HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/10/16 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st m~d 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
October 16, 1996
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
City Councilmembers
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tern
Paul Biane, Cotmcilmember
James V. Curatalo, Cotmcilmember
Diane Williams, Cou,cilmember
Jack Lam, City Ma,ager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 477-2700
City Council Agenda
October 16, 1996
All items submitted forthe City Council Agenda must be in writing: The
deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m, on the Tuesday of the
week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such
items.
1. Roll Call:
A. CALL TO ORDER
Alexander Biane , Curatalo
Gutierrez , and Williams __
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of a Proclamation to the Cucamonga Dodgers Girls
Softball Team congratulating them for the A.A.U. National Gold
Medal.
Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 23-
31, 1996 as Red Ribbon Week in Rancho Cucamonga, and
Presentation of Certificates to Red Ribbon Week Button Design
Winner and Honorable Mention Recipients.
Presentation by Active Ride Shop regarding Project Skate Park
Fundraiser.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and
non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or
member of the audience for discussion.
1. Approval of Minutes: September 18, 1996
October 2, 1996
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/2/96 and 10/9/96, and
Payroll ending 10/3/96 for the total amount of $3,483,449.90.
,
Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of
September 30, 1996,
City Council Agenda
October 16, 1996
2
o
Approval of the Environmental initial Study, Parts I and II, for the
proposed Arrow Route Street Improvement Project from the
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Spur Crossing to 400
Feet west of Milliken Avenue and Issuance of a Categorical
Exemption therefore.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-139
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL
STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED ARROW
ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND
SANTA FE RAILROAD SPUR CROSSING TO 400
FEET WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
Approval of Payment to Active Ride Shop for "Project Skate Park"
Public Liability Insurance in the amount of $640.00.
Approval to appropriate the prior year's unexpended funds as well
as reprogramming of funds for the Lions Center East and West ADA
Improvement Projects, and amendment of the Community
Development Block Grant 1995-96 Annual Action Plan.
Approval to allow the Mayor to adopt and sign the change made by
the Executive Committee of PARSAC on the Joint Powers
Agreement (CO 94-030).
RESOLUTION NO. 96-140
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE AMENDED JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK
SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA
(PARSAC)
16
19
31
32
36
38
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first
reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
No Items Submitted.
City Council Agenda
October 16, 1996
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public
hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive
public testimony.
No Items Submitted.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements.
The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE RECOVERY OF
COSTS FOR SECOND POLICE RESPONSES TO PARTIES
ORDINANCE NO. 561 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.32
TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE
RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR SECOND
RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND
OTHER ASSEMBLAGES
39
41
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
The following items do not legally require any public testimony,
although the Chair may open the meeting for public input.
CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY SKATE PARKS
44
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
The following items have been requested by the City Council for
discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may
open the meeting for public input.
1. REPORT ON GRAFFITI STATISTICS
103
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to
discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this
meeting, only identified for the next meeting.
City Council Agenda
October 16, 1996
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matterfor a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROCHESTER, BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE; VALLEY BASEBALL
AND JERRY FULWOOD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, NEGOTIATING
PARTIES; REGARDING TERMS OF PAYMENT.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on October 10, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting
per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
September 18, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Re.qular Meetin.q
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, September 18, 1996, in
the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Willlares, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Brad Buller, City Planner; Joe
O'Neil, City Engineer; Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator; Larry Temple, Administrative Services
Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark,
Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief
Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Lt. Joe Henry, Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing Citrus Little League 9- and 10-year-old team for being the
District 21 Champions.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Doug Morris and the Little League team members.
B2. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing Deer Canyon Little League All-Star team for being the District
21 Champions.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Ed Roseman and the Little League team members.
B3. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing the Alta Loma Little League Senior Division team for being
the District 21 Champions.
Mayor Alexander announced that the team could not be present tonight, but that they would still receive the
Proclamation.
B4. Presentation of Proclamation declaring the week of September 16- 22, 1996 as Pollution Prevention
Week.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 2
B5. Presentation of Rancho Cucamonga Coyote's Recycling Video and the characters of Rancho
Cucamonga Coyote and the Used Oil Mascot "Slick A. Saurous."
Mayor Alexander announced that this item would come back on the October 2nd Council agenda.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1.
Greg Bordner presented a petition that had been signed by residents along 19th between Haven and
Highland. He stated there are unsafe speed limits in that area. He suggested there be a stop sign
along this route. He commented on the blind curves at Inyo and Palm. He pointed out there were no
sidewalks for the school kids to walk on.
Mayor Alexander asked if they have tried to talk to the Engineering Department.
Mr. Bordner stated he has talked to them and that he was told they would investigate this, but that he
had not heard from them. He stated he had been told that Police protection would be beefed up in this
area, but did not feel that had been done either.
Mayor Alexander asked him to talk to Joe O'Neil and felt a meeting could be set up with the residents of this
area.
Councilmember Gutierrez pointed out that staff had been investigating problems this morning in the area of
Fairmont and Highland.
C2.
Frank Williams, 10356 Mahogany Court, stated there is an issue on the November ballot that would
affect him and the residents of the City. He stated Proposition 218 would jeopardize all the services
of the City and that he strongly opposes this.
Councilmember Biane stated he would be agendizing this for a future meeting for an analysis to be done by
staff so that a report could come back for everyone to hear.
C3.
Gary Stewart, 9279 Rancho Park Place, also on Board of Directors for the Rancho Cucamonga
V'r--jtors Bureau, advised the Council that "Rancho Cucamonga" is a very popular name in Europe. He
stated he would have two cars in the Duarte parade from Rancho Cucamonga. He added he would
be taking a trip to Texas and would be displaying Rancho Cucamonga as much as possible.
C4.
Bob Lundy, Executive Director Rancho Cucamonga Visitors Bureau, stated he was present to talk
about the Jack Benny statue. He commented how popular Jack Benny is and referred to a newspaper
arljcle he had distributed to the Council. He stated he would like to see the statue moved out on the
highway. He commented on an event to take place this weekend and how nice it would be to have
~Jack" more visible.
Mayor Alexander stated he understood Mr. Lundy's concerns about the statue having more visibility for the
future, but said it was a little late to do anything about it this weekend.
Councilmember Gutierrez agreed it would be nice for the statue to be more visible with easier access to see
it.
Jack Lam, City Manager, asked if Mr. Lundy had spoken to any staff members about the stadium being open
to view the statue.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Lundy stated he had inquired last week, and thanked Rick Gomez for the information he gave him
on access. He stated he should have asked earlier. He admitted the fault was with him for not
inquiring sooner.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated staff would look at what it can do to help this weekend to solve the problem.
Mr. Lundy thanked him for the assistance.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes: August 21,1996
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 8/28/96 and 9/4/96; and Payroll ending 8/8/96 for the total amount
of $1,950,221.89.
D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of August 31, 1996.
D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for an unnamed business, Kacy Ye and
Kwok Ching Ng and Connie L. Tsang, 9799 D Base Line Road.
D5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale General Eating Place for Applebee's Neighborhood Grill
& Bar, Pacific Gold Incorporated, 10709 Foothill Boulevard.
D6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Chavez Mexican Food, David and
Minerva Contreras Chavez, 10062 Arrow Route.
D7. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for MVP & Grill, Angela Marie and Michael
Oscar Galaz, 12809 Foothill Boulevard, Suite A, B, C, D.
D8. Approval of request by Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce to waive City fees in conjunction
with the annual Grape Harvest Festival.
D9. Approval of a resolution approving the submittal of a Household Hazardous Waste Discretionary Grant
to the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-132
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY APPLICATIONS, CONTRACTS,
PAYMENT REQUESTS, AGREEMENTS, AND AMENDMENTS HERETO FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SECURING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISCRETIONARY GRANT UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 1220
(EASTIN, 1993)
D10. Approval to execute contract (CO96-049) for the Founder's Day Parade by World Wide Spectaculars,
Inc. d.b.a. Pageantry Productions in the amount of $7,139.05 to be paid from Account No. 01-4532-3900.
D11. Approval to execute contract (CO96-049) for Household Hazardous Waste Services rendered to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga by the San Bernardino County Fire Department Household Hazardous Waste
Program.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 4
D12. Approval to accept the Foul Pole Support System Improvements at the Epicenter as complete.
D13. Approval to accept Street Improvements, Release of Bonds and File a Notice of Completion for
Improvements for CUP 88-18, generally located at the east side of Haven Avenue, between Highland and
Lemon Avenues.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond $124,000.00
No. 117 29 30
Labor and Materials Bond 62,000.00
No. 117 29 30
RESOLUTION NO. 96-133
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
CUP 88-18, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FOR THE WORK
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports
contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
H1. CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF ASSEMBLY BILL 3229
Staff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he supports this and is eager to get it implemented.
Councilmember Biane thanked staff for this and felt it was a good idea.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was
closed.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 5
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Williams to accept staff's recommendation.
unanimously, 5-0
Motion carried
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. DISCUSSION OF RECENT COURT DECISION AND THE CITY OF HIGHLAND'S APPROACH TO
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER INSTALLATIONS
Mayor Alexander stated this is an item he has always felt very strongly about. He stated he does not want this
to have anything to do with elections coming up in the future, but stated he would like to get a "re-commitment"
from the Council. He stated that back last year when this regulation was repealed there was a statement made
that the City needed to show how they can take measures to lessen the burden of the cost of these ordinances,
i.e., residential sprinkler system, before the Council would discuss it again. He felt now was the time when the
cost could be reduced and that this is not meant to be political or hostile. He stated he would like staff and the
BIA, and the public who wish to participate, to review this over the next 60 days with a report to come back at
the second meeting in November to show that the cost has been reduced for residential sprinklers.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander as stated above, seconded by Curatalo.
Councilmember Biane thanked Mayor Alexander for bringing the information forward and stated if there is more
or new information to bring forward, he is always willing to listen.
Councilmember Willjams stated she has no problem looking at this again, but still feels it should be made part
of the state codes and would be willing to help accomplish this.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he is always willing to listen to any new information. He did not feel there
really was any new information at the present time. He felt staff should present any new information to the
Council and allow them to make their own decision without a recommendation from staff.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he did not entirely agree with Councilmember Gutierrez because he felt staff
were the experts in this field. He stated this did not mean staff was controlling the Council by making a
recommendation.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he agreed that staff does not control the Council because they can make up
their own minds.
Mayor Alexander stated he would not think it was fair if staff could not make a recommendation, just as they
did for the Green Lawn Ordinance.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were:
Frank Williams, BIA, stated he is willing to get with staff any time to discuss this further. He stated the
BIA is not opposed to residential fire sprinklers, but that they are against mandating it for residents. He
felt Mayor Alexander has made this a political issue through his newspaper article. He did not feel
homes should have to be retrofitted. He felt this should be tabled tonight and then come back after
the election.
Mayor Alexander pointed out that this would not come back until after the election.
Mr. Williams felt this was political and did not feel it should be insinuated that Councilmembers
Gutierrez, Biane and Williams are not supportive of public safety.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 6
Councilmember Gutierrez asked if this would come back under Council Business.
Mayor Alexander stated yes.
Councilmember Williams asked who Mayor Alexander wanted to do the study.
Mayor Alexander stated he is inviting anybody, i.e., residents, BIA, etc., to be able to review the Hunt Study.
Councilmember Williams stated she could not support this if it is going to impact the work load of staffs time.
She felt maybe this should come back in 90 days instead of 60 days.
Mayor Alexander stated he did not feel staff would have to spend a lot of time for this.
Councilmember Gutierrez suggested that Mayor Alexander prepare the report.
Mayor Alexander stated he would be happy to do this.
Councilmember Biane suggested this come back in late January so they could have more time to pull this
together.
Councilmember Williams stated she would like to get public input on this also.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Curatalo to bring this back in January, 1997. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
12. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR LIBRARY FOUNDATION APPOINTMENTS AND
DISCUSSION OF RECRUITMENT POLICY Staff report presented by Councilmember Biane who indicated
the Library Foundation Subcommittee has gotten together with a recommendation for appointments to the
Library Foundation. He stated that they are also making a recommendation in order to recruit more members
for the Foundation to open this up to those individuals who are not residents of the City but are interested in
serving on the Foundation Board because they possibly have business interests in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public input. Addressing the City Council were:
Ede Swistock, Ubrary Boardmember felt the names before the Council are very qualified. He agreed
that this should be opened up to individuals who live outside the City and asked that the Council
consider this.
Bob Howdyshell, Library Boardmember, felt they should open this up to nonresidents who are
interested in serving on the Foundation because it would be beneficial to the Library.
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to appoint Barnett, Beasley, Morrison, Pachon, Schmidt,
and Valene, and to accept applicatjons from those living outside of the City limits so they can be considered for
a position on the Foundation.
Councilmember Williams asked if there was still the open position would they have to re-advertise.
Councilmember Biane stated yes they would have to go through the process.
Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1996
Page 7
13. UPDATE FROM ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE
Engineer.
ACTION: Report received and filed.
Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1. Councilmember Biane asked for a report to come back at the October 16th Council meeting on
Proposition 218 and the affects it would have if it is approved by the voters. He felt there should be available
an action to oppose or support this measure depending on the report.
J2. Councilmember Biane felt it might be a good time to get the Council and school superintendents
together for a summit in one month to come up with a collaborative effort to develop something for all agencies
to get involved in that could help the youth.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
K1. Bryan Antonez asked if there was any follow-up on the ice rink matter brought up at the last meeting.
Councilmember Willjams stated there was a memo done on this matter. She asked Brad Buller to give a brief
report on this even though it was not on the agenda.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is interest to develop an ice rink in the City, but that most of the inquiries
about it have not gone anywhere.
Councilmember Willjams stated there will not be an ice rink at the Ontario Mills.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they are going to try to market this to bring something to Rancho Cucamonga.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn for an Executive Session to discuss Property
Negotiations per Government code Section 54956.8 for property located on Rochester, between Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route; Valley Baseball and Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating parties;
regarding terms of payment. Moron carded unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. No action
was taken in Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved:
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
October 2, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
ReGular Meetin.q
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, October 2, 1996, in the
Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City
Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Larry
Temple, Administralive Se~ces Director; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City
Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 7-11, 1996 as Rideshare Week.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director.
B2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 6~13, 1996 as National Fire Prevention
Week in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Chief Dennis Michael.
Chief Michael, Fire District, stated an open house is planned for October 12 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
at the Jersey Fire Station on Jersey and Milliken.
B3. Presentation of Rancho Cucamonga Coyote's Recycling Video and the characters of Rancho
Cucamonga Coyote and the Used Oil Mascot "Slick A. Saurous."
Item was removed from agenda.
B4. A Certificate of Commendation was presented to Philip Michael Yanchura who was selected to be part
of the United States team at the Junior Pan Am Games and World Baseball Program in Argentina. He not only
represents the United States and Rancho Cucamonga, but is a Goodwill Ambassador as he competes in these
games.
City Council Minutes
October 2, 1996
Page 2
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1.
Ede Swistock, President of the Chamber of Commerce, extended thanks to the City for their assistance
in the Grape Harvest and for being a sponsor of this event. He particularly thanked Jack Lam, Rick
Gomez and Bill Makshanoff for all of their help.
C2.
Marcus Solomon thanked the Council for its support of the Skateboard Park Fund Raiser. He stated
he was very pleased with the success of the event.
C3.
Mr. Guzman brought up the issue of helping the youth by establishing programs so they do not go
wrong.
Mayor Alexander stated there are subcommittees of the Council that can address these types of issues and
suggested that the Police Department is always available to talk to him.
Mr. Guzman also mentioned he had been attacked by another dog and felt maybe he should talk to
the Park and Recreation Commission about this.
Councilmember Gutierrez encouraged him to call the City when he has a problem.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes: September 4, 1996
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 9/11/96 and 9/25/96; and Payroll ending 8/22/96 for the total
amount of $2,845,082.39.
D3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Traffic Signals and Safety
Lighting at the Intersection of Milliken Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, to be funded from Community
Development Transportation Systems Development Funds, Account No. 22-4637-9513.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-134
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
MILLIKEN AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
D4. Approval to the Plans and Specifications for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library Literacy Program
Improvement Project and Authorization to Advertise for Bids.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-135
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE "RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC LIBRARY LITERACY PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT," IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
City Council Minutes
October 2, 1996
Page 3
D5. Approval to appropriate $9,000 from Fund 24 - ISTEA (Account No. 244637-8914) for the Traffic
Signal at Archibald Avenue and Eighth Street Capital Improvement Project.
D6. Approval to appropriate $15,000 from Fund 90 - PD-85 for an equestrian ramp (ADA improvements)
for the physically challenged.
D7. Approval of a Public Convenience or Necessity 96-03 - Rancho Valley Golf Center. A request to make
a determination of a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control
License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for a driving range, Rancho Valley Golf Center,
located at 11670 Arrow Route.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-136
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ABC LICENSE
WITHIN AN IMPACTED CENSUS TRACT FOR A DRIVING RANGE, RANCHO
VALLEY GOLD CENTER. LOCATED AT 11670 ARROW ROUTE
D7. Approval of Fund Transfer and Authorize the City Manager and Director of Administrative Services to
Contract (CO 96-050) for City Computer Services.
D8o Approval to accept Improvements, accept the Faithful Performance Bonds a Maintenance Bonds and
File a Notjce of Completion for Tract 12462, located on the south side of Summit, between Etiwanda and East
Avenues.
Retain: Faithful Performance Bond 12120:4S
Faithful Performance Bond 121206S
Faithful Performance Bond 121205S
$ 67,000.00
14,000.00
11,600.00
RESOLUTION NO. 96-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT
12462, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT, BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND
EAST AVENUES AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
D9. Approval to accept Contract No. CO96-032, the Community Trail Fencing, Windrows Park and North
Victoda Windrows Loop, east side, south of Kalmia Street and Banyan Street, south side from Milliken Avenue
to Mr. Baldy, Landscape Maintenance District 2, Account No. 414130-9525 and Landscape Maintenance
District 6, Account No. 454130-0525, as Complete, Approve the Final Contract Amount of $67,622.10,
Release the Faithful Performance Bond, and Accept the Maintenance Bond and authorize the City Engineer
to file a "Notice of Completion."
