoff, NK Architects, stated he wanted to clarify that items 2, 3, and 4 of the staff report had already been accomplished. Connissioner Chitie asked if the parcels were Individually awned, 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. Planning Commission Minutes 19( -16- October 26, 1968 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I. II CITY DY RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT September 14, 1988 Chatrman and Menbers of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Cynthia S. Kinser, Assistant Planner An appeal of the Conditions of Approval for the grading of approximately 12 acres of land on an existing non - lot at 10807 Jersey Boulevard. BACKGROUND: On November 19, 1987, the property owners filed iNnor eve oilmen Review 87 -71 requesting to grade and pave approximately 12 acres of land. The applicant proposes to pave the extsting site which is utilized for truck parking and storage. On July 7, 1908, the City Planner reviewed and approved IMnor Development Review e7 -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 dll 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 pparce o w.1.!0 Tre currently improved with a single -stork office bu11d1ag < etal warehouse building (see Exhibit "D ). The remainder �r :he site is rtilized for truck parking and storage. The site is enclosed by chain link fencing The site's 820 feet of frontage along Jersey eaulhvard currently has substandard parkway landscaping with parking teginning 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 mrasured from faaa of curb. / P A EXHIBIT "G" PLANNING COMMISSIf TF REPORT MDR 87 -71 - Commert,al Carriers, Inc. September 14, 1988 Page 2 Further, the site is enclosed by chain link fence. The Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9) require. 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 Plamrer approved the project subject to conditions requiring lanGscaping and yyarking improvements to meet Code Standards (see Exhibit "A'). The applicant never applied for variance frcm these Code requirements. B. Enggineering Issues: The site currently has four driveways wrih n F70 fe-et—of street frontage. The City's access policy !'or arterial streets specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 100 feet apart. Therefore, two driveways would be allowed 0: 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 line on the adjacent westerly property; and 2. There are two existing driveways on the north side of Jersey Boulevard; and 3. Red Oak Street ends in a 'tee" intersection opposite the existing office building on the northeast corner of the subject site. In regsrds to the above conditions and constraints, both of the exist ng driveways for the existing structure in the northeast corner of the site ara 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 pritury driveway. Moving 100 feet east of the intersection would work, if the access could be located off -site on the vacant property to the east. The City is willing to require a shared access easement of the property to the east 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. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Minor Development Review permit process is 3yi en e o assure that such limited projects comply with all p11cabte City Standards sod ordinances... ". the City Planner - M a PLANNING COWISSI( AFF REPORT FD1R 87 -71 - Comwemial Carriers, Inc. September 14, 1988 Page 3 authorized to Impose reasonable conditions :1pon an approval consistent with this purpose. Absent a variance request being approved by the Planning Commission, the City Planner could not have dpproved this permit request without the conditions of approval because the requisite findings listed below could not have been We in the affirmative: 1. That the proposed project 1s consistent with the General Plan. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which the sit,, is located. 3. That the proposed project together with the conditions applieabid ther4to, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan. V. RECOWENDATIM Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny ThTs­-a—P—Pe—aT-0T the Conditions of Approval for Minor Development Rcvlew 87 -71 through the adoption of the attached Resolution. If however, the Comission determines that the proposal is acceptable, then direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at your next meeting. Ras et nily ub e(tted Br er City anner BB:CK: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 /9� J ` CITY ON RANCHO %:UCAMONGA r,uan.ae,p)p.,m, Cay.oyl Cu(era. 911p Ifig9M.110� July 7, 1988 Gabel, Jook 6 Pecklund 647 N. Main Street Suite 1 -8 Riverside, CA. 92501 SUBJECT: MINOR UEVELOP4EMT REVIEW 87 -71 Oear Mr Becklund: The Minor Oevelopeent Review process for the above- described project has been successfully completed and a;proval has beoa granted based upon the following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperttion 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 cons;stent with the General Plan. S. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Industrial Specific Plan, the purprse of the district in which the site 1s located. C. That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be dstrimental to the putriic health, saret`v, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0. That the proposed proicet will comply with oath of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Spacific Plan. Conditions This project is approved subject to the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: planning olvision I (onstruct the following missing improvements along the entire street frontage: /vn Lr a Streetscape landsu61n i an average 35 foot setback from curbface and a mtttntmum 25 foot parking setback from curbface. This will require removal of existing paved parking areas within the setback areas. C_....., bwo /B /7 W wn.. DtEaN N. Bm+a ltlery xLw as Dem, L Stout chvta). ayvw It P9 Iaj WA9M LwoM W-�,mu NINON DEYELOPMEM- IIEN 87 -71 GABEL, COW A 8L -UW July 7, 1988 Page 2 4 b. A screen wall at the back of the streetsaape landscaping setback, to screen the storage area from view from the public right -of -way. Screening shall be massonry, concrete or other similar saterlals. 2. Due to the rer.,oval 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 and a 5 foot :planter is required around the perireter. 