RESOLUTION NO. 96-138
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
COMMUNITY TRAIL FENCING, WINDROWS PARK AND NORTH VICTORIA
City Council Minutes
October 2, 1996
Page 4
WINDROWS LOOP, EAST SIDE, SOUTH OF KALMIA STREET AND BANYAN
STREET, SOUTH SIDE FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO MT. BALDY, CONTRACT
NO. 96-032, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FOR THE WORK
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports
contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1. Councilmember Guljerrez asked for a report to come back at the next meeting on the graffiti statistical
information that had been previously presented to the Planning Commission. He also asked for an update on
the old Backwaters building and how the graffiti is being handled when it needs removing.
City Council Minutes
October 2, 1996
Page 5
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
K1.
Keith Keene expressed his concern about Casa Caliente Restaurant (Backwaters building), and the
graffl problem there. He stated as soon as it is removed, it goes back on again. He stated he would
volunteer to sit out there and watch for someone to graffiti the building after it has been cleaned and
that he would call the police when it happens.
Bill Anthony, Inland Empire Business Journal, stated they have got involved with Loma Linda University
to put on a Health Fair and Concert on October 13 to be held at the Epicenter. He also reported on
the advertising they are doing to promote this. He stated they would like to report back to the Council
after the event concludes.
K3. Dr. Greg Williams also reported on the concert and what they are doing to promote it.
Both Dr. Willlares and Mr. Anthony thanked Jerry Fulwood for his efforts in putting this together with them.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Property
Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located on Rochester, between Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route; Valley Baseball and Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, negotjating
parties; regarding terms of payment. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
No action was taken in Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Approved:
e
Im mmm ~ mm Im~ Im
j
j
· I
I I
~oooooooooooo~ooo
· I.
· I'
uJ I ·
,~1-~:
~'~1 el
01"~1
,-~1:~1
,0 · ·
I'
I I'
:..~:
II,-.I
I~..JI
r ·
· I'
i-
I
I. ·
· ii'
i~1
arLul
'r' X
uJ
eelllleeeeeeeeleeeleeeleeeeeeee lee
-?
10/09/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA PH - 1
PORTFOLIO MASTER SUMMARY CITY
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 CASH
AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY---
PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365
INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM MATURITY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
Certificates of Deposit - Bank ............... $
Local Agency Invest.ent Funds ................ $
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ............... $
Treasury Securities - Coupon ................. $
Mortgage Backed Securities ................... $
11,825,532.50 19.15 555 237 6.111 6.195
14,043,013.92 22.74 1 1 5.491 5.568
34,868,906.25 56.46 1,560 1,224 6.613 6.705
272,845.00 0.44 1,180 334 6.057 6.141
752,122.64 1.22 8,281 4,626 7.829 7.937
TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVERAGES ............. $ 61,762,420.31 100.00% 1,093 794 6.274~ 6.361%
CASH
Passbook/Checking Accounts ................... $ 1,126,479.39 1.973 2.000
(not included in yield calculations)
Accrued Interest at Purchase ................. $ 7,233.90
TOTAL CASH and PURCHASE INTEREST ............. $ 1,133,713.29
TOTAL CASH and INVESTMENTS ................. $ 62,896,133.60
MONTH ENDING FISCAL
TOTAL EARNINGS SEPTEMBER 30 YEAR TO DATE
Current Year $ 344,635.48 $ 1,013,018.99
AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE $ 62,340,257.00 $ 63,759,406.97
EFFECTIVE RATE OF RETURN 6.73% 6.30t
DATE
I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and
is in co.forzity with the investment policy adopted August 7, 1996. A copy of
the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department.
The Invest.ent Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to
meet the next six .onths estimated expenditures. Source of Valuation -
Interactive Data Corporation automatic pricing service.
/I
10/09/1996
CfTY OF RANC~O CUCAMONGA
INVESTHENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTHENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
CITY
CASH
INVESTHENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTH --- HATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER
BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE HARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO HAT
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00937 FOOTHILL INDEP BANK 04/06/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000 000.00 6.950 6.950 7.047 04/09/97 190
00965 GREAT WESTERN BA]{K 01/25/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500 000.00 5.050 5.050 5.120 01/29/97 120
00966 GREAT WESTERN BANK 03/04/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500 000.00 4.700 4.700 4.765 03/04/97 154
00977 GREAT WESTERN BANK 09/17/96 1,810,532.50 1,810,532.50 1,810 532.50 5.300 5.300 5.374 03/18/97 168
00924 SANWA 12/28/94 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000 000.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 87
00933 SAI~A 02/23/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500 000.00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 146
00945 S~uNWA 05/02/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 213
00958 SA]4WA 11/22/95 500,0000.00 500,000.00 500.000.00 5.600 5.600 5.678 11/26/96 56
00975 SA]Tw/A 05/22/96 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 05/26/98 602
00976 SAIfWA 08/06/96 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515 000.00 5.650 5.650 5.728 08/06/97 309
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 11,825,532.34 11,825,532.50 11,825,532.50
11,825,532.50 6.111 6.195 237
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS
00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 13,166,347.25
FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - CDUPON
00964 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/16/96
00969 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/05/96
00973 FEDERAL FM~H CREDIT BANK 05/20/96
00922 FEDERAL HC~HE LOAN BAN}[ 12/19/94
00939 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/06/95
00940 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/06/95
00962 FEDERAL H(M4E LOAN BAN]( 12/18/95
00971 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/19/96
00974 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/21/96
00938 FEDERAL HOME LOAN ~RTG. CO 04/06/95
00957 FEDERAL HOME LOAN 1~3RTG. CO 11/20/95
00967 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CO 03/06/96
00968 FEDERAL HOME LOAN ~RTG. CO 02/22/96
00972 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CO 05/15/96
00921 FEDERAL HATL HTG ~N 12/21/94
00926 FEDERAL HATL MTG kSSN 12/29/94
00947 FEDERAL NATL HTG ASSN 05/08/95
00959 FEDERAL NATL ~{~G itSSN 11/29/95
00960 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 11/24/95
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 35,507,986.88
12,882,468.88 12,882,468.88 12,882,468.88
1,160,545.04 1,160,545.04 1,160,545.04
14,043,013.92 14,043,013.92
14,043,013.92
5.566 5.490 5.566 1
5.587 5.510 5.587 1
5.491 5.568
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
965,156.25
942,968.75
4,000,000.00
995,312.50
1,000,000.00
1,002,031.25
2,500,000.00
1,998,750.00
1,985,312.50
3,000,000.00
1,981,250.00
1,998,125.00
1,500,000.00
4,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000 000.00
4,000 000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000.000.00
1,000000.00
2,500 000.00
2,000{K)O.O0
2,000 000.00
3,000 000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000.000.00
1,500.000.00
4,000 000.00
1,000000.00
1,924,375.00
1,931,250.00
992,187.50
1,021,562.50
996,875.00
973,437.50
3,863,750.00
981,250.00
994,062.50
1,006,562.50
2,425,000.00
1,921 875.00
1,902 500.00
2,982 187.50
2,003 125.00
2,011.250.00
1,503.281.25
3,837 500.00
981 562.50
34,868,906.25 34,253,593.75
35,000,000.00
6.030 6.030
6.165 6.165
6.500 6.500
8.030 8.030
4.570 6.638
5.240 7.030
6.195 6.195
5.880 6.053
7.025 7.025
7.420 7.226
6.290 6.290
5,990 6.005
5.695 5.867
7.275 7.275
7.050 7.607
7.700 7.752
7.270 7.270
6,230 6.230
5.970 5.970
6.114 01/16/01 1,568
6.251 03/05/01 1,616
6.590 05/20/99 961
8.142 12/19/97 444
6.730 12/30/96 90
7.127 11/30/98 790
6.281 12/18/00 1,539
6.137 03/19/99 899
7.123 05/21/01 1,693
7.326 09/23/99 1,087
6.377 11/17/00 1,508
6.088 03/06/01 1,617
5.948 02/16/01 1,599
7.376 05/15/01 1,687
7.712 10/10/96 9
7.859 12/10/96 70
7.371 05/08/00 1,315
6.317 11/28/00 1,519
6.053 11/25/98 785
6.613 6.705
1,22~
10/09/1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
CITY
CASH
INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTH --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON
00903 TREASURY NOTE
AVERAGES
06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 276,226.94 5.625 6.057 6.141 08/31/97 334
272,845.00
MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071
00203
00002
00069
00004
FEDERAL HONE LOAN MORTG. CO 02/23/87
FEDERAL NATL NTG ASSN 09/21/87
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG A 06/23/86
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG A 05/23/86
SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN 07/25/86
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES
753,632.81
47,725.88 48,997.64 39,983.60 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 1,918
102,923.34 111,419.04 112,331.06 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,083
80,708.04 81,833.25 87,071.35 8.500 8.621 8.740 05/15/01 1,687
23,426.08 22,966.75 3,219.37 9.000 8.534 8.652 03/15/01 1,626
497,339.30 451,485.32 485,514.29 8.750 7.261 7.361 07/25/11 5,410
752,122.64 728,119.67
716,702.00 7.829 7.937 4,626
TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVG.
$ 61,762,420.31 61,126,480.78
61,526,344.28 61,862,248.42 6.274% 6.361% 794
10/09/1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - CASH
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
CITY
CASH
INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER
BALANCE DATE B(X)K VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
00180 BANK OF ~ERICA
AVERAGES
813,912.72
1,126,479.39 2.000 1.973 2.000
Accrued Interest at Purchase
TOTAL CASH
TOTAL CASH and INVESTMENTS
7,233.90
$ 1,133,713.29
$ 62,340,257.00 62,896,133.60
/¢
10/09/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA PM - 5
PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE CITY
SEPTEMBER 1, 1996 - SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 CASH
STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT # ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITttDRAWALS BALANCE
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00970 GREAT WESTERN BANK
00977 GREAT WESTERN BANK
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE
4.800 09/17/1996
5.30o 09/17/1996
1,810,532.50
1,810,532.50
BEGINNING BALANCE:
1,810,532.20
1,810,532.20
11,825,532.20
11,825,532.50
IXDCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Su.mary)
00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.566
00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.587
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE
2,000,000.00
BEGINNING BALANCE:
1,300,000.00
13,343,013.92
2,000,000.00 1,300,000.00 14,043,013.92
CHECKING/SAVINGS ACC(MJNTS (Monthly Sum.ary)
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
2.000
BEGINNING BALANCE:
2,736,000.00 2,123,000.00
513,479.39
1,126,479.39
~EDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON
00925 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
6.360
BEGINNING BAL~aNCE:
09/19/1996 1,065,134.38
35,934,040.63
34,868,906.25
TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON
BEGINNING BALkNCE:
272,845.00
272,845.00
MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8,000
00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8.500
00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500
00069 GOVERNME}{T NATIONAL NORTG ASSN 9.000
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BAIa~NCE
TOTALS BEGINNING BALANCE:$
BEGINNING BALANCE:
09/16/96 859.50
09/25/96 507.58
09/18/96 1,167.51
09/09/96 47.87
754,705.10
0.00 2,582.46 752,122.64
62,643,616.24 6,546,532.50 6,301,249.04 62,888,899.70
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA2vIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 16, 1996
Mavor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, Citv Engineer
Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY, PARTS I AND II,
FOR THE PROPOSED ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FRO..'vl THE BURLINGTON NORTFtERN AND SANTA FE RAILROAD SPUR
CROSSING TO 400' WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND ISSUANCE OF A
CATEGOR.ICAL EXEMPTION
RECOM~IENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting and
approving the Environmental initial Study, Pans I and II. for the proposed Approval of the
Environmental Initial Study, Parts [ and II, for the Proposed Arrow Route Street Improvement
Project from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Spur Crossing to 400' West of Milliken
Avenue and Issuance of a Categorical Exemption and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Qualit.v Act.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study tbr the proposed Approval of the
Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II, for the Proposed Arro~v Route Street Improvement
Project from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Spur Crossing to 400' West of Milliken
Avenue arid Issuance of a Categorical Exemption.
In conformance ;vith the Calitbrnia Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, the attached
document has been prepared to permit construction of the above-mentioned improvements.
The project includes the ,.videning and repair of a major arterial street plus the installation of railroad
crossing protection gates, fiasher light signals and rubber pads.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF KEPORT
ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
October 16, 1996
Page 2
It is the Engineering StafFs finding that the proposed project will not create a si,9, nificant adverse
impact on the environment and, theretbre, recommends that these improvements be classified as
Categorically Exempt.
Respectfully submitted,
Willi
City Engineer
WJO:HM:Is
Attachments:
Exhibit ;;A" Vicinity Map
Environn-~ental Initial Studv Part I and Part
/7
/-
FO~TH!LL
HILLSIDE !~',3
__j ~hi .A2v'E
BANYAN ST J I '
19TH'~ST
ilGHLAND '.:~v':E.
RIAI ]PARK L.',I
RANCHO
CUCAMO~NGA
I.
24TH ST
· . /
PROJECT
LOCATION~
VICI
IXI ITY
I ~1 I I I
NOT TO SCA, LE
.MAP
I
EXHiBiT
/~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAaMONGA, CALIFORaNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
FOR THE PROPOSED ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE
RAILROAD SPUR CROSSING TO 400' WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
\VHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has reviewed all available
input concerning the proposed Aa"row Route Street and B. N. & S. F. Railroad Crossing
Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial study has been prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IN RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucarnonga does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION l: The City Council ofRancho Cucamonga hereby approves the Environmental
Assessment Initial study and issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed Arrow Route
Street and B. N. & S. F. Railroad Crossing Improvement Project.
SECTION 2: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
EN\;IRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOP:M
PART I - INITIAL STUDY
General Information
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
City of Rancho Cucamonga -
10500 Ciric Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. California 91 730
2. Address of project: Arro~v Route ~'om the Burlin,~ton Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Crossin,c,
to 400' lYest o[:V[illiken :4 renue.
3. Name, address and telephone rmmber of person to be contacted concerning this project: City
Rancho Cucamonga. I0500 CiHc Center Drive. Rancho Cucamon.ga. Cal!fornia 91 730 - Contact.'
Henry :Wurakoshi fgQg) 4 77-2740 extension 2332
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: .,V/.4
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, Regional, State and Federal Agencies: GO-88A Approv'al
Californict Public Utilities Commission
6. Existing zoning district: h~dustrial
7. Proposed use of'site (Project for which this form is filed): :Uaior arterial street and railroad crosxin,o
Project Description and Effects:
8. Site Size: 100' x 400'
9. Square Footage: N/A
10. Number of floors of construction: N/A
I1. Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A
12. Attach plans: N/A
13. Proposed scheduling: N/A
14. Associated project: N/A
15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A
-1-
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, ran.,2e of sale prices of rents and
type of household size expected: N/A ~
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionall,,,' oriented, square
footage of sales area and loading facilities: N/A
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading l:b. cilities: N/A
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated en'fployment per shift, estimate occupancy,
loading facilities and commtmitv benefits to be derived fi'om the project: N/A
20. If the project in,."olves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate
clearly why the application is required: N/A
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or
substantial alteration of ground contours.
22. Chance in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or
public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of'project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or
quantity or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more.
29. Use of disposal or potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammable or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand tbr municipal services (police, fire,
water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricit,,,', oil,
natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-2-
Environmental Setting: See attached
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including intbrmation on topography, soil
stabilit,,,:, plants and aninmls, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing
structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site, snapshots or
Polaroid photos will be accepted. 26' wide paved road ~'ith one lane in each direction. There are
flashing ~varning lights at the railroad crossing, and the project is located in an industrial area. The
topography is level.
34.
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and an,. cultural,
historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of
land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, departn'~ent stores, etc.), and scale of development
(height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity, snapshots or Polaroid
photos xvill be accepted. O )~developed to northeast anti southwest. Com,?ercial and manz!facturing
buildings northwest and southeast. The proposed project will not have a sztbstctntia[ impact on any
plants, cmimcds, land resources or any obvious historical. culttwal. or scenic aspects.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
intbrmation required for this initial evaluatiort to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. [ further understand
that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made
by the Planning Division.
Date: i'(9_ .~T'-7 eL(,' Signature:
Title: Henry :~[urakoshi..4ssociate Eneineer. P.E.
-3-
CITY OF Z,~NCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. BACKGROUND
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist
Name of Proposal, if applicable
Name of Proponent City qf Rancho Cucamonga
Address and Phone Number of Proponent ]0500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Czzcamonga.
California 9l 730 (909) 477-2740
October l d, 1996
Cirv qf Rancho Cucamon~a
Up.~ode Railroad Spur Crossing and Street Improvements a[on..,o
Arrow Route, ..from the B,,VSF Railroad Spur to Milliken ,4venue
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all 'yes' and 'maybe' answers are required on artached sheets)·
YES MAYBE NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering
of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
Page 2
YES MAYBE FO
Exposure of people or propert.,,' to geologic haz.ards such
as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground t~ilure,
or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
ao
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors:
Alteration of air n~ovement. moisture, or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of sur/~ce water runoff'?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surt~ace water in any body of water?
Discharge into surt~ce waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidit,,,'?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherv,'ise
available for public xvater supplies?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 3
YES ,.',,lAYBE NO
i. Exposure ofpeopte or propert,,,' to water related hazards
such as flooding or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal restllt in:
a. Change in the diversit>' of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops
and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plant into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species'?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers ofanv
species of animals (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shelP~sh, benthie organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Will the proposal restlit in:
do
Noise.
bo
Light and Glare.
Increase in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise levels'?
\Vill the proposal produce new light or glare'?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 4
11.
12.
Land Use and Planning Considerations.
a,
A substantial alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
b,
A conflict with an.,,' designations, objectives, policies,
or adopted plans of any governmental entities?
C,
An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities?