4. Landscaping and irrigation plans, including screen wall design, shall be submitted and approved within 90 days. 5. All improvements requi.rod by Conditions of Approval shall be covpleted 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 wishas to obtair secondary access 'a this site, he shalt negotiate shared access agreements) with adjacent property owner(s). This decision shall be effective folluwing 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, COM?UN DEYE KENT DEPAR111ENT P Di° rad Bul Ly P1 ner DB CK:mlg Attachment Standard Conditions / �� Y 1• t n sr i 1 b j 1 � r i j 11 r I i 1 �I J 9 N9 k4. G A B EL, 00 OK & B E C K L U ND -ivil Engineering • Surveying a Structures • Environmental • Planning 18 July 1988 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attn: Cynthia S Kinzer Re: Rinor Development Reviej 87 -71 Dear gs. I:inser, We Wish to appeal all of the Conditions of Appreval for this project and have enclos°d the appeal fee of $62 00. Due to the Issues Involved In appealing this review, I vould request that a meeting be arranged during the week of August 8th to 12th to discuss with staff these conditions, gather, than attempting to cover all of these issues in a leitee"',- If you have any questions or require additional information. please contact this office. Respectfully, ` N Gabel, Cook 8 Becklund, Inc Grant Becklund Civil &enter �le» 198 flRNFi.+�.rS p --euo i v II ¢oF- l7s� -D er'rn�e. • r __ — —_'iii sl 1Jhr.....� �Z�vtJ.�<+Y �— _ � _ I a i J '1 LREO ui a/ NORTH ��gti '� a CITY OF rrax: M D2 57-4k RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: -- PLANNING DIVISION ExHarr: D 7 pvuc�..ry Q F it I t 14 z J-/kC6on8tE 0 — LUGmu aru�ny N �! - — I li a { w jt- `OS cwsa Q I RA°r?evED 7 J I LOCA770AJ C . �. L4CA77o,a1 I z I i ' [ J r-• j 4J Lai raw � z x z s J M i do � . J:x�ia may•,. ... . »aaY t- r��i... -. Cam'• r { 0 NM %jyiY. ' C . T'�Z.i• ' •s... �� a � M �� 1',j • i,r �� 'Q jCC�. yi i 1 Al i15� �. tea•., •�i'�Y 7 Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the onus falls ultimately on the supermarket owners to provide recycling. Commissioner Blak:sley commented he felt a lot of thought had gone into setting up tte guidelines, and he saw no reason to change ttwm Commissioner Emerick stated the visibility argument was weak, as people do not recycle on inpulse. 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 uograde its design. He felt visibility of the receptacles within the parking tat 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 permit. I' 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 McNtel reopened the public hearing. Mr. HAnrath cemented that stores would have to move recycling centers inside the stores themselves if there were no recycling centers allowed on the parking lot. AB2020 would also require every other convenience store selling soft drinks or beer to go to provide 1n -store recycling or face $100 per day fines. As there were no further comcents, the public hearing was closed. Chairman McNiel stated it was difficult for the Planning Commission to compromise good, sound community standards to support the variances. Hotion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Blakesley, to approve the Resolutions dtnying variance 88 -17. Variance 88 -13, and Variance 88 -1a, lotion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLE9, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: - carried < �mQ�e�+ir,a7.ima:AletiYRS An appeal of prova or v gra In a pav ng a approximately 12 acres o of land ofor an existing site within the Mlninuo Impact /Heavy Industrial Specific Plan (Subarea 9), located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard between Utica and Vincent Avenue - APN: 209- 143 -7, B, and 9. Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 14, 1988 EXHIBIT W Cynthia Kinser presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Grant Becklund, Civil Engineer representing Rider Trucks, stated that when they bought the property, the site across the street had not been developed 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. Ile requested a variance so he would not have 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 Suing penalized 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 McMiel stated that when anything goes through Planning, they try to catch up on items that should have been done in ttm past. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that street improvements are required when parking pavement is constructed. Commissioner Toistoy stated he was under the irpression that what triggered the requirement was the paving. Commissioner Chitiea stated the property was an eyesore that needed improvement. Commissioner Chitiea suggested a comprorsiso regarding the number of driveways and stated she felt 1andscaping was more important. Mr. Hanson suggested adding a second driveway. Ms. Norris showed the original request of the applicant, which proposed three driveways. Commissioner Chitiea pointed out she wanted the landscaping kept in, but was willing to sompromise on two driveways. Commissioner Blakesley concurred with alloting two driveways. Commissioner Tolstay stated they should get landscaping and screening. Mr Buller asked if the Commission was willing to give up the 5 foot perimeter landscaping within the parking lot. The consensus of the Commission was that they did not wish to forego that. Chairman McNiel reoptned the public hearing to ask if the applicant was wilting to continue the matter. Mr Becklund stated he would like to continue the matter until October 26, 1988. Planning Commission Minutes -22- September 14, 1988 I As there were nofurther comments, the public hearing was closed. �' a6Mttea -sacanded by Emerick, unanimously carried, to continue Miter Development Review 81 -71 to October 25, 1989. R R e R R T. ENVIRUNHENTAL ASSE55P%NT AND pEVELWMNI KEYIEw 7e -Z4 - retail satellite r� building totaling 5,801 square feet r'­ ithin a 15.3-acre approved shopping center, in a Neighborhood Comercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue - APN: 202 - 801 -35. Brett Horner, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman McN1el opened the public hearing. Joy Polgren, Project Manager for Dicker- Narmfngton, stated th3y concurred with the staff report. As there are no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: ikwed by Tolstoy, seconded by Chftfea, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 88-24. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: C041iSSIONERS: - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS V. 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 ca adjust their program or scoedule. Commissioner Chitiea agreed Chairman McNiel suggested looking at peak periods and trying to determine the number of parking spaces that would be needed. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Contisslon Minutes -23- September 14, 1988 r. RESOLUTION N0. Eg-7OV A RESOLUiI07s OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOIIGA. DENYING AN APPEAL OF MINOR CEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 8 ? -71 LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT HEAVY INDUSIRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (1) Commercial Carriers, Inc. has filed an application fer the approval of Minor Development Review lb. 87 -71 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Realution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as 'the application'. (11) CA July 7, 1988, Cie City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved the application, by letter, subject to specified conditions. (111) The City Planner's decision was timely appealed to the Planning Commission on July 18, 1988. (iv) On ttie 14th of September 1988, and continued co October 26, 1988, the Planning Gmnisslen of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting cn the application and concluded sard 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 wnducted a oreetin9 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 fi that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A. of this Resolution true and correct. 2. Rased upon substtatial evidence preseu,.ed to this Council during the above- referencod meeting on December 7, 1988, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby spe:ifically finds as follows: X10 `? CITY COUNCIL RESOLIrrIr N0. MDR 87 -71 - COMMERCIAL JARIERS, INC. December 7, 1988 Page 2 (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 presently improved with an office, warehouse, and parking lot, and (b) 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. (r.) The application applies to a site that is currently improved with an office building, warehouse building and parking tot and is cons'dered a legal non- conforming lot; and (d) Municipil Code Section 17.06.020.6 authorizes 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) Wnicipal Coda 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 (f) fie Site Plan submitted in conjunction with the application, does not meet the Industrial Specific. Plan standard of a 35 foot average landscape setback and minimum 25 foot parking setback, as measured from the ultimate face if curb. Further, the site plan and existing chain link fence improvements do not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standards for screaming outdoor storage of vehicles within 120 feet of a street frontage with masonry, concrete or other similar materials. (g) 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. FLrther, 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. Th e City's access policy also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet from Intersections (h) The applicant has not filed any application for variance from the Industrial Specific Plan Stdndards and requirements. 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this 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: � o CITY COUNCIL RESOLU!IC' 40. MDR 87 -71 - COWRCIAL',ARRIERS, 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 u:e is not in accord with the objective of the industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site 1s located; and (c) That the proposed use 1s not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan; and r (d) That the proposed use, together with the ;• conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the ppubilc health, safeti, or welfare, or naterfally injurious to properties or improveaents in the vicinity. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 1, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution 41l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 4, 1989 TO: City Council and Acting City Manager FROM: Russeil 11. M+,guire, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Reccmendation to establish speed limits on Have Etiwande Avenue, Hillside Road and Base Line Road RECOMENDATION: It is recamended tiat Section 10.20.020 of the Municipal Code to provide for speed limits of 45 MPH on Haven Avenue from 4th Wilson Avenue; 45 )PH on Base Line Road from Haven Avenue Avenue; 45 MPH on Ettwanda Avenue from Highland Avenue to 24 and 3S MPH on Hill-iue Roao from Haven Avenue to Canistel Avenu B=Gffi= /NLILYSIS• Continuing surveillance cf streets in the City has res-lied in ctmdacLing traffic and engineering surveys for the purpose of establishing speed limits according to Sections 22357, 22358 and 40801 -40805 of the California Vehicle Code. Tho Vehicle Code allows titles to set speed limits at other than 25 MPH or 55 MPH in accordance with such surveys in order to more precisely establish the "reasonable and prudent" speed required under basic State speed law. This speed then becomes the basis for enforcement, eliminating the extreme discretion which otherwise could ozcur. Such a survey, less than S years aid, is also required where radar is used for enforcement. Surveys as required above hake been conducted on listed streets. The surveys involved the detensination of the prevailing speed of existing traffic by the use of radar, an analysis of the recent accident history and a search for try eonditiens not apparent to drivers which would require a reduced speed. The results of Liese surveys are summarized in the attached table. After review of these results, it was 'ound that the safety record of Hillside Road is well within expected levels anJ there are no unusual conditions not apparent to drivers. Thus, the observed prevailing speeds must be the predcainatt consideration in deterrining the speed limit. The safety ecords of the other streets are also better than expected, however in the case of Etiwanda Avenue, the street condition and level of abutting development are not readily apparent to drivers. For this CCSR January 4, 1989 Page 2 mason, a reduction of greater than 5 MPH below the peevailing or "critical' speed is recommended. The same reduction of about 7 MPH is recommended for the sections of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue submitted herewith, but for a different reason. Them are segments of these streets which show a prevailing speed closer to 50 MPH but follow or are mixed in with segments fully justifying a 45 MPH limit. The change to a limit only 5 MPH below the State maximum, particularly between 45 zones, is not normally considered appropriate or necessary as a traffic management measure. Further, these street sections clearly show the need for a reduction from 55 MPH due to increasing development and closely spaced signals. Thus, a 45 zone becomes the appropriate choice and is the recommendation.. CDMCLUSIW: A speed limit ; hould be established that would be considered reasonable by most of the drivers on the street and still provide for effective enforcement. A speed limit such as this is set at, in most cases, the first 5 MPH increment below the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are going. If accident rates are higher than expected, a further 5 MPH reduction from the 85 percent level accompanied with a higher level of enforcement should reduce the accident rate to within expected levels. The proposed speed limits are expected to be exceeded by 22 to 70% of the drivers observed, however the limits should provide an effective tool for law enforcement due to the circumstances under which thay will be in force. Respectfu ubmitted, C RHM:P cc Clyde Boyd, Chairsian- Puhlic Safety Commission Attachment /3 ORDINANCE NO. d q —1, t1D� a CI AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITy401INIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO THE RAMCNO CUCAYONGA. REGARDING PRIM FACIE � GA CITY LIMITS UPCN CERTAIN CITY STREETS A. Recitals (i) California vehicle Code Section 22357 provides that this City Council may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any street not a state highway. (li) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering and traffic survey, of certain streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which streets as specified in Part B of this Ordinance. (111) The determinations concerning prima facie speed limits set forth dentlfn P i Section rt, below, l lir e based upon the engineering and traffic survey B. Ordinance NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUN:IL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga City Code to read, to word: and figures, as follows: 50.20.020 Decrease of state law amxinum speed. It it determined by City Counc reso u on and pon the OASIS OT an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law is greater than is and it reaonable or declaredsthat therpr conditions facie found set forth a , for hInthis section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice hererof: Declared Prima Facie Name of Street or Portion Affected Speed Limit (MPH) 1 Archibald Avenue - Banyan to North end 50 2 Archibald Avenue - Fourth Street to 45 Banyan Street 45 3. Arrow Route - Baker to Haven 'J 4 CCSA Ordinance January 4, 1989 Page 2 4. Baker Ave. - 0th St. to Foothill Blvd. 35 S. Banyan Street from Beryl Street to London Avenue 35 6. Banyan Street - from west City limits to Beryl Street 40 7. Base Line Road - West City limits to Carnelian 45 8. Base Line Road - Carnelian to Hermosa 40 9. Base Line Road - Hermosa to Spruce 45 10. Beryl Street - Banyan to end 45 il. Beryl Street - 800 n/o Lemon to Banyan 40 12. Carnelian Street - Foothill to end 45 13 Center Avenue - Foothill Blvd. to Church Street 40 14. Church Street - from Archibald Ave. to Elm 40 15 Eigghth Street - Grove to Haven 45 16. Etlwanda Avenue - Foothill to Summit 45 17. Grove Avenue - Eighth to Foothill 40 18. Haven Avenue - 4th St. to Nilson 45 19. Hellman Avenue - Foothill to Alta Lama Dr. 35 20. Hellman Avenue - 500' n/o Nanzanita to Valley View 40 21. Hellman Avenue - 6th to Foothill 45 22. Hermosa Avenue - Bate Line Road to Wilson Ave. 45 23. Hermosa Avenue - Wilson to Sun Valley Dr. 40 24. Hermosa Avenue - Eighth St. to Base Line Rd. 45 25. Highland Avenue - Amethyst to Hermosa 35 26 Highland Avenue - from Hermosa Avenue to 800' west of Haven 45 27. Hillside Road - Ranch Gate to Amethyst Street 35 28. Hillside Road - Haven to Canistel Ave. 35 29. Lemon Avenue - Archibald Avenue `o Haven Avenue 40 30. Lemon Avenue - Jasper St. to Beryl St. 35 31. Ninth Street - Baker Ave. to Archibald Ave. 40 32. Red Hill Country Club Dr. - Foothill to Alta Cuesta 35 33. Rochester Ave. - Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road 50 34. San Bernardino Road - from Vineyard Avenue to Arcnibald Avenue 35 35. Sapphire Street - Banyan to end 45 36 Sapphire Street - 19th to Lemon 40 31 Spruce Avenue - Elm Avenue to Base Line Rd. 40 38. Terra Vista Parkway - Church to Belpine 40 39 Victoria Street - Archibald Ave. to Ramona St. 35 40 ilctorla Street - Etlwanda Ave. to Route 15 40 G' 1 CCSR Ordinance January 4, 1989 Page 3 41, Victoria Street - Haven Ave. to Mendocino Pl, 40 42, Victoria Park Lane - Base Lire Rd. to Day Creak BI . 35 43. Victoria Windrows LOOP (north b south) 40 44, Vineyard Avenue - Church to Base Line Rd, 45. Vineyard Avenue - 8th Street to Foothill Blvd. 45 46, Mhittran Avenue - Etlwanda to east City Limits 45 47. Nilson - Aaethyst Ave- Haven Ave. 48, Nilson - Haven Ave, to 200' east of Canlstel Ave. 40 { (Ord. 169 Section 5I (part), 1982: Ord. 39 Section 5.1, 1978). Rancho per hour arc are which fae more thane areereasonableao- s f ;tve (55) which (ii) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie $peels which are most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe on said streets or portions thereof, p speed m The miles satd streets; and stated re hereby declared to be the prima facto Uv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install apppropriate signs upon said streets giving notice of the prima facie speed llwtt declared heroin Section 2 shall causeethe City to shall as required by law. Section this Ordinance and Section 3 Tha Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the sama to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least City of Tn aDail are or City cjrculatadnlnalthe Cityt0fnRanchosCuwmongae once California CCSR Ordinance c January 4, 1989 ' Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of January. 