Natural Resources. \Vilt the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal invoh,e:
A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or an emergency evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a
demand for additional housing?
l 3. Transportation/Circulation.
b,
Will the proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
YES
MAYBE
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to ~vater-borne, rail, or air traffic?
f. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other ~,ovemmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities?
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Communications systems?
d. Water supply?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
e. Waste v,.'ater facilities'?
f. Flood control strttctures?
0
Solid ``'.'aste facilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal resttit in:
18.
Creation of an.,,, health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal resttit in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or vie``,,' open to the public, or ,.,,'ill the proposal
result in the creation of an aestheticall>>>, offensive site open
to public view?
19.
Recreation· Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
bo
C,
Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse ph.vsical or aesthetic
efi~cts to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object?
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would aft~ct unique ethnic cultural values?
Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses v,'ithin the potential impact area7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 7
YES. MAYBE NO
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
aJ
Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit)' of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlit~ species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate irnportant
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
bo
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
to the disadvantage of iong-term, environmental goals'?
(A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts `.vill endure `.veil into the t~.~ture).
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on
two of more separate resources where the impact on each
impact on each resource is relatively small, but
the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment
is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Narrative description of en`,'ironmental impacts.)
1. Earth
There will be subgrade soils and aggregate base and compaction. and preparation, for the
replacement and widening of the asphalt concrete pavement.
3. Water
b,
There `,,,.'ill be a minor increase in runoff due to the installation of an additional amount of
impervious asphalt. Adequate drainage facilities exist to accept the increased runoff.
Page
13.
Noise
a. Existing noise levels vdll increase due to equipment operations during construction, but could
be mitigated by the installation of noise attenuators and the restriction of hours of operation
of equipment.
Transportation/Circulation
a. There will be an improvement of capacity and a decrease of travel time through the project area
with the added lanes. This will allow for anticipated increases of traffic volume in the future.
IV.
DETERiMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~vill be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
I find the proposed project CATEGORiCALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Class 1 C, Section
15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Date
October 16. 1996
Signature
Associate Engineer, P.E.
Title
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
October 16, 1996
TO:
Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Approval of Payment to Active Ride Shop for "Project Skate Park"
Public Liability. Insurance in the Amount of $640.00.
RECOMMENDATON:
Staff recommends the approval of payment to Active Ride Shop for purchasing public liability
insurance in the amount of $640.00 for the "Project Skate Park" fundraiser.
BACKGROUND:
The City and Active Ride Shop co-sponsored the "Project Skate Park" fundraiser which was held
on September 21, 1996. Active Ride Shop covered expenses related to the eight bands, sound
system, skateboarding demonstration and prizes. Active agreed to provide the public liability
insurance coverage through their agent with the insurance premium to be paid from the event
revenues.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The public liability insurance expense was budgeted in the fundraising budget, and funds are
available for this payment. The net revenues raised from this event is $6,735.
Respectfully submitted,
Community Services Manager
so/activeins
,/
F
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ·
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 16, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Brad Buller, City Planner
Cindy Norris, AICP, Associate Planner/Community Development Block
Grant Coordinator
THE APPROPRIATION OF PRIOR YEARS UNEXPENDED FUNDS AS
WELL AS REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS, FOR THE LIONS CENTER
EAST AND WEST ADA IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND AMENDMENT
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 1995-96 ANNUAL
ACTION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the appropriation of prior year
unexpended funds, reprogramming actions and related amendments to the Community
Development Block Grant 1995-96 Annual Action Plan, in order to implement the
previously adopted 1996-97 Budget and CDBG Annual Application.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Funds totaling $129,057, previously allocated to the Lions Center West ADA project and
funds totaling $29.350 previously allocated to the Lion's Center East ADA project in the
1995-96 fiscal year, were not reflected in the 1996-97 budget, as it was anticipated that
they would be spent in 1995-96. Therefore, these funds should be appropriated and
included in the 1996-97 CDBG Budget. Additionally, funds in the amount of $112,080
have been requested by the Engineering Division to be reprogrammed from the Lions
Center West 1995-96 project allocation to the FY 1995-96 Lions East project fund to allow
completion of ADA improvements.
Total funds available, as the result of the actions outlined above, would be as follows:
Lions Center East ADA Rehab Project (Acct No 28-4333-9501) - $141,430; and Lions
Center West ADA Rehab Project (Acct No 28-4333-9315) - $527,167.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CDBG AMENDMENT AND APPROPRIATION
October 16, 1996
Page 2
These appropriations and reprogramming actions described above are illustrated in the
following table: - ·
Year Number Funds __m Funds
96-97 28-4333-9315 Lions Wesl S129,057 (S112,080)
96-97 28-4333-9501 Lions East S29,350 SI 12.C80
$527,1G7
$141,430.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
tn accordance with the City's adopted Citizen's Participation Plan, the above
recommended changes meet the criteria for amendment to the Community Development
Block Grant 1995-96 Annual Action Plan by changing an activity fund allocation by more
than 25%. Prior to final action the City is required to provide public notice and allow public
review 30 days prior to final consideration. A public notice was published on September
16, 1996, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, concerning the amendment and its availability
for review.
BB:CN:taa
Attachment: FY 1995-96 Action Plan Amendment
O0
ZZ
Z
<
r~
0
C)
O '6..o..q
r...,,,.-.,u
C.),~-.J
.j
.,.._.
Z
0
0
.J
~ ,i~
o ,'.'
ooo ~o 5---
ZZZ ~qZ<
5
,~ .:
,_ .
o
z
000
t"'--
o
o
.,_=
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
October 16, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Laxwence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director
Brigit K. Tate, Risk Management Analyst
SUBJECT:
AUTHORIZATION FROM COUNCIL TO ALLOW MAYOR TO ADOPT AND
SIGN THE CHANGE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF
PARSAC ON THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached resolution and PARSAC agreement
approving one change in the City's joint powers agreement. Staff recommends the change made
on the joint powers agreement to be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors
present and voting at any duly convened regular or special meeting. The recommended change
in the bylaws represents a two-thirds vote of the entire board to a two-thirds vote of members
present at the board meeting.
The Board of Directors fi'om the self insured pool adopted the t~vo-thirds voting change in order
to help support a quorum and receive better participation at meetings from member entities.
There are no other changes in the conduct, types of coverage, amounts of coverage or premium
fees due from the City. The resolution and governing documents recommended are required for
two-thirds voting change only.
The City has been a member of PARSAC since July 1, 1986, and has found the organization
responsive and committed to protecting the City's bests interest. Staff would recommend
concurrence in the two-thirds voting change.
Respectfully submitted,
L~~
Administrative Services Director
LIT/BKT
Attachments
ARTICLE XXXI
EXECUTION OF COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so
executed shall be deemed to be an original, but altogether shall constitute one and the same
Agreement.
Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California ["PARSAC"]
Date: 6/25/96 By:
Attest:
General Manager '~
Date: By:
Attest:
Member Entity
Signature/Title
City/Town Clerk
-27 -
RESOLUTION No. 96-/~::2)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING THE AMENDED JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK
SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA (PARSAC)
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") is a Member Entity of the Public
Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California ("PARSAC"), a joint powers agency providing risk
management services, claims pooling and joint insurance benefits to its members; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of PARSAC have
elected to change the Joint Powers Agreement to make several changes to the JPA, which
changes include adding a definition of alternate, providing the JPA may be amended by a two-
thirds vote of the Board of Directors present and voting at a meeting, and streamlining the
references to the Executive Committee and participation programs; and
WHEREAS, upon recommendation of its Executive Committee, the Board of
Directors of PARSAC on May 31, 1996 approved the amended Joint Powers Agreement and
recommended to all Member Entities that they approve it as well; and
WHEREAS, Article XXVIII of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the
Agreement may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Board; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to all Member Entities
on April 19, 1996, providing at least thirty (30) days notice of the proposed amendment as required
by the Joint Powers Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed the materials provided by PARSAC on
the amended Joint Powers Agreement and the summary of the latest changes thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga that the amended Joint Powers Agreement of the Public Agency Risk Sharing
Authority of California ("PARSAC").dated 1996 is hereby approved and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 16, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO RECOVER COSTS FOR SECOND
RESPONSES TO LOUD PARTIES
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance as approved by
the Public Safety Subcommittee. This ordinance would allow the City to bill property
owners for our costs associated with second and subsequent responses to a loud party
or other disturbance within a 24 hour period.
BACKGROUND
The City Council was approached by a resident that was concerned with a neighbor
having loud parties. He was also concerned with the inability of existing laws and
regulatious to have a lasting impact on the person causing the disturbance.
Because of this, the resident brought to the City's attention an ordinance that had
recently been enacted by the City of Glendora. The Glendora ordinance essentially
allowed police officers to put people responsible for loud parties on notice at the time
of their first visit and then allowed the City to charge the responsible party for the
second and subsequent responses. The fine is a civil fine and not a criminal one.
This keeps it from the court system, which is booked solid with more serious criminal
cases, yet still allows a fine to be assessed. The Glendora fine is $150 for a second
response, $300 for a third response and $450 for a fourth response within a 24 hour
period. In addition, if the police have to respond for a fourth time during any six
month period, the responsible party can be assessed a fine of $450.
The fines are like any other debt owed to the City and can be collected by the City
through collection agencies and small claims court. In addition to the fines, the
Glendora ordinance also has an appeal process.
This item was referred to the Public Safety Subcommittee for discussion. The
Subcommittee reviewed and discussed the Glendora ordinance and a similar one from
the City of Chino Hills. After this initial discussion, the Subcommittee directed the
staff and the City Attorney's Office to draft a similar ordinance for Rancho
Cucamonga.
The attached ordinance is the one that was prepared. It was taken back to the Public
Safety Subcommittee for discussion and was then referred by the Subcommittee to the
full City Council with their endorsement.
LOUD PARTY ORDINANCE
City Council meeting
October 16, 1996
Page 2
The attached ordinance mimics Glendora's in a general sense but differs in some
specifics. Our proposed ordinance provides for our officers to give or post a written
notice on the first visit to a loud party. On the second and any subsequent visits, the
City may charge for the time spent responding to the call by officers. Rather than a
set fee schedule, the amount of the fine depends on the number of officers and the
length of time of the response. One officer responding to a small disturbance would
be a smaller fine than for several officers responding to a large disturbance.
Our proposed ordinance would be for responses in a 24 hour period. Logistically it
would work much like our current False Alarm Ordinance. Officers would have pre-
printed cards that they would carry to use in giving notice to responsible parties.
One part of the card would stay with the officer who would in turn give it to the City.
These cards would give us the means to track addresses and determine which ones
need to be billed.
While this ordinance xvill not prevent loud parties from happening, it is another tool
that we can use to help control them once they happen and to keep them from
happening over and over again. For this reason, the Public Safety Subcommittee
recommends that the full City Council adopt this ordinance.
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
attachment
ORDINANCE NO. k5 (0 /
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
9.32 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO RECOVERY OF
COSTS FOR SECOND RESPONSES BY POLICE TO
PARTIES AND OTHER ASSEMBLAGES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. A new Chapter 9.32 hereby is added to Title 9 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"CHAPTER 9.32
"Recovery of Costs for Second Responses by Police to Parties and
Other Assemblages.
"9.32.010
9.32.020
Recovery of costs authorized.
Costs constitute debt.
"9.32.010. Recovery of costs authorized.
"(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the
city shall be authorized to recover its costs incurred when any members of
its police (sherifFs) department respond a second time within a twenty-four
(24) consecutive hour period to any party or other assemblage of persons
within the city if:
"1. The owner and/or other adult person in
possession of the premises has, at the time of the first response, been
delivered a ,,witten notice as hereinafter described or such written notice has
been posted as authorized herein; and
"2. There is probable cause by police to believe
that a violation of Penal Code § 407, § 415 or § 416 has occurred on the
premises any time after first responding.
L\RCk2DCALL\RC 1.3.1B
"(B) The written notice required to be providcd shall state
words to the efli~ct that a warning is hereby given that if police (sherift)
respond again wilhin twcnt)'-four (24) hours therealter, such second
response may be deemed to be a special security assignment over and above
the law enforcement services normally provided, and the owner ~d/or other
adult person in po..q-.~-:~.qi an afthe premises shall be liable for payment oF all
costs incurred by the City ofRm~cho Cucamonga. including administrative
costs alia overhead, i~l providing such law cnfurccmcm ~rvices.
"(C) If no owner or adult person in clnarge of the premises
can be located or identified at the time of the I~rgt response, the ,~,'ritten
notice required herein may be posted in any visible outdoor location near
m~y entrance to the premises. In such event, lhc owner and any other adult
person in possession of the premises at the time of the response by police
(sheriff) may be held jointly liable for the costs of such second response, as
provided heroin.
"9.32.020. Costs constitute debt.
~'Thc costs provided for herein shall be cornpuled by city and
shall be tbrwarded in the form of an invt~icc to the owner ~,dJor adult
person in possession of the premises at the time of the police responses, and
shall constitute a debt recoverable as a debt due and owing on a written
contract. in the event city is required to institute any legal proceeding to
recover such costs, it shall be entitled to additionally collect all costs,
including attorney's t~cs, incurred as a result thereof."
Section ~. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to bc invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of'any court of competent jurisdiction, or
preemptcd by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it wmlld have adopted this Ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word thereof', regardless o~'
the ft~ct that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or
words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or pr~:mpt~d by
subsequent legislation.
L~.F,C~2DCALL~'~C 1.3.1 B
Section 3. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen days after its passage at least
once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __day of ,
1996.
Mayor
I, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certif.v that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of
,1996, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of ,
1996, by the folloxving vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga
L\RC'ODCALL\RC t.3.1B
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 16, 1996
Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager
CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY SKATE PARKS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the conceptual program and
recommendations from the Park & Recreation Commission for providing skate parks in the City.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
At their meeting of September 19, 1996, the Park & Recreation Commission ~nalized their
conceptual program and recommendations for providing skate parks in the City. The Commission
approached this analysis by focusing on the following:
I. INFORMATION GATHERING - This was accomplished by site visits to skate parks in
neighboring cities, conducting a survey of cities with existing, or in the process of developing, skate
parks. A comprehensive presentation was made to the Commission by Steve Rose of Perkiss Rose-
RSI ~vho has extensive skate park experience in California, Oregon and Washington.
The Commission addressed the type of facility which should be considered -- should it be a
temporary or permanent structure; open drop-in versus a supervised fenced-in type of facility; should
it be a smaller (average 6,000 sq. ft.) or larger facility (10,000+ square feet); and should we have a
single or multiple number of skate parks.
The Commission also looked at liability concems regarding skate parks as this has made skate park
programs prohibitive in the past. Many insurance pools which are used by self-insured cities are
providing insurance for "low risk" type of facilities. The types of skate park elements considered
would be those with gentle slopes and curves, concrete curbs and elevated platforms one foot high
and concrete curved slopes or small banks not higher than three feet and large cement areas for
general runs and tricks favored by "free stylers." Not insurable are vertical ramps, half-pipes and
deep bowls. Attention was also focused on the maintenance needs for skate parks as ongoing fiscal
needs must be considered.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY SKATE PARKS
October 16, 1996
Page 2
2. SITE LOCATION - In analyzing the skate park survey, special consideration was given to the
location of skate parks. The Commission looked at potential site alternatives of developing the skate
park in existing park sites; looking at property acquisition for the park and looking at utility
corridors. Sensitivity was given to the impact on residential neighborhoods, accessibility of the park
for youth and relationship of the skate park to other recreational facilities.
3. FUNDING MECHANISM - Given the current fiscal constraints of the City, the Commission
discussed funding for the development and maintenance of skate parks. Park grants were reviewed
and found to be limited at this time. Community Fundraising was seriously considered by the
Commission as a viable way to develop funding for the development of the skate park.
On September 21, 1996, the City co-sponsored the Project Skate Park fundraising with Active Ride
Shop. Over 2,000 youth artended this skateboard demonstration and concert and $6,735 was raised
for the Community Skate Park Fund. The City authorized payment from event revenues for public
liability insurance, Police security and event supplies. The eight bands, skateboard demonstration,
concessions and countless hours of volunteer labor were all donated to the fundraising effort. The
Commission will continue to review funding alternatives such as considering a recreation
foundation, adopt-a-park programs, etc.
4. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT - The Commission discussed alternatives to developing a skate park
given the City's budgetary constraints. In their judgment, every effort should be made to commence
on the design of a skate park and retain an architect for this purpose by June 30, 1996. Community
input will be an important component of developing the skate park. The Commission, therefore,
believes that a Community Task Force should be organized to assist with the design development
of the skate park when an architect can be retained by the City.
Commissioners Mark Whitehead and Jim Clopton were designated as a Commission Subcommittee
to review the skate park information and formulate a recommendation for the Commission.
The Park & Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council consider the following Skate
Park Program in addressing the skate park needs of the community:
A Pilot Skate Park Project should be considered in a centralized part of the City. The Project
should be a smaller skate park and open to allow for drop-in of youth at the park. If this project
is successful, additional skate parks could be developed in other areas of the City. The skate
park should be developed in a visible location.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY SKATE PARKS
October 16, 1996
Page 3
2. The Commission recommends that Spruce Park be considered as a pilot project site. The skate
park should be adequate in size for a skate park while being nonintrusive on the Park.
3. The Commission recommends that the City consider retaining an architect for the skate park
project and that the design of the skate park be completed by the end of the FY 1996-97.
4. The Commission further recommends that a Community Task Force be formed at such time that
an architect can be retained to assist in the design development of the pilot skate park project.
SC;~3Services Manager
SO/kls
Attachments
EXCERPT FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
E3. REPORT FROM SKATE PARK SUBCOMMITTEE (Whitehead/Clopton) and SKATE
PARK UPDATE - Suzanne Ota and Commissioner Hahn updated the Commission on the co-
sponsored event with Active Ride Shop, "Project Skate Park,"scheduled for Saturday, September
21, 1996, at the Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot.
Chairperson Whitehead, on behalf of the Skate Park Subcommittee (Whitehead/Clopton), stated that
the three main issues the Subcommittee discussed were: 1) type, 2) size, and 3) location. With
respect to type of facility, the Subcommittee concurred that an open-type offacilit)' ~vith be the most
suitable. He said as this is a pilot project, they agreed that the facility should be small in nature and
located in one of the centrally-located community parks~-possibly Hermosa Park or Spruce Park.
Chairperson Whitehead said that Subcommittee discuggion ensued on developing a smaller task force
that ~vould help determine location, size and type and then expand to a larger task force when the
design process is ready, at which time they would solicit input from the skaters.
Layouts of the two park sites recommended ~ere 'distributed and discussion ensued.
Discussion ensued on solicitation ofdonafi0hs from local businesses with respect to dollar amount,
time and equipment.
Commissioner Punter stated that the location of the site should be decided upon and recommended
by the Commission and for~varded to City Council for approval prior to forming the task force. She
commented that the task force should assist with the original design and funding.
Karen McGuire-Emery was requested to research grant balance with the State that was originally
programmed for basketball hard court space to see if those allocated funds could be used for "Project
Skate Park."
Commissioner Hahn stated she would like to see a subcommittee formed for fundraising efforts on
this project.
Suzanne Ota stated that the City Council has requested a report back to them on the skate park
project and the fundraising efforts planned for September 21, 1996. She said in this effort, she hoped
that the Commission might be able to finalize its recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Hahn stated that her choice for a pilot skate park site is Spruce Park.
Park & Recreation Commission
September 19, 1996
Commissioner Clopton stated that we are looking for the right image of the skateboarders and want
to make sure that skateboarders are visible and that it is recognized that they are an integral pan of
community activity; the park does reflect that community activity. He said we want to make sure
that skateboarders can be dropped off by parents so as not to create any safety hazards. He, too,
recommends that Spruce Park be the pilot location.
Discussion ensued on type of park and other components for the skate park program.
MOTION: Moved by Punter, seconded by Clopton, to recommend to City Council the location of
Spruce Park as the first site for the pilot skate park. Motion carried: 5-0-0.
MOTION: Moved by Hahn, seconded by Clopton, to recommend to City Council the type of skate
park venue be an "open" vs. "monitored" facility. Motion carried: 5.-0-0.
MOTION: Moved by Clopton, seconded by Punter, G recomme~a to City, Council that the size of
the skate park be determined by location and space rdtuirem~ents within the park, to be large enough
to meet skateboarders' needs but not so large;as Dint.erfere with activities in the park. Motion
carried: 5-0-0.
The Commission concurred that a red0,mmendatior[be made to City Council to form a task force at
the time that the City is able to obtain aharchiiect, with the funding and design to be in place by the
end of FY 1996-97. ' "' ~' 12, ' '
Karen McGuire-Emery explained hog the bidding process works, and discussion ensued. The
Commission concurred that they preferred the RFQ method, Request for Qualifications, versus the
alternative RFP, Request for Proposal, ~vith respect to retaining an architect.
Commissioner Hahn asked that consideration be given to add the skate park element to the list of
elements considered when a neighborhood park comes on line.
Karen McGuire-Emery said that in the General Plan there is a list of suggested elements to add to
a park. She suggested that the Commission take a look at the overall area because if you add one
element then you eliminate another.
Chairperson Whitehead said if the pilot is successful, the Commission would like to consider doing
the same in other parks, and maybe consideration given to a larger facility.
The report to City Council to be presented at the October 16, 1996, with presentation to be made by
the Commissioners. Commissioner Hahn to give the oral update to the City Council on Project
Skate Park.
Park & Recreation Commission
4
September 1,0, 1996
EXCERPT FROM PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 15, 1996
F. COMMISSION BUSINESS
El. DISCUSSION OF SKATE PARK & PRESENTATION BY STEVE ROSE, LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT - Suzmme Ota informed the Commission that this presentation will be an
informational presentation only. She said included in the packet for the Commission's review is
information regarding skate parks that are either in the planning or development stages from
neighboring cities. She mentioned that there was a recent site visit to the cities of the Huntington
Beach and Orange of ~vhich Conmaissioners Hahn and Clopton attended.
Karen McGuire-Emery introduced Steve Rose of Purkiss Rose-RSI, a Landscape Architectural finn
which has been in business for over thirty years and who has developed skate parks as one of their
specialties.
Mr. Rose gave an informational slide presentation on the different types of skate parks and briefly
discussed related liability and design issues. A few of the highlighted skate park projects ~vhich Mr.
Rose is currently involved in along the west coast include:
City of Diamond Bar, Caliti~rnia
City of Des Moines, Washington - currently under construction
City of Kent, Washington - $89,000 contract recently approved for construction
City of Silverdale, Washington - Final plans and specifications submitted for approval
City of Claremont, California - Preparing construction drawings for new facility
· City of Palmdale, California - Recently conducted community meeting for planning of facility
Mr. Rose stated that skate parks that Purkiss Rose-RSI design are usually on public lands. He said
he is currently working with MorenoValley where private enterprise is going to build a facility on
public land and will act as the City's hand in programming and facilitating two rinks.
Mr. Rose stated that they are finding that for exercise, in-line skating tracks are very popular; he said
any park built from now on should have an in-line roller skating track. He said they are very popular
with all age groups and it's a good place for kids to warm up.
Commissioner Hahn asked with respect to risk management if there are any standards on the depth
of the bowls with monitored as opposed to non-monitored facilities.
Mr. Rose answered that there is no legislation or guidelines, it's just a matter of what you are
comfortable with. He said insurance companies are actually promoting skate parks.
Park & Recreation Commission
2 August 15, 1996
Mr. Rose said the non-monitored parks ~vork better and that a monitored park takes on a lot more
risk.
Mr. Rose stated he prefers a bowl size of a 75' by 75'--nothing smaller, about 6,000 to 8,000 square
feet. He said depending upon the population, you might want one or two; for a population of
115,000, maybe three or four.
Commissioner Clopton asked if there are pros or cons as to where you place the skate board parks.
Mr. Rose said, as designers, they feel a skate park should be highly exposed as it provides good
drop-off opportunities and is good for security purposes. Mr. Rose stated it is good to have the
users, the kids, as part of the planning process, maybe part of a task force, etc.
Mr. Rose said a good height for the ramps or jumps is about 36".
Commissioner Clopton stated he was interested in the private enterprise on public land approach.
He said he likes the park in Orange, ramps that could change from time to time, etc. He asked how
those were set up and what kind of successes they have had.
Mr. Rose said that the Encinitas park has been around a long time and is a monitored facility v.'hich
is run by the YMCA. He said there you have to sign a waiver to get in and full equipment is
required. He said the Encinitas park is not much of a community supplied recreation facility--it is
more commercial.
Mr. Rose said there are a lot of people getting on the bandwagon, especially for roller hockey. They
are looking for sites that are City owned, and they will come in and build a facility for maybe S2 or
$3 hundred thousand and then the City will run programs through it with an opportunity lbr revenue.
Mr. Rose said the cities of West Covina and Garden Grove could provide a lot of information to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga in this endeavor.
Chairperson Whitehead opened up the meeting for public comment.
The following people approached the Commission to speak in favor of.a skate park facility:
Jennifer Degler, 9017 Tanglewood, Rancho Cucamonga.
Marcus Solomon, 1811 N. Placer, Ontario. He announced that he signed up the City for a
complimentary subscription to the Industry Journal; the recent publication mentions the assembly
bill recently passed by the Legislature that exempts cities from lawsuits related to skate parks. He
added that input from skate boarders is very important.
Park & Recreation Commission
August 1 .~ 1996
Fabian Jezzi, 1550 8th St., Ontario. He said one of the best parks he has been to is Santa Rosa,
mainly because there is no cross traffic. He said the park is an excellent design, however there are
skaters coming from all directions to go towards the middle of the bowl, which causes collisions.
He said the bowls reach from 36" to 5' tall. He added that Palo Alto is also a good facility with a
good design.
Commissioner Hahn announced that Active Ride Shop is sponsoring a fundraising skate park
demonstration and concert proposed for Saturday, September 21, 1996, from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the
Epicenter Expanded Parking Lot.
There ,Mll be a meeting of the subcommittee to discuss further issues prior to the next Commission
meeting.
Chairperson Whitehead thanked the public for their input and said he hoped they would be willing
to offer more input as this progresses. He then closed the meeting for public comment.
Park & Recreation Commission
4 August 15, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
August 15, 1996
Park and Recreation Commission
Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager
Paula Pachon, Management Analyst ~q"'
Skate Park Survev Results
In preparation for our discussion of the proposed skate park facility, staff has surveyed local
communities that either own and operate a skate park or have a private provider within their
jurisdiction. The cities surveyed included: Claremont, Diamond Bar, Encinitas, Glendale,
Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Moreno Valley, Orange, Palmdale, Temecula and Yucca Valley.
Staff requested the following information: Type of Skate Park (layout, elements, location etc.),
Planning Process, Design/Construction, Operating Budget, Claims/Lawsuits/Injuries, Liability
Coverage, Problems, and Miscellaneous Information. Attached please find completed survey forms
for each locality/facility.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SKATE PARK SURVEY RESULTS
Diamond Bar -- City does not have a facility
Encinitas -- City does not have a facility. There is a skate park facility operated by the YMCA.
Awaiting information from them.
Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA, 200 Saxony Road, Encinitis. Skate park has been open
for 6 years.
Type of Park:
Permanent; Facility is a combination of low risk and extreme as elements
are modular and can be moved around; Location: YMCA property; both
skateboard and in-line; no lights; fenced; Elements: 1 bowl, 2 fun boxes, 1
set of stairs, 5 rails; V2 pipe, 1/4 pipe, pyramid; supervised.
Planning Process:
Park has evolved over the past 6 years; it was designed and constructed by
staff; funding source: private.
Design & Construction:
Total Project Cost: $150,000 over past 6 years; Acreage: 23,000 sq feet
(looking to add another 10,000 sq ft); Phased.
Operating Budget:
Staff hours per month: 4,000; Maintenance (re-surfacing, clean-up,
painting, etc.) hours per month: 1,000; Hours of Operation: 9-2:30 pm
Skate Camp (instruction), 2 open sessions M-F 3:15-5:30pm and 5:45-
8:00pm; weekend hours open sessions 9-12:45 pm and 1-4:45pm. Only
65 individuals allowed in park at one time. Rules: must have photo I.D. to
use facility, safety gear, liability release form, strict code of conduct; Use
Pattern: 60% skateboards; 40% in-line; Age of Users: Skate Camp 6-13
year; Open Sessions 6-adult; Male/Female: 95/5 (most female in-line
skaters); # of Users: 500/week in open sessions (during summer up to
800/week). Membership: $20/year - individual receives photo I.D. card, t-
shirt, reduce rate per session, and newsletter. Session Cost: Member -
$4.00/session, Non-member - $10.00/session
Claims/Lawsuits:
No claims/lawsuits; injuries: scrapes, bumps, etc. 1-2 broken bones or
stitches/month. All staff first-aid and CPR trained.
Liability Coverage:
Blanket policy.
Problems:
None.
Overall Evaluation:
Next year YMCA and High School will work together and offer
skateboarding as a physical education class for credit. Offering
skateboarding lessons has helped lessen accidents. Recommend that
facility be spectator friendly.
· Claremont -- City is in planning process for a skate park
Type of Park:
Planning Process:
Permanent; Low Risk; located on City property adjacent to high school
and teen center; both skateboard and in-line; lights; open; I bowl; 3 fun
boxes; 2 sets of stairs; 4 rails; pyramid; dipsy/doodle; seating area; drop-in
City has been in planning process for last year. Community involved in
planning process -- teens, pro-shops. Teens visited other parks; Had 3
exhibitions last year -- worked with pro-shops.
Funding Source: Los Angeles County: "At Risk Youth" grant -- anticipate
grant notification by October 1, 1996
Design & Construction:
Total Project Cost: Approximately $110,000; Acreage: 6,000 sq ft. (60' x
100'); not phased. Architect: Purkiss Rose. RSI
Operating Budget:
Claims/Lawsuits/'lnj uries:
Recreation: $15,000; Hours of Operation: 6am - dusk (lights only used for
specific activity); Rules being developed; Use pattern -- N/A
N/A
Liability Coverage:
N/A
Problems:
N/A
Overall Evaluation:
Due to Youth Master Plan community backing is strong. Staff beginning
to meet with adult groups/businesses, service clubs, etc.
o Glendale -- City is in the planning process for a skate park
Type of Park:
Permanent; low to moderate risk; located in existing City park site; both
skateboard and in-line; no lights; fenced; elements (bowls, fun boxes,
stairs, rails) not yet determined; not supervised - drop-in.
Planning Process:
City has been in the planning process for last 2 years; have
Commission's approval -- going to Council next 3 weeks; Community in-
put in process has included youth/young adults; skateboarders and will be
adding parents, and neighbors. Funding source: Park Development Funds
Design & Construction:
Total Project Cost: estimated $150,000; Acreage: 75'x 75'; Not phased;
Architect: Not yet determined.
Operating Budget:
Not yet determined; Hours of Operation: anticipate 3pm - dusk Monday -
Friday -- longer on weekends. Will not be open from 6:00 a.m. ~vhen
parks open. Rules: to be developed; Use patterns: N/A
Claims/Lawsuits/Injuries: N/A
Liability Coverage:
Self Insured
Problems:
N/A
Overall Evaluation:
Community supportive; location is key issue; skill level of facility
important to determine first off. Construction start date: Within next year
-- have a number of park development projects in the works -- will need to
prioritize
Huntington Beach -- City has two skate park facilities
Type of Park:
Both sites permanent; both low risk; one located in city park -- other
located on school property leased to City; both primarily skateboard; no
lights; both open; Elements: no bowls, no fun boxes, no stairs; have rails
(these made by skater City allows to be at facility -- sometimes it's there
other times it's not), mound, ramp.
Planning Process:
Planning process took 2 years; Community in-put: committee made up of
parents, skaters, shop owners. Funding Sources: City Site: Community
Development Block Grant funds; School Site: Park Acquisition and
Development Funds.
Design & Construction:
Total Project Costs: $70,000-$75,000 per site; Acres: less than a-quarter
acre; Not phased; Architect: Purkiss Rose. RSI
Operating Budget:
City park maintenance does wash out and graffiti removal at Citv site. At
school site students and school staff does the maintenance; Hou;s of
Operation: 7:00 am - 8:00 pm; Rules: safety gear; Use Pattern: >95%
skateboarders; <5% in-line; Age of Users: 12-18 years old; Male/Female:
90/10; # of Users: don't keep track -- guess --- 70-80/day weekdays;
weekends - little higher.
Claims/Lawsuits/Injuries: None
Liability Coverage:
Self-Insured
Problems:
None; little graffiti
Overall Evaluation:
Community sees parks as benefit/value; give youth an alternative site to
skate than shopping centers where prohibited. Makes police enforcement
easier. Location of site key -- not an isolated area -- locate in areas where
noise and kids accepted.
Long Beach -- City does not have a skate park facility.
Moreno Valley -- City does not have a skate park facility.
· Palmdale -- City is in the planning process for a skate park facility.
Type of Park:
Planning Process:
Design & Construction:
Operating Budget:
Claims/Lawsuits/Injuries:
Liability Coverage:
Problems:
Overall Evaluation:
Permanent; Low Risk; Located in City park or next to community center;
both skateboard and in-line; no lights; Elements (bowls, fun boxes, stairs,
rails): not yet determined; More than likely will be drop-in.
City has been in planning process for past 3 months; Community in-put
process: first meeting next week -- comprised of skateboarders and staff;
Funding source: Not yet determined.
Total Project Cost: estimated $95,000-$100,000; Acreage: 75-100 sq ft.;
Phased: Hopefully not. Architect: Purkiss Rose. RSI
Not yet determined. Hours of Operation: not yet determined; Rules: not
Yet Determined; Use Pattern: not yet determined.
Not yet determined.
Self insured.
Not yet determined.
Not yet determined.
Orange -- City does not have a facility. Private enterprise provides skate park -- Roller World 2190
Canal, Orange. Has been open 6-7 months.
Type of Park:
Temporary; Extreme park; located on school site which is leased to Rolle'
World. Site has other sport facilities located on it; skateboard, in-line and
BMX; lighted; fenced; Elements: no bowls, 2 fun boxes, no stairs, has
rails; supervised.
Planning Process:
Community in-put Process: School/City review and approval; Funding
Source: Private enterprise
Design & Construction:
Total Project Cost: Unknown; Acreage: Approximately 1/3 of an acre;
Phased: Unknown. Architect: Unknown
Operating Budget:
Unknown; Hours of Operation: 2 sessions M-F 12-4pm and 4-7:30pm;
Sat/Sun - 3 sessions 9-12 noon, 12-4pm and 4-Spm; Fees: $8.00 per
session for non-members; $4.00 per session for members. Membership
Fees: $27.00/year; $127/year unlimited use; Rules: yes -- full pads,
helmets and release form required. Use Patterns: Unknown.
Claims/Lawsuits/Injuries: Chipped tooth; broken wrist
Liability Coverage:
Unknown
Problems: Unknown
Overall Evaluation:
Making money!
Yucca Valley -- City has a skate park facility.
Type of Park:
Permanent; low risk; located at City community center site; both
skateboard and in-line; no lights; open; Elements: no bowls, 3 stairs; no
rails; ½ pipe; 's' curve; 2 platforms; pyramid; slant box.
Planning Process:
City planning process took 2 years. Facility opened March, 1996.
Cogunity in-put Process: First year Rotary Club did fundraisers for the
park (raised about $7,500) -- turned project over to City; City developed
12 member task force comprised of skaters, pro-shop owners, staff.
Funding Source: Rotary Club = $7,500; Community Development Block
Grant = $7,500; General Fund = $35,000.