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ---Tenn s , u ,Or ATTEST: every • Ste1'a e 1, BEVERLY A AUTNELET, CITY CLERK of the city o" Rancho Cucamonga, califnrnia rertif of t e Circy of Rancho Cucamonga held onthea4th Of th Counc of l of the City9of and was Rancho Cicamongaahold on the 4th day of January. 1989 - Executed this 4t day of January, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. every . u e e , y er ,-)/7 'e =Q i� i 0 w 0 w a p w cnU 7 p w is § � / � � ) ■ ) | ® § |§) | � � . ¥ . � � a ! ■ § § § » » § * $ ! ■ ■ ! ■ ! e e e e e e m e e e )®2 ©} §S§ | --------- ----- - - - - -- _E -§ E . , ------------- --- - - - - -\ j _ _ \n■e! ;_ ;_ ;_ ;_;_ ;_ ;_ ;_ ;_; t §CH k k k)\ k §§ k \ ORE » » C; v_/ X14 §� R / / O r� )A it 2 ; e m k ; ; § 2) =§ t ) �B ( 2 | �)©( ��■� �B§} §R'( §■ } n§§� ■; | n'§! \kk\ ) k k ; ■ ; ] \ e� ) ; ( ` �■ § ; | - � ( ( k ) \ ( ) ��� / \ ■ ( ■ ® � ! . ■ ■ E - ( k �� z r (e2s! / )■( ©( �e - - -.- �_}�� _ /j) m: {§ §!\ / 2222\ e }§m - (n ■§) � - ����\ � B �.. , ° - )n■§) §§ §) ----- )- -\�kk\ .)...)? CITY OF RANCHO CUCA31ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 29, 1988 TO: Mayor and City Council JWOO.4 FROM: Jack Lam, Acting Cites y Hanagt e SUBJECT: Status of Sheriff's Personnel in Emergency Situations In September, 1988 an inquiry was made to the Sheriff's Office by the City Manager about the level of staffing by Sheriff personnel during emergency situations. The City was concerned that emergencies In other parts of the County might leave Rancho Cucamonga without adequate law enforcement personnel. The Sheriff has agreed to and the current contract has beer, amended and approved by the Board of Supervisors to include the following provision: "In the event of such an emergency outside of the corporate limits of City, personnel or equipment assigned by the Sheriff to the performance of County's duties hereirnder, may be utilized by County in connection with such emergency, however, no more than 50% of available personnel and equipment may be assiyred outside the City boundaries without the mutual agreement of the Sheriff and the City Manager. In the event of a major emergency In the City and surrounding communities, Sheriff's personnel and equipment shall not be assigned outside the City boundaries at a level which would deter from the City's ability to respond to the existing emergency without mutual agreement of the Sheriff and the City Manager. The City shall bo reimbursed for any result and service not performed." Because of this amendment there will be assurances that Rancho Cucamonga will no'. be unprotected during emergencies outside the City. By the same token, the normal mutual aid protocol will ensure extra support needed in case of emergencies within the City. vl 1*3 CITY OF R.1NCHO CUCATIONCA Tom Nickum, Deputy Chief San Bernardino Sheriff's Department 655 Bast Thin Jan Bernardino, CA 92402 Dear Tom: was OmnB so. amawC —w%k r.`.wn, 91ma(IN)81.1411 Be tember 28, 1988 You may recall in our recent meeting with Sheriff Tidwell that he made a commitment that in the event of an emergency, Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's personnel would not be removed without first receiving approval from the City Manager. Naturally, we are avare that there may be routine autual aid calls in vhich Sheriff's deputies are asked to assist other communities, and we have on problem with that. The main cc.cero we have is that in a 1uJor amer,_acy, Sheriff's personoel will not be reassigned to other areas withwat first checking with the City. Io order to accomplish what we agreed to, I would like to have an ameadmaut to our current Sheriff's contract, which would add s rlauee in clarify the issue. I would prefer that it come from the Sheriff's Department, so that goodwill will be generated from the action. If you have any questions, or would like ndditio.el lnformatica, please contact me. Your prompt response would be appreciated. UU: j 1 a 1101 /88 -687 Jincerely, aura. H. waoaermen City Manager . -4 -,� 3 G NaVn, .uL D,Cm.h N Brown lefae1 glue Chi CYnnuL Strut Qm�lnl 9uquu 11 P�me41 tvnehl Lauren Al tYUwlm,n W CCOU14TY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD CONTRACT J A.r„ea, ❑ e. ibast -"�-- ���Imim�u er ruonYq, ""'rwm.n c. nmo� _fimaywvrp a! IaNaN.M Pe✓mmn. For Seheduie "A, "err nr ar sear y�eh_ fte, THIS CONTRACT Is entered Into In the State Of Caltfcmia by and between the County of Sap Bernardino, hereafter ca-led the Cpunry, en¢ hereafter called QI1T IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOM: (Use +Pan M /ow cnd rmrar C:i cf 1Mm NnNr.�p„yt /y y, tNVrrl tP ei re t aretf, amount ro Of Pa M, mavtar ofPaymanr. elms /os aAormanca w c"P4r/on daurmawrron of a llrficaws, o r,a,,n anrlrcaure for mim/Nrbn, omar rrmis and <erW /tbnr, and arced, P/+na, q,ad /A,a yont, and sdaends, if any,/ ' 1. /.btttract hb. 85 -s96, p�i�$ ��s � � �• BS-s96 i is ter¢ � PK Iau EltE�'caaoPlxltg tw�t�olts City of R¢ttcho IV w1tll� efPecel;'e 1, 1988 S^1xdulo A as sttatm5ed hereto a�tldr 'A• zeferred to in Paragraph 2. Paragranl 3. Sectron IX of asid ort.ract itt am•�d�eff¢ctlw t � � referenoB. folloust ove�er 1. 1988 to read as Not incl:rkd !n naa or related ttervtcee are Bala;in ar related oasts of additional dice servim for authorized Rrblrc gath¢:iagp, Itt the etreslt oP auc6 en emergency outside of the axe. a'a dutiev�heretaid�ei l eottrml ¢ F�ettt asmicytpi hY SherlfP to tF¢ prtfotmatto of no mac¢ ttatt 501 oP atallaytP Pergonnel utilized hY Ootatty !i arpectirn wilt strh ®er9e+tcY. hamver >xtaries without tM mrttlal. agreemat xfdt}Ie 6titE� assigned wtaid¢ th¢ city 'cot be ass1� in the City tcd slsrotadltlg oaxnitles. SheriPfle P¢r rn el and eriit�tt shall fined outside th¢ city bourdar:� at a istrrl tdtir3r ugti� deter fctm tlq City'e ability fie Ctrnst�Y ettaL' be rolctxsr�sod crf req la.