Design & Construction:
Total Project Cost: $50,000 (no land acquisition required); Acreage: 7500
sq ft.; Not phased. Architect: Ken Wormhoudt (Santa Cruz)
Operating Budget:
No dollars budgeted for either recreation or maintenance. Only
maintenance items -- occasional wash out and graffiti removal. Rules -
yes; signs posts; safety equipment; Use Pattern: 65% skateboards; 35% in-
line; Age of Users: 13-17 year old; Male/Female: 95/5; # Users:
Weekdays: 75-80 primarily afternoon; Weekend: same.
C laimsfLawsuits/Inj uries:
I broken bone -- a first time skater when facility first opened. No claims
nor lawsuits.
Liability Coverage:
Self-Insured.
Problems:
None.
Overall Evaluation:
Foi' most part community positive about the skate park with the exception
of those that 'hate' skaters. No problems with gangs. Location of park is
key -- Community Center site -- great visibility; not isolated; little graffiti.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - SKATE PAP, X SURVEY
CITY/AGENCY: Phone #
What type of Skate Park do you have or are planning?
Permanent or Temporary
Low Risk or Extreme Park
Located in City/School/other facility
Both Skateboard & In-line
Lights
Fenced or Open Facility
# of Bowls
,~ of Fun Boxes
# of Stairs Rails
Supervised
Planning Process.
How long has the City been planning for the park?
What was the community in-put process.'?
What was the funding source for the park?
Design and Construction.
Total Project Cost $
Acreage
Phased
Architect:
Layout
Operating Budget - Recreation $
Hours of Operations
Rules
Use Pattern - Skateboards
Age of Users
# of Users - Weekdays/time
Maintenance $
%; Inline Skaters %
Male/Female (%)
Weekends/time
5. Claims'Lawsuits/Injuries-
6. Liability Coverage -
7. Problems-
8. Overall Evaluation-
Skatesurvey: 7/96
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
3UBJECT: Skateboard Park Report
DATE: February 15, 1996
FROM: Mark Whitehead
Chairman
COPIES TO:
Community Services Dept.
On Thursday Jan. 25, 1996 the skateboard subcommittee (Jim CIopton and myself) met with Suzanne Ota and
Kathy Sorensen to discuss the issue of a skateboard park within the city.
Discussion centered around the following issues: · Location,
· Safety,
· Hours of operation and the need for city staff supervision,
· Insurance liabilities, and
· Size of the facility.
Generally it was felt that the location should be central to the city and ai!ow skaters to easily reach the park from
anywhere within the city without having to cross any major streets, most notably Foothill Blvd. Also it should be
located so as not to be a concern Ior park neighbors. A tour of the parks by the commission was suggested to
evaluate current park locations. The plans for La Mission Park were also reviewed as it contains a detention basin
which would limit visibility of the skate area by adjoining homes and streets as well as make a natural setting for the
design ol the skate bowls frequently found in these facilities.
Safety for the skaters was discussed and by limiting the depth of the bowl areas to not more than 2 to 3 feet,
injuries should be kept to a minimum. The City of Santa Cruz, which has had a skate facility since 1978 has not had
any lawsuits due to accidents there.
Hours and supervision was discussed and the general leeling that a site open during regular park hours (no lights)
without supervision was best. Staff could have skateboard events programmed at the location.
Insurance seems to be the main concern, however, most cities with facilities report minimal or no claims related to
skateboards. Skateboarders usually do not report injuries because they fear that the facility will be shut down if
there are a lot of claims or complaints.
Finally, the size of the facility was discussed and the consensus was that it should be kept small to see the overall
impact of such a park amenity.
I also artended the CPRS Convention in San Diego on February 10, 1996 to sit in on a seminar on skate parks.
The City of Santa Rosa presented information on their park which was opened in 1994. They have had less
problems than expected and the facility is highly used. The architect that designed the facility took great pains to
be sure to get youth involvement in the project, letting the youlh select design elements and supervise the
construction to be sure they would be happy with the finished project. He has designed 9 skate parks so far and
currently has 12 projects at various stages of development.
The positives noted were that the facility is highly used, quiet, no gang problems, positive and friendly
atmosphere (no fights), no drugs, and has somewhat decreased skateboarding in other parts of town. The
negatives were an increase in vandalism in the park, possibly due to the isolated location, and graffiti. Santa Rosa
has decided to allow graffiti within the skate park itself since it seems to be impossible to prevent but to continue to
fight it everywhere else. They currently only paint it over when it is obscene.
The City of Santa Rosa is self insured and feels that the skate park makes the sport safer by providing a somewhat
controlled environment for the skaters. They also felt that they were already liable for any skating in public areas, so
in some ways the park may actually decrease their liability.
It was also mentioned that a group exists in San Bernardino called the California Amateur Skateboard League that
Santa Rosa hopes to work with in the future to program events at their facility. See the attached sheets for more
information on the Santa Rosa facility.
Opening Date:
Architect:
Construction Cost:
Total Cost/Includes Design
Size:
Material:
Layout:
Hours of Operation:
Supervision:
Rules:
In Line Allowed:
Use:
Claims/Lawsuits/Inju.ries:
Liability:
Problems:
Overall Santa Rosa
Evaluation:
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
SKATEPARK
FACT SHEET
(707) 543-3292
June 14, 1994
Ken Wormhoudt ,
Landscape Architect
827 California Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 426-8424
$119,000
$150,000
14,000 Square Feet
Reinforced Concrete
Three bowls connected by runs, fun box, curb, concrete aprons.
Maximum bowl depth - 5'. Fenced to keep skateboards in and
spectators protected - not gated. Layout attached.
6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. PDT
6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. PST
These are the hours of operation of all Santa Rosa Parks.
None - entry is free
No bicycles, wear protective gear - see attached.
Yes - it is a Skatepark not Skateboard Park - initial minor conflicts
have been worked out by users.
Heavily used - summer weekends will see 50 to 60 participants at
one time, with a similar number watching. Users are 80%
skateboarders, 20% in-liners, 98% male, age group primarily 12 -
18. About 70% local but with many visitors from Bay Area,
Southern California, Oregon, Nevada & Arizona.
No claims or lawsuits filed. Some injuries have been informally
reported.
City is self-insured and has assumed risk. City umbrella policy
through a joint powers ag-reement specifically excludes coverage for
skateparks at this time.
Fewer than expected. Gra~qti is an issue on the skatepark
vandalism and trash have increased. High School across the street
complained about truancy. Several marijuana arrests and
complaints about underage drinking. No noise complaints, fight
complaints or calls for police service.
A major success with problems not much greater than incurred by any new
youth serving facility in a City park. Very intensely used. A good feeling
of ownership by the users. City intends to make several improvements by
adding new fiatwork in Fall 1996.
Skateboard Park Sig-n:
SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK
RULES FOR USE
Skateboard and skates only - no bicycles
Users are required to wear helmets, kneepads and
elbow pads suitable to provide protection in the event
of falls or collisions. S.R.M.C. 13-24.079
Please observe park hours, keep noise to a minimum
and protect your skate park from ~af~ti and abuse.
This is your park, please help to preserve it.
WARNING
Skateboarding is a hazardous recreational activity. Use of
this facility may result in death, paralysis, brain damage,
concussion, broken bones or other serious injury. Any use
is at your own risk (California Government Code Section
831.7).
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 197 1995
Park and Recreation Commission de~,
Kathy Sorensen. Recreation Superinten
UPDATE ON SKATEBOARDING
REOUEST
At the June 1995 Commission meeting Mr. Marcus Soloman requested an update on the status of
d skateboarding facility in the City. Staff is providing the following information for your review,
discussion and direction.
BACKGROUND
The City of Rancho Cucamonga officially become involved in the skateboarding issue when the City
Council passed an ordinance regulating skateboarding within the City. Since that time several
meetings both public and informal have taken place on this issue. Attached for your historical
perspective are the minutes of public meetings regarding this issue.
The last time the skateboarding issue received any official action was during the City Council
meeting of April 17. 1991 and the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of April 18, 1991. In
brief the minutes state that the issue of insurance needs to be addressed, safety guidelines and
standards need to be researched and that a Citizens Task Force be formed to study the issue.
UPDATE ON ISSUES
Insurance
Currently, insurance pools which are used by self insured cities are providing insurance for
"low' risk" type of facilities. These facilities would include: snake runs with gentle slopes
and curves. miscellaneous concrete curbs and elevated platforms around one foot high;
concrete curved slopes or small banks not higher than three feet and large cement areas for
general nms and tricks favored by "freestylers". Not insurable are vertical ramps, half-pipe,
deep bowls. This is from a letter issued by our insurance carrier in 1990.
Staff is in process of reviewing this activity with the Citys current insurance carrier. Once
a finding is made staff will update the Commission.
It is important to note that since 1991 several more municipal skateboard parks have
opened an the insurance issue has been more recently addressed on more popular
facility amenities being insurable.
Skateboarding
Park and Recreation Commission
October 19, 1995
Page 2
Safety Issues '
Safety issues have not been directly discussed by staff. However, several cities do have
these documents in place and would serve as good resource tools.
Attached for your information is a copy of Assembly Bill # 2487 which become effective
in January of 1993. This sets forth some additional protection language which provides
legal sanctions on individuals using skateboard parks that do not use protective gear.
This helps to limit the exposure by the cities who adopt ordinances as stated in the bill.
CitiTen Task Force
No citizens task force has been convened on this issue.
ADDITIONAl. INFORMATION
Attached for your information is an article which appeared in the National Park and Recreation
Association monthly magazine. 'I think it is helpful in understanding this issue.
In talking with several cities their skateboard parks have been very well received and have had no
major injuries r.eported.
Skateboard parks are being used by rollerbladers as well. Cities also report that requests have been
made for scheduled use by BMX bicycles.
Within this general inland empire area the City of Claremont is researching a skateboarding park to
be placed at their teen center located by the high school. The City of Temecula is building a lighted
skateboard facility that will be the largest in Southern California. Staff has pictures which will be
available for review at the meeting. This park will be open in early spring.
City Council Minutes
January 3, 1990
Page 17
MOTION: Moved by Bu~, --ronde ~rown to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 413 and set se~_ ~nuary 17, 1990. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
GG. CONSIDERATION OF SKATEBOARD ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY (38)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION - Ordinance restricting the use of skateboards in
the public right-of-way. Staff report presented by Duane Baker, St.
Administrative Assistant. (1401-01 RECREATION)
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council
was:
Mark Whitehead, 7050 Novare, stated he is concerned with the safety
aspect, but was also concerned with children having the opportunity to
ride a skateboard if they so desire to. He did not feel it was
skateboarding that was dangerous, but how the person riding the skateboard
handled it that could create a dangerous situation.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Buquet asked how this would affect City parks.
Duane Baker, St. Administrative Assistant, stated that unless it was posted now,
it would not affect them.
Councilman Buquet stated he felt skateboarders should be allowed to ride in an
area such as a basketball court; however, he did not feel they should be able
to ride in a crosswalk, that they should walk across the street. He felt this
should be removed from the Ordinance.
Councilwoman Brown asked why this was being considered.
Duane Baker, St. Administrative Assistant, stated it was because of a recent
fatal accident.
Mayor Stout added he was the person who had requested this because of the danger
involved. He felt children should be allowed to ride skateboards, but that the
City should set guidelines to help make it as safe as possible.
Councilwoman Wright felt safety for skateboard riding should be implemented by
the Sheriff's Department as is done with teaching bicycle safety.
Mayor Stout stated he felt this should also go in the Grapevine.
Councilwoman Brown asked if someone is riding their skateboard in the middle of
the street, can a Sheriff stop a child and advise them to get on the sidewalk.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated yes, a Sheriff could advise a child to get
on the sidewalk.
City Council Minutes
January 3, 1990
Page 18
ORDINANCE NO. 414 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.68 TO THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF ROLLER
SKATES AND SIMILAR DEVICES IN CERTAIN AREAS
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance 414.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading and set
second reading of Ordinance 414 for January 17, 1990 with the deletion of
allowing skateboard riding in crosswalks. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Councilwoman Brown stated she was reluctant in voting yes because she did not
feel it was up to City government to teach kids safety, but that it was up
the parents.
E W C B N HAVEN AVENUE - Public Hearing of
protests-regarding Eminent Domain action to acquire public ri -of-way for the
19th Stree~ Widening Project between Archibald Avenue and yen Avenue at the
property loce~ed at 6729 Hermosa Avenue (APN 202-201-08), 223 19th Street (APN
202-201-40), a.d a vacant lot on 19th Street ( 202-201-72) for the
construction of s.~eet improvements across the fron · of said property. Staff
report presented by Mike Olivier, St. Civil Engi er. (1002-06 EM DOMAIN)
James Markman, City At:~rney, stated there s been contact with the property
owner's attorney and Eng nesting staff st ing that they have taken exception
with some of the 1911 AcilProcesses a procedures and felt they cannot be
assessed under the 1911 Act r r the im ovements. He further added this is one
rty w
of the reasons why the pr ~ ' . He felt agreement would
be reached; however, it was befor~ Council tonight because agreement has not
been reached so far and it i~ ~ determine whether the rights-of-way are
necessary for the project.
Councilman Buquet asked wh_re we were no
James Markman, City At*orney, stated we are ntinuing negotiations, but that
we are at the point o condemnation at present.
Mayor Stout opens._ the meeting for public input. K ressing the City Council
were:
sta'~ed he did not feel he should be charged for the improvements.
~.r. Suruki's son, expressed his concerns about his parents losing some of
their property.
10.64.050--10.68.020
alley
hours of two a.
1979).
city longer than one hour between the
six a.m. on (Ord. 71
10.64.050 Pen~ =tions. Any act or omis-
sion declared unlawful ~s of this chapter is
an infraction puni~ by a · not to exceed that set
by the current Lil schedule established
pursuant to t of the Calif~ Vehicle Code.
(Ord. 343 1988: Ord. 71S3, 1979
Chapter 10.68
ROLLER SKATES AND SIMILAR DEVICES
Sections:
10.68.010
10.68,020
10.68,030
10.68.040
10.68.050
10.68.055
10.68,060
Use of roller skates, coasters, skate-
boards, etc., restricted.
Yielding the right-of-way.
Attaching to moving objects prohibited.
Skateboarding prohibited on private prop-
erty in commercial zones.
Skateboards, bicycles, mopeds and other
coaster vehicles prohibited upon posted
public property.
Skateboard ramps prohibited on public prop-
erty where posted.
Penalty for infractions.
10.68.010 Use of roller skates, coasters, skate-
boards, etc., restricted. It is unlawful for any person
upon roller skates or riding in or by means of any coaster,
toy vehicle, skateboard or similar device to go upon any
roadway in accordance with any and all provisions of law.
(Ord. 414 ~l(part), 1990).
10.68.020 Yieldina the riaht-of-wav. A. The driver
of a motor vehicle,' prior to driving over or upon any side-
walk or public crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to
any person riding in, on or by means of any skateboard, toy
vehicle, roller skates, coaster or similar device.
B. Whenever any person is riding in, on or by means
of a skateboard, roller skates, toy vehicle, coaster or
similar device on a public sidewalk or public crosswalk,
such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian.
(Ord. 414 Sl(part), 1990).
(Rancho Cucamonga
9/91) 144-6
10.68.030--10.68.060
10.68.030 Attachinq to movinq obiects prohibited. A.
It is unlawful for any person riding a skateboard, toy ve-
hicle or similar coaster device to attach to any moving ob-
ject, including but not limited to persons, bicycles, ani-
mals or motor vehicles.
B. It is unlawful for any person operating a moving
vehicle to permit any person riding in, on or by means of a
skateboard, toy vehicle, coaster or similar device to at-
tach to the motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is in
motion. (Ord. 414 Sl(part), 1990).
10.68.040 Skateboardin~ prohibited on private proper-
ty in commercial zones. It is unlawful for any person to
ride a skateboard or similar coaster device upon private
property located in any commercially zoned area in the
city, so long as such property iS posted so as to give
reasonable notice of such prohibition. (Ord. 414 Sl(part),
1990).
10.68.050 Skateboards, bicycles, moDeds and other
coaster vehicles prohibited uDon Dosted Public property.
It iS unlawful for any person to ride any skateboard, toy
vehicle, bicycle, or any other coaster device, m~torized
bicycle, moped or scooter upon any public property within
the city where notice of such prohibition has been posted.
(Ord. 414 Sl(part), 1990).
10.68.055 Skateboard ramps prohibited on public prop-
erty where Dosted. It is unlawful for any person to place
any skateboard ramp, half pipe and/or similar physical
structure upon which skateboarding and/or skating is con-
ducted, or which is used in conjunction with skateboarding
and/or skating, upon any public property where notice of
such prohibition has been posted. (Ord. 455 S1, 1991).
10.68.060 Penalty for infractions. Any act or omis-
sion declared unlawful by the provisions of this chapter is
an infraction punishable by a fine in an amount specified
in Section 1.12.030 of this code. (Ord. 414 ~l(part),
1990).
(Rancho Cucamonga
144-7 9/91)
ORDZ2~.NCE :;O..;55
AN CRDR~4NCE CF THE ACIT. Z CCL~CF_ OF THE CITY OF RANC~O
CUCA~ONGA, CALI~'DRNIA, AM~DD~
RANC~O CLEAM~r~A MUNICZPAL ODDE BY ADDIN3 A NE~ SECTION
I0.68. 055 FROHIBITE_~ THE PIA~ OF
RAMPS", ".uALF PIP.r~-'' AND SE4TTAR PHYSICAL STRUCTL~ FOR
USE 2] SKRTE2~i~RDE~; AND SKATD~, ON POSTED PUBLIC
FROPERrY, .AND DECZARE~ THE L~CL THEREOF
The City Council of the City of Rancho O,c~-nnga does hereby orck~in
as follows:
S~.ON 1: A new Section 10.68.055 is hereby added to Chapter 10.68
of ~.e Rancno Cucamonga .MUnicipal Code ~o read, in woruts and figures, as
follows:
"10.68.055
It is unlawful for any person to place any "skateboar~
ramp", "half pipe" ar~/or similar physical ~
.upon which ska~oa~ing an~/or skating is cmduCad,
or which is used in conjunction with mka~lr~g
and/or skating, upon any public proper~y where notice
of such prorttbition has been ~."
SECT!..ON 2: Based upon the fact that the activities specified in
Secuion 1 ak~ve are now oo:urring and creaUing risks and liability ~ to
'.he Ci~.t of Rancho Cucamonga, the City Council hereby finds and declares that
in order to preserve and prumyca the public health, safety and welfare, it is
nec~s~y to adop~ th/s Oruiiran(~ as an urgency measure which shall take
effec-. Lmmedia~ely upon adoption.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ociinance and the City Clerk
shall cause ~.e same to be puDlished within fifteen (15) days after its
.assage at l~-~c once in r_~ Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, ar~
circula~_~ in the City of RanClo O~nga, California.
PASSTD, ~, and ADOPTED this 17th day Of July, 1991.
Alexander, Buquet, Stout, Williams
No~
ABSENT.:
e'~y Council Minute~
Canuary 17, 1990
age 8
(23)
ORDINANCE NO. 411 (second reading)
.INANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF_--.HE CITY OF RANCMO
CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW C,'i~TER 19.16, AND ADDING
17.02.135, TO THE r~CHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
TO ESTABLISHINc-'kERISCAPE REQUIREMENTS
A NEW
CODE
CONSIDERATION OF ~P LIMITS ON FAIRMONT WAy. VINTAG~..DRIVE,
E3.
SEVENTH STREET° AND VICTORIA
(1141-10 SPEED LIE)
ORD I NANCE
,cond reading)
AN THE CITY
CUCAMONGA,
RANCHO C AMONGA CITY CODE,
UPON C TAIN CITY STREETS
Debts J. Adam City Clerk, read the titles of Ord]
MOTION: Dyed by Wright, seconded by Alexander
approve rdinance Nos. 410, 411 and 413. Motion
Br .
( absent)
t · · · · ·
4CIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE
PRIMAFACIE SPEED LIMITS
Nos. 410, 411 and 413.
to wa full reading and
carried u~e~imously, 4-0-1
,z4)
E4. CONSIDERATION OF SKATEBOARD ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY
THE PUBT-IC SAFETY COMMISSION - Ordinance restricting the use of skateboards in
the public right-of-way. (1401-01 RECREATION)
Mayor Stout stated the reason he removed Item No. E4 for discussion was because
of a letter the City Council had received from Mark Whitehead, whereby he had
suggested 1) that a preamble be added to the Ordinance which would state 'that
the City Council is sensitive to the issue of skateboarding as a means of
transportation of the City's youth, as well as a popular recreational and self-
expressive activity; and the City Council, being concerned for the general
welfare of the people, hereby finds that in the interest of the public safety
it is necessary to regulate the use and operation of roller skates, skateboards
and similar devices", which Mayor Stout stated he had no objection to; and 2)
which exempts from the Ordinance areas or streets where there are no sidewalks
adjacent, and stated he has considered that and would not be in favor of this
amendment.
Councilman Alexander stated he is in favor of the Skateboard Ordinance and did
not feel it should be changed, but felt Joe Schultz, Co~munity Services Manager,
should be directed toward a park activity to accommodate the skateboard rider.
The City Council concurred with the preamble as suggested by Mr. Whitehead.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public input. Addressing the City Council
were:
City Council Minutes
January 17, 1990
Page 9
Mark Whitehead, 7050 Novare Place, stated he was suggesting this be put
in the Ordinance because he felt an individual should be allowed to ride
where there are no sidewalks.
Mark Solomon, 1207 Manzanita stated there are no sidewalks in his
neighborhood and asked if he would be ticketed for riding in the street.
Me felt this was unfair, and asked if he would be harassed for riding at
the park.
Mayor Stout stated none of the City parks are posted "no skateboards".
ORDINANCE NO. 414 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCNO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.68 TO THE RANCMO
CUCA/4ONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF ROLLER
SKATES AND SIMILAR DEVICES IN CERTAIN AREAS
MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve
Ordinance No. 414 with the suggested preamble by Mark Whitehead. Motion carried
unanimously, 4-0-1 (Brown absent).
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC KERJtXNGS
F1.
INCLUSION IN THE
by Jack Lam, City
BLDG)
OF ADOPTION OF UPDATED VERSIONS
CIPAL CODE BUILDING REGULATIONS
and Jerry Grant, Building
CODES FOR
report presented
t. (0807-01 CODE
Mayor Stout commended Mr.
for his efforts getting these codes adopted.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting
public hearing was closed.
r public
r. There being no response the
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read th ltle of Ordinance No. 412.
ORDINANCE 412 reading)
AN ORDINANCE
CUCANONGA, , AMENDING
15.16, 15. 15.28, 15.32, 15.36,
15, AND CONSTRUCTION, OF
MUNICIP; CODE AND ADOPTING BY
ADMINi iVECODE", 1988 EDITION; THE
ON INCLUDING ALL APPENDICES
BU CODE STANDARDS', 1988 EDITION~
CODE', 1988 EDITION, INCLUDING
THERETel THE 'UNIFORH PLUMBING CODE', 1988 EDITION
ALL APPENDICESI THE 'UNIFORM CODE FOR THE
THE CITY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
15.04, 15.08, 15.12,
AND 15.44 OF TITLE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE 'UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE,
THE "UNIFORM
"UNIFORM
OF
Discussion on Northeast Etiwanda
iIorio was not present for this d
Cc
~ qet
control
could not
er Henry asked if Mr.
approval, a~
were still a
with res
Mr. Schultz
discussions with
some favorable a
u~date the
was hoping
ot of the flood
:ion and comments
to his park plan.
t Mr. D'Iorio has had
rn California Edison on
ls and he was going to
Mr. Schultz .ied that Henderson and Brad
Bullet vc' their concern r. D'Iorio being
on the ida without giving nce notice.
T~eY ised us not to take act ~nd to keep
formed of every move made, as are the
)al planners in that area.
Northeast Etiwanda
MAMAGER'S REPORT:
2- Update on Status of Skate Board Ordinance
Update on Status of
Mr. Schultz informed the Commission that Mark Skate Board Ordinance
Whitehead appeared at the 1/17/90 City Council
meeting and was heard during the second reading.
Commissioner Whitehead said he wrote the City
Council a letter requesting they consider some
o~her things be added to the ordinance. He said
~hey would consider adding the first item
mentioned in his letter as a preamble to the code;
~hat they would be sensitive to the fact that
-skateboarding is a means of transportation for
%he city youth and a popular recreational and
self-expressive activity."
Commissioner Whitehead commented the City Council
was not interested in adding to the ordinance the
o~her things he mentioned, one being he would like
to see the ordinance read that skateboarders,
rollerskaters, etc., use pedestrian crossings and
streets when there were no sidewalks. He said the
ordinance stood as it was--skateboarding is
restricted to the sidewalk and is legal in parks,
except where otherwise posted.
Mr. Whitehead's original concern was that the city
would post signs everywhere restricting the use of
skateboards, but he got the impression from the
City Counc~l that there were enough understanding
people and there would not be a citywide posting
in every area to prohibit it. He said he was
basically happy with the result.
Commissioner Mitchell said while she was on the
task force, one of the big issues that came up
was the lack of planned activities for our youth,
the 15 to 21-year olds. She stated it was a shame
to have a skateboard ordinance just because one
particular person decided he didn't want
skateboarders on the streets of Rancho Cucamonga.
She asked if a site could be located for a
skateboard park.
Mr. Schultz said a skateboard class run by the
city was investigated but they were informed by
the risk manager that it was an exclusion from the
City insurance policy. Mr. Schultz stated that
the City is a self-insured city, like most cities
in California, and skateboard parks are excluded
by dangerous activity.
Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent, stated
the only kind of organized skateboarding class
they can have would be an educational component--
sitting in a classroom looking at a video.
Commissioner Mitchell reiterated her disappoint-
ment that there are not more activities for that
age group, as skateboarding is very popular.
Commissioner Whitehead said he could understand
how a skateboard park would be an expensive place
to run but he would like to see the kids not be
prevented from skateboarding in areas that are
available, such as the parks, and it would be nice
if that was considered when parks are designed.
Commissioner Punter stated it was critical to
educate skateboarders on basic courtesies and
them know if they don't obey the basic courtesy
concept, they are liable to lose the privilege.
3. '~idate on Open
Prio:
Space/Floating
Mr. Schultz sad item discussed at the
last meeting and designated site
priorities, which y given as a
report at the Jaz 1990 City CoUncil
Meeting. He state discussed it
at length not action. It was
deferred unt~ the February , City Council
Meeting, Community Services De ment Staff
g what mechanisms are in p e, i.e.,
landsc maintenance districts, and o is
.ssion i fPu~°r
whether the money is generated within those
floating designations to pay the ongoing
maintenance.
Cont. Uudate cn
Skate Board
.Update on Open S[
Floating Designer
Priorities
3. Skateboarding - Staff report given by Kathy Skateboard i-
Sorensen.
Mr. Schultz stated that Mark Solomon spoke at a ~/~
recent City Council Meeting on the issue of
skateboarding based on an ordinance passed a few
months ago (included in agenda package). The City
Council referred the issue back to the Park and
Recreation Commission for discussion and to hear
Mr. Solomon's comments.
Park and Recreation/Community Services investigated
the topic of skateboarding within the City. Mr.
Schultz said skateboarding is allowed in the city
parks where it is not posted "No Skateboarding."
Pursued in the investigation was the possibility of
adding skateboard apparatus in the parks. Jim
Hart, Director of Administrative Services, was
asked to investigate the issue of skateboarding in
the park with the insurance carrier. The insurance
carrier basically said they would not insure the
City for organized skateboard functions/programs
within the city park system.
Joe Schultz asked Kathy Sorensen to investigate the
skateboarding park that he discovered in the City
of Davis, CA. This contact led to other contacts
within the State.
Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent, talked
to two cities, one being the City of Davis. She
reported that Davis is not currently operating a
skateboarding facility, but they do have a
conceptual design for a skateboard park to,open in
April of 1991. They anticipate that the total cost
from conceptual design to construction will be
about $80,000. The City of Davis discovered that
if they could find an insurance company to insure
them, it would be a good possibility they would
provide the park. The only insurance carrier they
could find had a $50,000 deducible and a $100,000
premium, so they quickly decided that going through
an insurance company wasn't the way to go. The
Assistant to the Director of Davis continued the
inquiry as to other cities and found they were all
self-insured and then started looking at litigation
as far as what could likely be called on claiM.
They could not find any substantial claims to
warrant why they could not be self-insured. They
felt this issue was not any different than any
other amenity in a park. Their current thought is
to treat street-oriented ramps as playground
apparatus; it would be self-policing and they would
put up some kind of signage for self-protection.
T~e key item was safety, which they decided would
~e no different than what they would do for a
traditional playground park.
Three cities were looked at in the development of
skateboarding in Davis: Benicia, Santa Cruz and
San Francisco. Kathy said in the City of Benicia,
sKateboarding in the parks has been in operation
for about 3 & 1/2 years. During this time there
were three claims, ranging from torn pants to a
Droken wrist. They are self-insured and primarily
~he users of the facility keep the claimants in
line. Santa Cruz has been offering ~skateboarding
for the past seven years. During that period of
time they have had two claims, the highest being
for $20,O00 which was from a rollerskater, not a
sKateboarder- In San Francisco, which has also
been operating playground oriented skate parks for
seven years, they have had no claims.
Kathy then talked to a recreation supervisor from
T31e City of San Jose, who has recently finished a
skateboarding task force. They are not currently
operating any skateboard parks, but they have
determined they would list it as a possible park
amenity in the planning process. In theory, the
task force slated they would like to see five to
six skateboard play areas in the parks, which would
be small sloping areas, small curbs, small ramps,
etc., which is basically what a traditional'street
rider would find. Secondly, the other component
~he task force felt should be in place is an
educational program focusing on the proper riding
and use of a skateboard; and not until they could
do those two things would they take a look at
providing an outdoor competition skate park, which
~a~ey thought would ultimately be a money maker.
Chairperson Punter commended Mark Solomon with
respect to the petition gathering, but he suggested
he be more selective in the future as a majority of
the people were out-of-townresidents. He said the
primary concern is for the Rancho Cucamonga
residents.
Mr. Solomon stated that if a skateboard park came
into existence it would be self-policed; he
suggested a program similar to neighborhood watch
whereby residents would watch out over the ramps.
Financially, sponsors could be solicited but most
of it could be financed by themselves. With
reference to an uninsurable activity, he said this
sport is not any more dangerous than any other.
Skateboard (Con~'d)
' Commissioner Whitehead agreed with the task force
findings of San Jose, whereby the ramps are of a
simpler design. He would like the city to pursue
something simpler to suit the sidewalk skater, and
when that has been established and the insurance
companies are satisfied, then additional components
could be added. He also thought it would be nice
to have the city educate the users and encourage
the use of proper safety gear/techniques.
Mr. Whitehead further stated he would like to see
the city maintain a park area for skaters whereby
the risks of injury would be lower and would
prevent skating in unauthorized areas.
Mr. Solomon stated he would like to like to see a
step-by-step progression with the skateboard
facility. He felt an appropriate ramp size to
start with would be about 14 to 18 feet wide and
about 4 feet high made out of plywood with possibly
a sheet metal surface.
Commissioner Whitehead said he also contacted other
cities, i.e., Saratoga, Santa Cruz, San Jose, Palo
Alto and Honolulu, three of which have something in
existence; two of the three had facilities in
existence for ten years or longer with minimal
insurance difficulties. He said he got a lot of
positive feedback from those cities.
Darlene Ramlose of 9453 Alder St., Rancho Cucamonga
said she has been involved in numerous sport events
working with adults and children. She stated there
are a lot of active, involved parents who would be
willing to assist with this skateboard endeavor.
She said she felt this program needed a real
marketing effort involving parents of the children
and the City working together. Mrs. Ramlose stated
that the implementation of a task force doing a
feasibility study would be desirable.
Mrs. Ramlose read a letter to the Commission from
her employer, Joseph P. Filippi, Vice President of
J. Filippi Vineyards and Wineries directed to the
City Council (attached).
Commissioner Whitehead said he would like the City
to pursue the insurance issue. He suggested the
City come up with a proposal with the besics...a
simple bowl retrofitted into a park, and suggested
a group be formed to recommend what they would like
to see as a starter and then report beck to the
City. .he City could, in turn, determine the cost
of insurance.
Skateboard
Commissioner Henry agreed with Commissioner
M!~ftehead. She thought it was very important that
t~e Commission be concerned with what the people in
fjsecommunitY want. Because there have been cities
j~ the State who have been very innovative, there
~S cericairily room for some creativity in this City.
iRein, she would like to start with something small
tlll~ could possibly grow.
Skateboard (Con~
There was discussion on the possibility of offering
· class on skateboard safety through "The
6rspevine" recreational classes.
Co/missioner Whitehead would like to
Cf~y-sanctioned skateboarding events
idvertised through "The Grapevine."
see mobile
scheduled/
~ Moved by Whitehead, seconded by Henry that MOTION:
the City investigate further the insurance issue Skateboard Issue
with r~sp ct to ~ .skateboard park and the possible
formatzon~o/a cltlzen's task force to work on the
h
design of e facility. Motion carried. 3-0-2.
Absent: 'ggs and Mitchell.
lit. Schultz commented that Community Services staff
is to provide the best progressive park and
recreation amenities and programs within the
system. He stated to the public, ewe are a dynamic
city with dynamic residents and we want to do the
r~ght thing as far as providing safe recreational
facilities that keep the park community involved,
safe, off the streets and tJlat provide wholesome
recreational opportunities." Mr. Schultz thanked
the citizens for stating their opinion tonight and
informed them that staff would immediately start
working on this concept; however, he informed them
it would take time, possibly months.
Sports Complex Update - Mr. Schultz gave
on behalf of Bob Mueting of RJM
Mr. Schu informed the Commission when the
Planning lion previously did not act
on the sports lex but sch the structures
issue for June 21. of the stadium is
scheduled for July stated the Park and
Recreation Commissi deal with the Environ-
mental Assessmen in July, which is an
integral assessing ~vironmental impact
of that si the General P1
A
discussion ensued on the
.pment Agency and their role
=ture.
~ct of the
Sports Complex
Update
'T
by ~erson Henry and
the "Quick-Fix" ideas as
appr v d, with the
:ioa, peT~e ~~
~~up
od of tim, f~ior to the first-day
Motion carried: ~-0-0.
9wn MUSINM-SS
1. Skateboard Issue
Nr. Schultz said he had a meeting on this topic to
research and identify obstacles preventing us from
pr~viding skateboard facilities.
Tasks were assigned to appropriate staff to seek
illformation about skateboard parks, insurance,
design, costs, maintenance and supervision. Mr.
Schultz will provide a written update for the
Commission in October.
Mr. Schultz said that the insurance pool will not
end cannot render an opinion on the insurance
issue until the design is seen. The risk manager
sa%d administrative services director has said
conceptually that the insurance pool will not
insure us on skateboard apparatus·
Mr. Schultz added that the citizens task force
~mnnot be formed until the money can be found to
build the facility, insurance can be found and
costs of installation and maintenance can be
determined; otherwise, we are raising expectations
end we would then be mobilizing the group to
vocalize their dissatisfaction on what may occur.
!e suggested ~hat we contact interested persons
who spoke on the issue and tell them that the
committee is on hold until we determine the above-
Bentioned items.
Commissioner Whitehead stated that although he was
in favor of the skateboard park, he suggested that
a recommendation be made to City Council to make
~he decision of whether they are willing to
~rther consider self-insuring. He said if the
City is unwilling to self-insure, it is futile to
have staff pursue this concept.
Chairperson Punter stated that Commissioner
Whitehead's suggestion had validity and agreed the
idea should not be pursued until further direction
from City Council.
-5-
Recreation
Registration
Review (Cont.)
Skateboard Issue
Update ,
Commissioner Henry said previously received
information from another city stated they procured
insurance and would be covered until the first
occurrence and dropped after the first claim.