�t cervio�areennt of tin SberlfP std Clty Manager. l• Et>t far tills aps>drarlt, allIsr txx perfotrmed. ss staked tttarexn. Faovlelona of CUlttract ice. 85 -5a6. as anrytd¢d, remain AnY Proviswv on U.e reverse srde seal referenced attaehmenp hereof anshtute a pare of this ce�traer and are mcorporatetl herem m full COUNTY OF Sa��� e C A I , Boartl o Su �j Kdry �J° u JoYnct Dated NOV 14 1988 um ot.um.roa Ise, ISfaro d, carparaaon, Po'nPanY. arc 1 13yr,�1r/l Da[etl fAutnm/ted Shnarun/ Lauren Wasserman Title _ clay ft.naeer Address P 0 Box 807 ?aaan C 9173 flerin..eu ar co eutlpet a +Peadnu Counn Admu•irvativs Olriu �- seye 1 n - - -- CITY OF RANCHO Cl CAbIONGA STAFF REPORT Date: January 4, 1989 1 T� Mayor and City Council From Jack Lem, Acting City Manager By Marti Higgins, Lisaster Preparedness Coordlnator'il Subject: Information on Locally Declared Disister Two questions have been asked by the council pertaining to declaration of local emergencies I hope the following Information answers any concerns adequately 1 Can an area of a city be designated as a disaster area? Generally the entire jurledlcticn Is designated In the Local Emergency proclamation because of the immunities It affords. However for the purpose of th•e idsntifieatlon of victims ar.d effected property, the perimeters of t`e effected area are noted 2 Under what cireumotancea are a Local, State, Peeeral Emergency /Disaster Proclaimed? In eny emergency, the primary respo.?elb111`y for mitigating the effects and repairing the damage rests wl'h local government State and /or federal assistance will be provided only when the effects of the emergency are beyonJ the capab111ty of local roaources to mitigate effectively USE OF OWN RESOUPCES The first response of any disaster is by local government After emergency trrces have been deployed, io "l officials must determine if local resourcoo can effectively m'tlgate the olfects of the emergency It it is determined tl -tt the emergency 1e beyond the capability of these forces, Mutual Aid, as provided under Raster Mutual Aid Agreement's may then be requested MUTUAL AID 1 Oder provisions of the Master Mutual Aau agreement, local agencies may request voluntary oralutznce from nearby ,Juriedictlon'o In responding to the cmergency situations. Such assistance is to supplement locel forces and spend up the disaster mitigation ! 2 Ths request for mutual :id Is addr ^seer: first to adjolnin'l cities, than city to cour,ty and co4nty to state It the needs cannot be mot within the effected entity, request for additional aid in made by the County to he office of Emergency Services ICES) Regional office Tae ORS Rogional WOMEAM information of Locally Deolared Disaster January 6, 1989 Page 2 Manager may request aid from other counties, and from state agencies within the Region. Mutual Aid becomes mandatory when a State of Emergency is proclaimed by the governor. '. ". LOCAL AND STATE EMEROENCY PROCLAMATION'S 9 e1. When there Is a condltlor of extreme peril to the safety of r• persons and property, and the condition is beyond the capability of the local forces to control effectively, the vi local governing body (City Council, Board of Supervisors, or r„ a pezoon authorized by ordinance) may proclaim a local y. emergency. A local emergency may be proclaimed to exist due to u specific situation, such as flood, fire, storm, u earthquake, epidemic, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, or other condition. The type of dienoter, date of occupancc and area affected are to be identified 2 In the event public real property has been damaged or destroyed and assistanc:s is needed in the repaia and t restoration, the governing body may elect to request the Oirector of the O.E S. concur in their Local Emergency for implementation of thi State Natural Diameter Assistance Act The• Local Emergency pro,�lnmatlon mrat be made within 10 days of the occupancc to qua;lfy for a.sslstance under the State Natural Disaster Asslatanci Act 3 The goy rning body must revlow the need for continuing the local 3mergency Proclamation at least every 16 days and proclaim the teralnatlon at the earllest possible date a The proclamation of a Local Emergency: a Gives public employees and governing bodies legal Immunitles for emergency actions taken. b Enables the Board of Supervisors to act as a Board of vqualiza_ ion to reassess damaged property and provide property tax relief (if applicable) C Enables local agencies to request state assistance ender the NDAA; and d Allows the Chief Executive (or other authorized official designated by local ordinance) to: (1) establish curfews: �d 7 ■ Information of Locally Declared Disaster January t, 1989 Page 3 (2) take any preventative measures necessary to prote =t and preserve the public health and safety; (3) exercise other authorities when established by local ordinance (i.e. t� issue new rules and regulations, expend funds, or to obtain vital supplies and equipment.); (d) request the Director of OP.S'S concurrence in the local emergency for implementation of the State Natural Diameter Assistance Act; and (e) request the Governor to proclaim a State of Emergency. When a request Is made for a Governor Proclamation the following supportive data must be forwarded as well. a Copy of the local emergency proclamation b Detailed Damage Asasesment Sunmary, if State f!nanclal assistance under provisions of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act Is roqueeted If the Governor Proclalms a State of Emergency in an area, It then provides the legal basis for mandatory mutual aid, and for the lmplemeutatlon of NDAA (for eligible loc -1 governments), and permits the Governor to: a Use State resources (a g National Guard, California Conservation Corps); b expend State funds; C. suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute, or the rules or regulations of a state agency, whore compliance would hinder or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency, d direct state agencies to utilize and employ state personnel, equipment, and facilities for the preveutlon of actual or threatened damage due to the emergency and, e request the President to declare an Emergency or Major Disaster c) -,�7 ,g Information of Locally Declared Disaster January 6, 1989 Page d When o Presidential Declaration is requested for possible federal assistance under PL 93 -280, the following additional information 1 must accompany the local resolution; fu a detcllod damage assessment data, b. certification by the state, c Supplementary Justification Data as requested Diagram of Loral Actions Following a Disaetmr t D16A 7RR OCCURS t State Assistance v I Use Own Forces to Respond to Occurrenco Report situation to Office