Mr. Schultz stated that he would check on the city
mentioned in previous literature. He added that
at the September City Council meeting he will give
two informational reports: 1) San Bernardino
County Open Space District, and (2) this skate-
boarding issue, and will report back to the
Commission at the September meeting.
XB]~TIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEET~.~G~
R~reation Registration Review
Depn=~ment Name Change
San ~-rnardino County
Recreat~..n Open Space
ADJOURNMENT
,sed Park and
Meeting adjourned by ]]' airman Punter at 8:36 p.m.
to Executive Se- ~io for land acquisition
discussions. Mee' ~ng in the Community Services
Conference Room
Respectfu:ly submitted by,
Ka ;hryn L. Sco~t
Administrative Secretary
Skateboa=d
Update
Adjournment
llS
CO
Park and Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
January 17, 1991
A. C~T~.T. TO ORDER
Meeting was
Pledge of alleg
ed to order by ~erson Henry at 7:08 p.m.
Chairperson Henry.
Present were Comm
and Hahn. Also
Department were
Tarry Smith, S1
Kathy
Administra
Secreta
nry, Mitchell, Whitehead, Punter
om the Community Services
Schultz, Services Director~
|ent of Pa and Development~
Recreation Su[ ~ Paula Pachon,
Analyst II~ and Kathy ~, Administrative
E. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
Skateboard Facilities
Mark Solomon, 914 Placer, Ontario. Mr. Solomon said he is
spearheading the movement for public skateboarding areas in
the public parks. He said the main problem seems to be
insurance. He provided the City with case studies from other
cities who have had successful skateboard facilities. He
said the Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported
that 35% of all skateboard-related injuries can be eliminated
if environmental controls are in operation. Mr. Solomon said
except for the City of Ontario, he has not approached other
cities or the County regarding this subject. He said he is .a
member of the NSA, National Skateboard Association, and
intends to work with them to form an amateur skateboard
league in the community. The California Amateur Skateboard
League said they could sponsor a contest in this city, as the
league is fully insured. Mr. Solomon said he would supply
the Commission with this information.
Tarry Smith, Superintendent of Park Planning and Development,
gave a verbal update on the City of Rialto. He said a
private contractor gave the city a proposal wherein the
contractor offered to pay the one million dollar liability
coverage. The City then came back and required that the
contractor have five million dollar coverage. As one million
dollars was standard and the contractor did not want to set a
precedent by paying the five million, he backed out.
Mr. Solomon invited the Commissioners to drop by West Beryl
Park on a Saturday evening. Skateboarders are there from
7:30 to 10:00 p.m., with approximately 100 people present the
previous Saturday.
Commissioner Whitehead asked that any information on the
subject of skateboards be sent to the attention of Joe
Schultz, Director of Community Services.
Mr, Don Gaconnet, 7903 Elm, Apt, e206, Rancho Cucamonga. He
stated the City does not have a variety of activities for the
younger people. He is in support of a skateboard facility in
a controlled atmosphere that would provide an oppor%unity for
the youth of the city to be creative with their time.
Mr. Ed Fernandez, 7125 Archibald, #11, Rancho Cucamonga. He
voiced his support for a skateboard facility in this area.
He said he is in daily contact wi~h residents who promote
this activity. Mr. Fernandez said that the local police have
a tendency to pick on skateboarders.
Chairperson Henry thanked the gentlemen who spoke and said
their willingness to address the Commission is appreciated.
She apologized because it is a slow process, but stated the
COmmission is in tune with the concerns and there is
currently activity within the Community Services Department
in the research of skateboard facilities. She told them they
would be notified when this item is on a future Park and
Recreation Commission agenda.
Commissioner Whitehead voiced his concern with respect to the
skateboard Jams occurring at West Beryl Park without city
awareness/approval. He would like to see these occurrences
addressed so as to be under proper circumstances.
Mr. Schultz, Community Services Director, stated the Public
Safety Commission has asked for a report from Community
Services on that issue due to complaints from people who wish
to play tennis but are unable to access the parking lot. He
said we need to make ~ure the parking lot is accessible for
everybody who wants tu use the different facilities.
Adult Socket
Karl Losch, 61'4-~-~ Indigo Ave., Rancho Cucamo · He stated he
has been a member. of the Rancho Cuc ga Senior Soccer
League for the past"'-= ix years, and · to a change in the
Mr. ~sch said ne~;;,~er he nor his t ares were walling to
~olera~e such a ~'~ons. The~ did no~ wa to play in a lea~e
Rancho eT Camonga residents--approximately 231.
Park and Recreation Commission
-2-
January 17, 1991
stated ~t ldren can be registered ahead of
Mr. Worland ~
time or, if room ~nt can call at the last
minute.
G2. Update and D~scussion on Skateboard Facilities - Tarr~
Smith, Superintendent of Park Planning and Development,
summarized the staff report. Mr. Smith stated he talked with
Catherine Clark-Ryll at CMIA, the insurance company. The
problem is that nationwide there are no standards as to what
is acceptable by both the insurance company and the City.
Mr. Smith suggested a symposium be held to discuss with CMIA
and CMIA member cities in southern California to discuss the
mutual concerns. The intent would be to come up with some
type of a plan and recommendation to the League of California
Cities in october. Mrs. Clark-Ryll suggested three people
who could possibly run the symposium. The proposed symposium
dates are May 15 & 16, 1991.
Mr. Smith added, upon approval, he would continue to meet
with Mr. Frank Hawk, a successful designer of skateboard
facilities called "Beginner Bowls," to review his existing
facilities, apparatus and layout for potential design
standards at an existing facility in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mar. Smith stated staff~s recommendation is to pursue the
possibility of designating an area for skateboarding
activities and, through discussions with Frank Hawk, consider
a design in order to get a facility operating soon.
Commissioner Whitehead questioned if it would be possible for
the City to have a facility if Marcus Solomon, or another
group, would pay for insurance.
Mar. Smith stated with respect to CMIA, there are certain
things they will not back under any conditions. The bigger
6~ high ramps CMIA will not suppor~c. A comprehensive repor~
would have to be turned in to CMIA for their study.
Commissioner Mitchell asked if the skateboarders
continuing to use Beryl Park as a skateboard facility.
are
MaT. Smith said they have discontinued using ramps and that
signs will be posted banning ramps within the next week.
Commissioner Mitchell commented to the public that this
skateboard issue is moving forward and that the Commission is
interested in pursuing this issue, but it will take time.
The Commission concurred that Mr. Smith has done an excellent
Job in pursuing the skateboard issue and has come up with an
innovative idea that will get the issue moving for this City
and communities all over the State.
Park and Recreation Commission
-7-
March 21, 1991
Mr. Schultz stated the participants should be involved in a
task force committee, as previously discussed, to pursue the
symposium and identify a site, etc. He stated that the
Commission recommend to City Council to accept staff~s
recommendation to pursue the symposium, pursue standards and
authorize the Park and Recreation Commission to form a
citizen~s task force committee on skateboard locations and
facilities.
Chairperson Henr~ opened up the meeting for public comment at
8:25 p.m.
SARA BROCK, 9587 Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga. Mrs. Brock is
the mother of Marcus Solomon and is present to speak on his
behalf in favor of a skateboard facility. She said a private
skateboard park at Vineyard and the 60 Freeway in Ontario
will be opening in a couple months. She said skateboarding
is also going to be in the Olympics; that it is a billion
dollar industry and is one of the few industries where all
~he equipment is made in the U.S. and exported. She read
from her songs letter that skateboarding is the only
recreational interest that is not allowed in parks.
Mrs. Brock commented that what she has heard this evening
indicates that the City is working to promote the skate-
boarders. She recognizes that it is a slow process and
understands the concern over liability issues.
Commissioner Whitehead suggested to Mrs. Brock, in reference
to the skateboarders on weekends using city parks, that
perhaps Marcus approach private businesses that own property
or have parking lots and could arrange for insurance so that
the kids could skate without liability being an issue.
Mrs. Brock said an industrial section is the only place where
there would be property large enough for skateboarding;
however, such areas are not usually safe during the evening
hours. She said parks are the easiest meeting places, as
there are many young people who are dropped off by their
parents. She said time is spent with the younger children to
teach them the safety rules and the proper way to skate.
Commissioner Mitchell stated in a couple of weeks it will be
posted in the parks that skateboard ramps are banned.
Unofficially, kids do meet in the park and are using 2~/3~
ramps, and she is concerned there could be a confrontation
with local law enforcement. She said such a confrontation
would be a step backwards, as the negativism that goes with
the group could escalate.
Mrs, Brock agreed with Commissioner Mitchell, and felt the
opening of a private park would relieve a lot of pressure.
Park and Recreation Commission
-8-
March 21, 1991
ED FERNANDEZ, 7125 Archibald, #1, Rancho Cucamonga.
Fernandez, in favor of a skateboard facility, stated that a
lot of skaters are congregating at Beryl Park to skate. He
said they got a letter from the City saying they cannot do
this anymore. He stated unofficially they are still meeting,
but the group will not disclose where they meet as the intent
is to continue to skate until the skate park is opened. He
said the skateboarders skate everywhere--even at City Hall.
Mr. Fernandez said some of the major companies have shot on
location here and all around the City. He stated cop
harassment is in the videos Just to show =hat it is a problem
~hat cannot be brushed off. He briefly discussed past
incidents with law enforcement.
Mr. Fernandez said it was a lot easier to get a tennis court,
a baseball diamond or a mini' mall, and that skateboarding is
the only sport for some children.
Commissioner Whitehead stated to Mr. Fernandez that all
issues do take timel that it is not because the Commission is
down on skateboarders--the Commission has been in favor of
the issue~ they are trying their best, but it does take time.
He said it is not easy to get tennis courts or ball fields
either~ that skateboarding has only been around approximately
twenty five years and is not as recognized as some other
sports, and the issues are more complex. He stated that Mr.
Solomon*s letter seemed negative and Mr. Whitehead said Mr.
Solomon needs to understand that the City is working with him
and not against him. The law banning skateboarding was for
safety reasons, and that is the law. He said they need to
follow the rules to make this work~ that the attitude coming
across is creating the negative image of skateboarding. He
said the Commission is offering suggestions on what to do to
get it done now while waiting for the issues to be resolved.
Mr. Whitehead said there could be a way to make it safe so
skateboarders could skate on private proper~cy and avoid these
kind of conflicts which make the situation worse in =he long
run. He said he would like Mr. Solomon to pursue those
issues and have some understanding of the political process.
Commissioner Whitehead said he is really happy with the
progress made by Tarry Smith. He said he also has two sons
who skateboard who are also anxious~ he reiterated the City
is on their side, but it has to be done within the system.
Meeting closed to public comment at 8:48 p.m.
MOTION: Moved by Whitehead, seconded by Mitchell to
recommend that City Council accept staff report recommenda-
tions and authorize the Park and Recreation Commission to
form a citizens task force committee to study site and design
of a skateboard park. Motion carried: 5-0-0.
Park and Recreation Commission
-9-
March 21, 1991
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
cITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
April 17, 1991
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager
Joe Schultz, CLP, Community Services Director
Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent of Park Planning
and Development 7%&
SKATEBOARDING ISSUE CONSIDERATIONS AS PRESENTED
BY TEE PARK ANDRECREATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
That City Council, consider the skateboard program
recommendations as presented by the Park and Recreation
Commission concerning skateboard facilities.
BACKGROUND
In May, 1990, the City Council directed the Park and
Recreation Commission and staff to study the issue of
skateboarding and skateboard facilities and to report back to
the council with their findings.
Much of the staff time allocated to this issue over the last
eleven months was spent in researching insurance guidelines
and contacting other cities regarding their experience with
this activity.
In May, 1990, staff received a copy of a letter sent to the
City of Rialto expressing California Municipal Insurance
Authority's stand on the skateboard issue. CMIA (the City's
carrier) stated that the Board of Directors would more than
likely exclude skateboarding from coverage by the insurance
pool. This letter indicated that a City interested in
providing a skateboard facility would probably have to self-
insure this activity outside of CMIA.
The Park and Recreation Commission has stated several times
that skateboarding should be treated as any other
recreational activity sponsored by the City and that a safe
and controlled environment shouid be provided for those
participants. The Commission feels that this activity is not
a fad and that user demand will not decline in the near
future. Thus, staff continued to research possibilities in
i .
.--, ,_,. , /
J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SKATEBOARDING ISSUE CONSIDERATIONS
April 17, 1991
Page 2
During the fall of 1990, the skateboard issue was
de-emphasized because of a lack of positive indicators from
staff research at that time. In December, 1990 the Community
Services Department received a copy of a second letter from
CMIA to the City of Rialto which presented a somewhat more
receptive outlook for skateboarding under very specific
conditions. CMIA indicated they would consider skateboard
facilities for coverage under two basic programs.
Facilities that are owned and operated by the private
sector or on a contract to the private sector.
City owned and operated facilities which are deemed to
be of "low hazard". CMIA defined "low hazard" as
follows:
2.
3.
4.
Snake runs with gentle slopes and curves
Miscellaneous concrete curbs and elevated
platforms approximately one foot high.
Concrete curved slopes not higher than three
feet.
Large cement bowls.
Based on the letter from C4IA received in December, 1990, the
Park and Recreation Commission reactivated the skateboard
issue. Through renewed research and working with CMIA;
staff, in March, 1991, p~esented a plan to the Park and
Recreation Commission for their consideration. Based on that
recommendation, and the discussion that followed, the Park
and Recreation Commission is forwarding the following items
for consideration by the City Council.
A~
That a location be studied that could be put aside for
the purpose of a public low hazard skateboard facility.
That standards be studied and reviewed by CMIA, experts
in the field, and local skateboard enthusias~s for "low
hazard" designs that would be acceptable to all
concerns.
That safety guidelines, rules, standards and supervision
issues be explored that are acceptable to CMIA and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and it's Commissions.
G1. i-'hool/Ci=V Join= Use A~reem~ _ Kathy
Recrea n Superintendent, gave the overview of
report the status of school/city join= use
Included a matrix describing the ac
sites, the school district involved,
provides and Another attachment
types of
the summer of
msen,
staff
, dates,
=he City
mated
occurring in different ities through
to present.
A short discussion ~sued on ac
keys and custodial irements.
or not the at Vin,
utilized, or will be in
indoor and outdoor fac:
and the status of
discussed was whether
Jr. High School are
, as the school has great
Kathy Sorensen said curred 'ineyard Jr. High is not being
used. She said, howe~ , a is planned with the
Superintendent of Alt Sc District to discuss the
current agreement wi' respect to Groves.
Mr. Schultz stat~
attending the M.
that the Etiwa
n meeting.
School Board would be
R1. De Name Chanqe - Joe Schultz, Services
Director, the Commission that :alifornia Park
and Rec Society is debating the issue what to call
eve more and more into providing
sal, the Society has formed a task force committee to
st dardize the name· Mr. Schultz will report back to the
--ission when the State Task Force reports to the
membership.
I2. Skateboard Facilities - Joe Schultz, Community Services
Director, updated the Commission on the April 17, 1991 City
Council meeting and reviewed the subject staff report. He
informed them that based on the recommendation and discussion
of the Park & Recreation Commission, items were forwarded for
consideration by the City Council. He said City Council
dropped item (A) of the staff report for the time being,
"that a location be studied that could be put aside for the
purpose of a public low hazard skateboard facility," as they
thought that would be premature; but to go ahead on items (B)
"that standards be studied and reviewed by CMIA"...; and (C)
that safety guidelines, rules, standards and super%'ision
issues be explored that are acceptable to CMIA, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and its commissions"; and (D) that a
"Citizens Task Force be formed for the purpose of studying
the above issues and be responsible to bring back findings
and recommendations for consideration."
Park and Recreation Commission
-3- C_ April 18,_ 1991
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SKATEBOARDING ISSUE CONSIDERATIONS
April 17, 1991
Page 3
Finally that a "Citizens Task Force,, be formed that
would include Community Services Staff, Park and
Recreation Commission members, Public Safety Commission
members, the general public and skateboard participants,
for the purpose of studying the above issues and be
responsible to bring back findings and recommendations
for consideration.
JS/TLS/dak
Mr. Schultz stated that City Council said when studying this
to consider the scheme of necessary facilities and items that
have to be provided in a city that is about 13 years old, to
decide what items are necessary in the infrastructure of a
new city, and determine where skateboard parks rank in that
priority.
Mr. Schultz said staff will study, survey and then form a
committee with the Park and Recreation Commission and report
findings back to City Council. He stated City Council also
said as the insurance carrier is accepting the low-impact
dish-type skateboarding, to survey the participants to
determine if such a facility would make do for the
enthusiasts. Mr. Schultz said that City Council is concerned
that the skateboarders will not be content with such a
facility and will continue to skate in the streets, on the
sidewalks and in shopping centers.
A short discussion ensued on skateboarding.
Cammissioner Whitehead stated he would like to pursue the
possibility of having insurance for programs that can be
organized in parking lots or parks, etc. so the participants
won't be skating in places where they are not allowed.
Commissioner Mitchell concurred with Mr. Whitehead and does
not want to see this issue shelved.
Commissioner Mitchell suggested the idea of a skateboard
facility on some of the greenbelts, possibly in the sphere of
influence area.
Chairperson Henry stated that there are probably areas in
some existing parks that can be retrofitted to accommodate
skateboarders and to disperse the skateboarders so they don't
all meet in one spot.
Mr. Schultz stated that staff will continue the study and
pursue the skateboard issue as directed.
H3. Lewis'~u~-~ Park Credits - McGuire-Emery,
Associate Park ~£n,.w^~d stated staff has begun a
requested this ire tabled for the h~, ring in order to
establish acc~umbers and continue th=~a=llysis.
Park and Recreation Commission
-4-
April 18, 1991
F. CONNISSION B~SINESS
Trails Advisory Committee A · .
requested to be reappointed t~PC~ntment ' Chal
MOTI!_I~ is committee.
Commissione
Committee.
scheduled for
itchell is the alternate
Lrperson Henry announce,
3rd Wednesday of
that
,Assion
Motion
Trails Advisory
the meetings are
~onth at 3:30 p.m.
F.2. Tree Reaist: - As
from Stephen Barras, of
Commission, the Commi~ on
Commission for their
this Year's Fourth of Jul~
. at
regarding the Tree Registry
Program· However, the )nmental Management Commission
did not meet for its re scheduled June meeting and
Were not able to addre s~ ~stion; however, they will
keep this idea in mind futur vents.
the July 1, 1991 memo
Environmental Management
the Park and Recreation
to Provide information
F.3. Measure E luatio -
Commission revi, and brief1 n he Park and Recreation
of Measure E pr, ~ed by Ja E~i~iscu ed the voting summa
, 91 election. by the voters
~ul dinalob 9ect Co Bern soug rune
O~0d unty should not be aband edTtel
· "'ardino.
F.4. Skateboard Facilities (verbal update) _ Joe Schultz,
Community Services Director, gave the update from the July 17
City Council on the adoption of an ordinance Prohibiting the
Placement of skateboard ramps, etc. on public Property.
Mr. Schultz stated that City Council informed Marcus Solomon
and other skateboard enthusiasts that nothing is being taken
away; that the City is waiting for the insurance carrier to
have the sYmposium to find out what they will insure; a
citizen,s advisory committee will be formed; and that this
issue will be Prioritized with other needs within the City.
Park and Recreation Commission -2- ( July lS, 1991
Mr. Schultz added that City Council stated that skateboarding
is allowed within the parks. If someone gets hurt on the
ramps and sues the City, then the City will be forced to
eliminate skateboarding throughout the entire City--that is
the reason for the emergency ordinance. The City wants a
safe environment for the skateboarders and that will not
occur by the use of homemade ramps.
Mr. Schultz announced a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday,
July 24, at 10:'15 p.m. with the Police Chief, Marcus Solomon
and Jerry Fulwood to formally notify the police that skate-
boarding is allowed in the parks. He said Mr. Solomon has
complained in the past that the police has harassed the
skateboarders in the parks.
Mr. Schultz stated that it has been posted that no skateboard
ramps are allowed in the parks·
Mr. Schultz stated a news reporter called him on this issue
an~ stated that he was very pleased with the way City Council
dealt with the skateboarders.
Commissioner Punter stated she was aware of the fact that the
City of Benicia turned a portion of their parks into a
skateboard facility.
No Directo
Reports.
DIRECTOR ' S REPORT
H. OLD BUS
Chairperson Henry irated
Report prepared by
the only facility that was
the Equestrian Facility
She said it appeared to her
on city funds was Norco.
Chairperson Henry star,
strictly a show fac
stables and barns
boarding at this
part of the time.
over the years
She stated
facilities,
were
meant
on for this is that Norco is
· She .d it is quite large with
arenas· said as there is no
ity, she beli es it is idle a large
commented that has heard criticism
rent at this fac~ ty is quite high.
communities all had ,rofit from their
were at least boarding ties, and some
rental use and were concessio~ run (which
res carried their own insura:
A short discussion ensued on equestrian facilities.
Pa:,k and Recreation Commission
-3-
July 18. 1991
Commissioner ahn recommended the us of local school
marquees for ad rising of events.
Kathy Sore=sen said e would eck into that option for
future events.
MOTION: Moved by Punter d by Whitehead =o override
previous motion and m increase total banners
from eight to n' approval of banner
omm '
G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
G.1. Skateboard Facilities Update - Tarry Smith, Superin- of
Park Planning and Development, informed the Commission that
Catherine Clark-Ryll of CMIA said =he planned symposium
scheduled for July did not take place. Also, they were
unsuccessful in getting a spot on the agenda for the League
of California Cities. Mr. Smith said Ms. Clark-Ryll was in
favor of our own symposium and proposed to hold it November
in Sacramento a= a recently opened privately-owned facility.
Mr. Smith stated this would give everybody an opportunity to
see what kind of facility could be operated.
Mr. Smith also stated that a letter recently received from
CMIA indicated that =hey would insure a low-hazard facility.
Chairperson questioned if =his mean= we can go ahead without
getting involved in the symposium; and asked if based on
that, could a recommendation be made.
Mr. Smith said basically they are saying we could build a
facility under their res=ricnions as outlined in the letter
and that they would insure it; however, Mar. Smith said a lot
of other issues are still unanswered and a lot of questions
that City Council would have.
Mr. Smith said the symposium would allow a lot of cities with
mutual concerns to view this facility.
-- H. OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Hahn asked ab the status ay phones in the
park. She was under the imp slon the infrastructure
was already in the parks when th ere built and only a few
parks did not have the infras~
Mr. Schultz stated th are only a few ks that do not
accommodate tae approximate $18,000.00 cost.
Park and Recreation Commission
August 15, 1991
09:25 FROI~ A-~sem~lWman ~nul~e TO 9876499
C~LIFQ~,;IA LZ,.GTSL~TUIfk-.~ei-~, IL~CUI..~ ~ION
ASSEMBLY BILL
248~'
Introduced by Assembly Member Sher
Februsty 4, 19P,
An act to nznend Section ~906 o~ the Health and S~ety
- Code, relating to skateboard p~rl~s.
AB 2487, as in=oduced, SheL Skateboard
. ~1 elbow and knee pads.
·. by local pubtic agencies, this requirement may be satis'fled ff
~". the local public agency ad ~ a described or~_+~,nce and
·-";' "~tate-;anated ioc,~ program ,o.
;,,~ The people of t~e 8tare of CaltF~nia do enact as Follows:
SECTION 1. . Section ~,S906 of the Healtl~ ~d Safety
~__-. 2 Code is amended to read:
=L,~/3' ~906. ~'a) No operator d a ~ateboa=l park shall
~ d:~t person is wearing a l'~.Jzne:, e. ll~v. Eoel~ elbow
"-r.~, 6 psc/s, and lcne.~.t ads knee pads.
?:;:.? (b) Wi~ respect w an> ~cil~tyo o~ed or o.ve~ated
~ .~8 alocalpublicagency, rhar/sder/ edandmaintainedfor
,.'-' 9 the purpose oFrecreational dca~e~ard use, and that is not
.**..10 supervised on a reguJar basis, the requirements oF
~* 11 subdivision (a) may be sarisBed by compliance with the
C)C"T-e~-!995 ~'7: 5e 91~S~203~
I (J) Ado.vcioa b~, r~e ~ ~ub~c ~eacy ~
6 re~onabJe no~ ~at ~y ~ ~ a s~are~a
8 pa~, ad ~at ay ~m~ ~'~ ~o do so ~ll ~ $ubj,
9 to ~u~ou ~der the or~snoe required by ~~
iO tq).
1~ ~ndud~ but ~ no~ ~'te?m, a ~, ~un~, or c]~ ~
13
0
0CT-86-199~ 8?: .5~
0CT-85-1995 09:19 FROM B~NICIA PARK_
City of Denicia
Parks and Commuity Services Department
Willow Glen Skate Park
Des~ViDtion: The skatepark is located in a 2.5 acre neigborhood
park. The park is bordered by two et~'~s and a ~ast food
restaurant. The ska:epark consists of several smooth finish
concrete e~ructures on a smooth asphalt finish base. The s=z~actures
are 3' high.
The skate area is 7Sx150'
P~a-v~ina Proc~ss; The planning process s=ar~ed in January 1987.
The process involved the City Council, the Parks, Recreation,.and
Ceme~Commiesio~a, C£~y st~ff and a core grou~ or ~outh skaters.
The project was complete~ in july 198~.
~ The total cost was $24,500. The cost included ~!osingan
existing parking lot and resttracing it with a smooth AC finish.
W~ used City crews ~o do the resurfacing work. The ~alance of the
work, which included placement of the concrete structures, was
contracted out. The City recieved a $10,000 donation from a local
business. All of the design work was donstaG. ~ne balance of the
project was funded from an appropriation from the City's Park
Dedication Fund.
~t-f$ino: The City does not assign staff to supervise the
facility. The area is not fenced and is open to the public from
9:00 a.m. =o dark everyday. The =acllity is insured by ABAG. The
City's deductable is $25,000.
ResnricciDns~ A sign is posted advising the public that they
should wear protective gear. Bicycles and ~.~plified equipment are
prohibited.
Ken Wormhoudt L,_ 4acape Architect ASLA
827 California 8treet 8anta Crus 98060 426-8424
GENERAL INFOR/~TION AB(N~ SKATEBOARDERS AND SKATEBOARD TRACKS
Skateboarding has been popular for about 30 years and has seen
advancements in equipment from old style skateboards, with
composite wheels, to the introduction of neoprene wheels, high
efficiency bearings and the more resilient boards. Most skaters
have learned to skaEe on city streets, sidewalks and other public
and private places, but many cities have now passed, or are
in the process of pa~sing, ordinances that prohibit skaters
from skating on the streets and sidewalks. Skaters, left with
no place to skate legally, have organized and have approached
their city councils to request that their cities provide them
with skateboard tracks, Just as cities provide tennis courts,
basketball courts, soccer fields, baseball and softball fields
for other citizens of the community. A few cities have responded
to the requests by skateboarders and have had skateboard tracks
designed specifically for skateboarding, generally built within
new or existing public parks. Due to the demands of
skateboarders and to the growth of skateboarding as a sport,
many other cities are exploring the possibility of having
skateboard tracks designed and built in their communities.
One of the objectives in building a skateboard track is to get
skaterboarders off :he city street and sidewalks, where
skateboarding is dangerous, inappropriate and, in some cities,
prohibited. The primary objective, though, is to acknowledge
that skateboarding is a sport and that a skateboard track would
provide a place where skaters could enjoy their sport and improve
their skating skills.
The sport of skateboarding is too new, and skateboard tracks
are too few, to have generated a body of statistical information
or design standards. While research has necessarily been
subjective, some clear conclusions can be made:
skateboarding is not as hazardous as generally believed.
While minor injuries may occur, serious life-threatening,
or permanent injuries, are extremely rare.
Whil~ the range ~n age of acnive skateboarders is from 10
to the mid-20's, the majority are in the 14 to 16 range and
are almost exclu~ively male.
On weekdays, the majority of skaters using a track wi~l
usually be young, local residents. On weekends, a number
of skaters may arrive from out of town, when skateboarders
of driving age will be attracted to the track. This may
change if more cities had their own skateboard track.
Skateboarders generally appreciate any track designed for
them, based on lack of alternative places to skate.
Most skaters behave responsibly and police themselves
in order to retain their use of the track.
The design of a skateboard track must include considerations
for safety; be economically feasible; be compatible with other
uses if built in a ~ubllc park; and not adversely impact any
nearby residents. It should incorporate features that allow
skaters of different levels of ability to be challenged; it
may contain convex and concave shapes in the form of bowls,
ridges, valleys, channels, curbs, platforms, ramps and level
areas. All feature~ should be interconnected so that skaters
can move continuously throughout and around the track.
The design of the track should be a reasonable compromise between
fun and safety. The height, width and slope of bowls, ridges,
valleys and channels will dictate the speed and difficulty for
skaters using the track. Vertical slopes and sharp edges should
be eliminated from the design, with, instead, a gently rounded
lip at the top edge of all slopes. This is not only for the
safety of skaters but also for the safety of any non-skater
who might wander onto the track and slide into a bowl instead
of falling vertically into a bowl.
It is essential that the design of the skateboard track should
not only involve input from city staff'and the city's risk
manager, but also involve input from skateboarders. During
the design process, for every track that I have designed, I
have met with a group of skateboarders in order to outline
the objectives and goals for the project, including the safety
requirements and necessary limitations. I have had the
skateboarders work with modeling clay to enable them to present
their ideas three dimensiona~ly to me and to each other for
comment. Working with clay allows them to easily visualize
their ideas. By incorporating their ideas with my ideas, I
am able to build a scale model of the proposed track. This
model is then presented to the skateboarders, the city's staff
and others who might be interested An the project, giving
everyone involved an understanding of how the track will look
when it is built.
The desz~n of a skateboard track should also include the area
immediately adjacent to the track, possibly containing a moandad
lawn area approximately 3 to 5 feet high, giving skateboarders
and spectator~ a place to sit and watch the activity on the
track.
Trees and shrubs should be planted far enough away from the
track to avoid leaves and twigs from fallinq on the track.
Ground covers are likely to be trampled if planted too close
to the track. Benches, fences, drinking fountains, trash
containers and restrooms should also be available for skaters
and spectators.
For all of the above reasons, locating a skateboard track within
a park where other sport activites such as basketball courts,
volleyball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields and baseball
diamonds are located, seems natural, logical and definetly less
expensive than locating a skateboard track in an isolated,
undeveloped area.
Skateboard tracks require li=tle maintenance, since skaters
tend to keep the paved areas free of any litter.
The area required for a skateboard =rack may vary, depending
on the available space, but generally 1/3 of an acre (a space
approximately 120 feet by 120 feet) to 1/2 o[ an acre (a space
approximately 145 feet by 145 feet) are sizes that allow enough
space to incorporate bowls, valleys, ridges, channels,
curbs,platforms and ramps into the design.
The best paving material on which to skate, and for low
maintenance, is reinforced concrete with a troweled smooth
finish. The construction of a skateboard track is similar to
construction of poured concrete walls, swimming pools and
pavements requiring reinforcing and trowel finishing. Skateboard
tracks I have designed and that have been built have ranged
in cost from $65,000 to $100,000, depending on the size of the
track, the complexity of the design and the topography of the
site. Those costs, including material and labor provided by
a contractor, cover shaping and compaction of the subgrade,
steel reinforcing and concrete paving.
Every city that explores the idea of building a skateboard track
facos the problem of the city's liability regarding the track.
Some skateboard tracks in cities are not officially designated
or signed as skateboard tracks, but instead are described as
sculptural, multi-use elements of the city park, where skate-
boarding is not prohibited. No rules are pos=ed, the tracks
are not fenced and safety equipment is not required.
The above school of thought is similar to some risk manager's
position on the skateboard liability issue that there is risk
inherent in any recreational activity or facility and that a
skateboard track presents no greater risk than the slides and
swings in a park, recommending that the skateboard track not
be posted with rules for use or requirements for safety equipment
unless the city is able to staff it during operation and
completely secure it during other times.
California passed a law in 1992 (Assembly Bill Number= AB 2487)
providing liabllXty immunity for skateboard facilities when
a local government adopts an ordinance requiring the posting
of signs at the skateboard track requiring the wearing of safety
equipment, includ~ng helmets, elbow and knee pads. On site
supervision is not requlred to see that the rules are followed.
I desiVned the first municipal sksateboard track An a public
park in Santa Cruz in 1978. Since that time I have consulted
with over 160 communities throughout the United States and Canada
that have requested information concerning skateboard tracks.
Within the last few years I have designed skateboard tracks
for the cities of Palo Alto, Naps, Santa Rosa and Pleasanton,
California. I am presently working on the designs of tracks
to be built in Wenatchee, Washington, Portland, Oregon, Carson
City and Henderson, Nevada, and in the California cities of
~etaluma, Milpitas, Yucca Valley, Sonoma, Ventura, Arcata and
OJai.
Please let me know if I can be of any further help to you.
Cordially,
Ken Wormhoudt
Landscape Architect ASLA
Date:
To:
October 16, 1996
Mayor and City Council Members
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Fro m:
Subject: Graffiti Update
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --':' .....
STAFF REPORT
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
The City of Rancho Cucarnonga has always dealt promptly with the problem of gang related graffiti. In
the past gang graf~ti and other obscene graf~ti was dealt with on an as needed basis and was removed as
quickly as possible.
In the fall of 1992 Graf~ti became a major problem throughout the nation and Rancho Cucamonga did
not escape this plague. The popularity of "TAGGING" as a way to express ones self without being
identified was the major cause of the graffiti problem. To combat this plague the City of Rancho
Cucamonga organized to fight back.
The Engineering~hablic Works Maintenance section made graff ti a priority and began removing gang,
obscene and tagger graf~ti within 48 hours of notification. New equipment was purchased to combat the
graffiti problem and a dedicated maintenance worker was assigned to graffiti abatement tour days a week
and during holiday season extra staff was assigned to keep RC beautiful.
The City Yard telephone number has been used to report graff ti. Two years ago a dedicated hotline was
instituted for reporting graffiti and is monitored seven days a week for any hoBpots. If on the weekend it
is found that graffiti should have immediate attention the standby person is called to handle the situation.
The City also provides free recycled latex paint from the Household Hazardous Waste Facility to citizen
who need paint over graffiti on private property.
In Fiscal year 1992/93 the expenditure for graf~ti removal was in excess of $250,000 in Fiscal Year
1995/96 the expenditure was under $100,000. Public Works Maintenance has become so efficient at
removing graffiti that the cost was brought down even though there has been an increase shown in
removal. This was also due to volunteers helping cleanup areas.
A grass roots volunteer program called Adopt A Wall was organized by Mrs. Cynthia Shelley and
supported by City and Police staff which sought the communities involvement in cleaning graffiti in the
City fight of way. This program is still in place with nearly 125 volunteers. The City has designated five
colors of paint to cover 'oiter graf~ti throughout the community. This helped in keeping areas looking
uniform. There has been little activity in the 25 designated walls, which shows that the message is out to
the taggets.
A pictorial log is kept of repeat taggers or new gang activity, by the maintenance staff from graf~ti
removed by the City and Adopt A Wall volunteers. This log includes dates, location and amount of
graffiti removed and has been valuable in prosecution on offenders.
Most of the graftiti reported and cleaned up during the past months is on surfaces not normally
monitored by the Adopt A Wall Volunteers. The trend in graffiti seems to be that of youthful taggets
painting on street light posts, curbs and utility boxes rather than large wall murals we have seen in the
past. Our concerted efforts have kept the blight in check.
Attached is the Fiscal Year 1996/97 year to date graffiti removal graph for the Council's information.
Respectfully Submitted,
William J. 0' Neil
City Engineer
WJO:BZ
SQ.FT. X 100
October
0
0
November
December~lllll
februarY~l J [ J !!~
March
APril lemem.
May
June
Average
[] [] [] []
'1'"1 'rl 'T1
(D
(D (D (D
0