ct Emergency Scrvicam Use Scats Assietsnce .available under statutory authority (end without Governor's proelamation Proclain Local Emergency or OCS DiLGctor's Concur- rence) Request Mutual Aid Complete Damage Assessment Provide assistance under Request Concurrence of DES state Natural Disaster Director in Local Emergency Assistance Act (NDM) 1'rcclamaticn Provide assistance under California Emergency Services Act Request Governor's Procla- mation of State o! Emergency Request Presidential Doter - mination or Emergency, or major Disaster Declaration xi ea � ] m Federal Assistance Use Federal Assistance available under statu- tory authority (without Governor's proclamation or Presidential Declar- ation) Provide assistance under Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (Public Law 92 -288) — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: January 4, 1989 To: Mayor and City Council From: Jack Lam, Acting City Manager BY: Jim Hart, Administrative v+rvices Director SubJect: OPTIO1iS FOR RECRUITYE1IT FOR A CITY RAMAGER RECOM ENDATIOM The City Council direct staff on how to proceed in recruiting for a .Ity Manager. BACKGROUND Staff was requested to provide options for the recruitment of a City Manager. Basically, the most common options used for City Manager recruitments - ^e as follows: 1) Hire an executive search firm; ?) Have City personnel staff conduct the recruitment; 3) Inside recruitment. Below is a discussion of options I and 2. Option 3 is self - explanatory. HIRE AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM This option entails the employment of a firm that specializes in the recruitment of executive level positions. A sampling of firms most commonly associated with City Manager recruitments 1s as fellows: Ralph Anderson b Associates - Sacramento norm Roberts 5 Associates - Los Angeles Hughes, Reiss 8 Associates - San Mateo John Shannon A Associates - Stcrnmento Korn, Ferry S Associates - Los Angeles After I,iforral contact with each of these firms, the cost for s •1ty recruitment for this option is as follows: Base Fee $12,500 Re4mbursement expenses S [,800 - $5,000 Recruitment outside Cdlifornia - extra cost add -on varies from firm to firm Rec-uitment customizing - extra cost add -on varies from firm to firm Therefore, the range of basic recruitment costs would be $14,500 - $17,500 Plus add -on costs and cost of transportation and lodging for interview candidate= Staff Report January 4, 1999 Page 2 The basic reasons for utilizing an executive search firm are the specialized expertise, the nationwide network of contacts, the neutrality and the speed within which the screening, background checks, etc., can be accomplished. The major disadvantages of utilizing an executive search firm are the cost, lack of familiarity with the City and it's needs, coordination is sometimes difficult, and modification of the process can be difficult. While the process used by each of the executive search firms is basically the sane, each firm has a special 'twist", and if formal proposals are requested, these 'twists' (special way to do things) would be detailed for the City Council. The baste process followed by the consultants consists of the following: 1. Meetings with the Council members individually to develop a profile of the characteristics desired in a City Manager 2. Meetings with the City Council as a whole to meld the individual profiles into one profile that details the characterlst' s desired by the City Council as a whole. 3. If requested, the consultant will meet with the City Department Heads and local community ieaders to develop a profile of issues the City Manager will be facing and desired characteristics. 4. Ads could be placed to various job advertising medlas (i.e. the Western City Magazine, Jobs Available, etc.) specifying the desired characteristics and detailing a closing date for the receipt of applications. 5 Once the application deadline has passed, the consultant performs a preliminary screening of applications, conducts minor back)round checks and prepares a list of most qualified applicants 'or the City Council to review The consultant meets with the City Council .o review, in detail, those applicants who appear most qualified and receive further direction from the City Council on who to include in formal interviews and how to proceed. 6 The formal interviews usually include either or both of these two steps: 1) Preliminary interview of candiddtes by the consultant with recommendation to the City Council of the top two or three candidates; and /or 2) a formal interview with the City Council of the top six to eight candidates. The consultant will assist the Ctty Council in dpveloping questions and general sceneries to persue dtring the interview. .14 3 i Staff Report January a, 1989 Page 3 7. The consultant would assist in tackgroand investigations of the top candidate and assist in the salary negotiation, process. 0. Some consultants conduct a small term building meeting with the new City Manager and City Council approximately 30 days after the new City Manager starts. 9. The time frame for a City Manager recruitment is normally 30 -60 days for recruitment, 30 days for application screening, background checks, meeting with the Council and scheduling and setting up interviews. The interview process usually does not take core than one week depending on which method is selected. fie salary negotiation process varies from one to several weeks depending on the closeness of the Council's offer to what the candidate expected. Therefore, the time frame should not exceed 90 -120 days to selection of a new Manager. The protest can be altered and customized in any fashion to meet the City Council's needs. However, major variation can result in higher costs. All the consultents are very willing to assist the City Council at any stage during the process. Most consultants request designation of one city staff individual to coordinate through so information relayed between the consultant and City Council is .consistent. HAVE THE PERSOHMEL DEPARTMENT CONDUCT THE RECRUITMENT The process of City staff conducting the recruitment would to similiar to the nine steps used oy the consultant. The City Council, would advise staff of its recruitment strategy and the Personnel Department would proceed with a process to meet that strategy. The advantages of a personnel staff recruitment is the cost is dramatically reduced, staff has the expertise to conduct the recruitment and screen applications, better communication normally takes place between the City Council and City staff and any community contacts are easier for staff to coordinate Additionally, staff may be able to better answer questions by candidates The largest advantage of a staff recruitment is the ability of the City Council and staff to more easily alter a step or add new steps without throwing the process outside of what the consultant bid on, thereby elininating the need for contract renegotions and added cost. The major disadvantage �s the lack of the consultants list of contacts. Time frame for Personnel uepartment recruitment is similar to option it with the exception that recruitment could occur as soon as Council so directs, whereas, there would be a min!mum 30 days to obtain written proposals, selection of consultant and negotiation of contract with option #I prior to beginning recruitment Cost of option 12 would be approximately $2,000 for the cost of advertising and materials plus lodging and travel of interview candidates. ^ ` "I Staff Report January 4, 1989 Page 4 St"My The approach to the selection of a City manager becomes a very personal issue to and the Th:y level Council needs satisfaction with is the very processu will e help develop cthe i used. comfort level with the individual uon itherdopt on soatlinedt urssany Council arlatlon ' the fullest extent p thereof. Respectfully submitted, Lam g City manager JL /Jm /dah 33 CITY OF RAAcHO CUMAONGA STAFF REPORT DAM Dooesba• 29, 1988 �� TO: Maya[ ar. city Ocunmii (\� Lvrr- � FPIH: Derma A. Baker, A&dnlatrative Assistant �y1 Y1"f'. SUdJ=: status on Anlmae _`_ ] �*v'm Alt�*'+?iver v , 1477 As listed in the City's 1.' 88 -89 Goals and Objectives, staff is xwdnir%3 r&L cntrol Service alternatives. Currently, thus =a four possibilities mind. Below you will find a description of the options and the status on researching the options. mintain Current Contact — cortiruo with cur current arrangement with the O=nty. Part of this would be to continue our efforts to hzgrom resporlsiwmess and servica within the boundaries of the current contract. Expand tho contract — Omlrino with other neighboring cites to farm a regional animal control area with the county. This arratgement would haw provisions for permanently .,.ssignsd personnel shape. Currently staff is exploring this option with Ontario, Ft7ntan1 and the county. Althar41 the county is well aware of cur desire to Provide been cx� rt ceheraive repo to Council by Feb"ary, t�Y s fcetheoming with a proposal• imegarllem of the county's rrsporo to this proposal, staff will stay with its tlma line for a omplete report to you by Ft'lanary. Contract with Samoan Else — Contract with anther ProviYx of and al control services in cooperation with other cities or an ox- cm. Staff has barn having discvssiors with the Po os Nanny fkmane Society (PVt6) in this regard. From thw�o discrssiens, it has bxame char that the cost desirable arran7®ent is a ceeperativa agr°®ent cities and VAG. To this end, staff has been working v Fbntnra, several Ontario and PVIM to identify costs d mocMntisas available to establish antral control services in this area. FAG has 3 LI Animal crntrol Alternatives December 29, 1988 Page 140 submitted a preliminary dal to the cities, and staff is discussing various points of the proposal at this time. Miis proposal would estmr i ish regional animal contr ol services with permanently assigned parosenl aryl a local shelter to be operated and provided by PM. Do It Ourrelvm — 9n Uity Would provide its own animal osMrol r, serviam main like the City of Upland. e staff is gurramtly ex mining the various anzoad:ea irnolvm with this F option, as well as its cost effectiveness in relation to the Other options. 'r Waa, staff has compiled all the necessary data, these options 'ill be presented to thv City a:uncll for oumidarai.lon Of Mama directirn the City should take. This PL-3 Wticn will ogee in February so that the council my 1nV0 time to imorporate arty dacisim it may acke Into tin 1989 -90 budgot process. DAB: j19 cc: Jack Lam RicharO Alcorn 88 -826 i 5 t s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: December 27, 1988 TO: City EOLnc it 1 FROM: Dennis L. Sfi6t, Mayor and PamelWWright. Councilmember SUBJECT: Subcommittee Interviewing Planning Commission Comtssioners q�_ The subcommittee recommends the reappointment of Planning Commissioners Suzanne Chitiea and Bruce Emerick. /Jls cc: Jack Lam 0701 11/88 -d19 -=�3G I M 1n -- CiTY OF RANCHO CUCA51ONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: Deceiaber 27, 1908 T0: City Council 04�tP FROM: Councilmembers Charles J. Buquet 11 and William J. Alexan7dr SUBJECT: Subcommittee Intervievina Citizen's Advisory Commission Coumissioners The Subcommittee recommends the reappointment of Advisory Commissioner's Tiina Ross, Grace Jones and Stephen Barras. Further, the subcommittee recommends the appointment of Patti Geye to replace the commission seat !acated by Bob Thomas. /jls cc: Jack Lam 0701.11/88 -818 .J-37 _ZS t; I i 'ITY OF RANCIIO CUCAMONGA �` � � STA'r, REPORT f V 0 2t C � i V L'TT7 DAnI January 41 1959 TOs Ifayot and City Council FROMI Deborah P. Brow' Hoyor Pro Ten William J. Ales °ader� Couneilmember DRR9ISWlNC POUC SAMY COIQIIDSIONRRB SDBJeCfs BU8C014fiTIER lace the Geo:Se ynac{eh to rep it toe recommend^ the Appointment Ics= of ' The Subcommseat vncayaYYYa33d���by William Alezeade�_\ ` cymmissioo / 1 /Ilyflll /111� Idja cc 0 CITY T RANCHO ca REPORT DATE: December 27, 1988 TO: Mayor Stout and McMbets of the City Council FROMt The Rancho Cucamonga Co ®mity poundstion gT; Susan Mickey Administrative Aide t SUBJBCyt A ointment [o th younda[ ion guard of Directors Reconrn� it is Baard ®eD rattan the tCityaCoun CutamongaeCotru nityiFoundation ism Rosa [e Be, .round When the Poundaticn ran originally formed by the City Council is April 1987, it of Paula Grigsby bfrom � t the Board t of Direc:ars' member the Ba rd .ov has ahvacant seats so was to e Tiina Ross has been active on the Advisory Council to the Foundation and has an interest in helping to promote the atts and hums° services is Rancho Cucamonga Me Ross has unaniaoun approval of the Board of Directors of the poundatioo :o f'l' the vacancy. �3