HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/10/21 - Agenda Packet0
MY Of
RANCHO CUCANICNGA
CITY COUNCIL
AGENEA
Lion's Park Community Center
9161 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California
October 21, 1981
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The dead-
line for submitting these items is 5:00 p.n. on Thursday prior to the first and
third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's Office receives all such Items.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
A. Flag Salute.
B. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Falombo_, Bridge_, and Schlosser_
• C. Approval of Minutes:
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
a. Thursday, October 22, 1981, Advisory Commission. Lion's Park Community
Center - 7:00 p.m.
b. Thursday, October 22, 1981, Etiwanda Town Meeting. Etiwanda Middle
School - 7:00 p.m.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR. RQ,� 4,
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.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81- 10 -219 in the 1
amount of $530,812.70.
b. Acceptance of Tract 11350, Bonds and Agreements - Lesney 4
• Development Co. Recommend that Council accept the subject
tract, bonds, and agreement located at the northwest corner
of Base Line and Hermosa.
.y
City Council Agenda -2- October
21, 1981
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -146
5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350.
c. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien
18
Agreement for Tract 11350 - Lesney Development Co.
Recommend that Council accept the Real Property Improve-
ment Contract and Lien Agreement for Tract 11350 for a
median island on Base Line. Subject tract is located
at the northwest corner of Base Line and Hermosa.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -147
19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN
AGREEMENT FROM LESNEY DEVELOPMENT CO. AND
_
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN
THE SAME.
•
Approval of Cooperative Study on the Day - Etiwanda -San
24
Sevaine Drainage System. Recommend approval to proceed
on a cooperative drainage study to establish a plan for
Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevaine Creeks and authorize
$15,000 to fund the city portion.
e. Award of Street Striping and Pavement Marking Services
45
Contract. Staff recommends that Safety Striping be
awarded the contract as the lowest bidder at $25,155.
f. Demens Channel Pedestrian /Equestrian Bridge Agreement.
47
-
Recommend approval of agreement with San Bernardino
County Flood Control District for the construction of
the Demens Channel pedestrian /equestrian bridge.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -160
48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
NEED FOR AND AUTHORIZING CONTRUCTION OF A PEDES-
TRIAN /EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS DEMENS CHANNEL.
g. Intent to Order Annexation No. 7 to Landscape Maintenance
61
District No. 1 for Tract 9584 and 9584 -2. Recommend
that Council approve the annexation of the subject tracts
--
to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
•
City Council Agenda -3- October 21, 1981
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -161 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT:
DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO
THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (TRACT 9584 AND TRACT 9584 -2).
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -162
64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXA-
TION NO. 7 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1. (TRACT 9584 AND TRACT 9584 -2).
h. Acceptance of Tract Map 9584, Bonds, and Agreement -
69
•
Deer Creek Company. Recommend that Council accent
the subject map, bond, and agreement from Deer Creek
Company. Subject tract is located east of Haven, north
of Hillside Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -163
70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9584.
I. Acceptance of Tract Hap 9584 -2, Bonds and Agreements -
79
Deer Creek Company. Recommend that Council accept bonds,
agreement, and the subject map; located east of Haven,
north of Hillside Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -164
80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9584 -2.
J. Acceptance of Bonds and Agreement for D.R. 79 -06 -
89
Fredricks Development Corporation, located at the
northwest corner of 19th Street and Ramona Avenue.
Recommend that Councii accept bonds and agreement for
Director Review 79 -06.
City Council Agenda -4- October 21, 1981
90
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -165
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -06.
k. Release of Bonds: 97
-Tract 9440 - located on the west side of Hermosa,
north of Banyan. Owner: Crismar Development Co
Release Road Maintenance Guarantee Bond $6,402.48
-Tract 9434 - located on the south aide of 19th Street,
east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Chevron Construction Co.
Release Road Maintenance Guarantee Bond $6,400.00
-Tract 9617 - located southerly of Foothill Blvd., west
` • of Hellman Avenue. Owner: M. J. Brock 6 Sons, Inc.
Release Monumentation Bond $2,659.00
- Parcel Map 5157 - located at the northwest corner of Haven
Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: John D. Lusk 6 Son.
/ ^l Release Monamentation Bond $3,250.00
( �. 1_ '�uarterly Financial Report. It is recommended that Council 98
approve t e`Fi�f%iW g �CE%ns:
(1) Deactivate Central Services Fund No. 55 and the fund
balance of $167,458 be transferred to the General Fund.
(2) Balances from the Traffic Safety Fund of $15,815 and
Revenue Sharing Fund of $207,256 be transferred to
the General Fund.
(3) $128,809 be transferred from the Reserve Funds to the
General Fund to counter the short fall in motor -in -lieu
fees.
i,
•
City Council Agenda -5- October 21, 1981
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 105
80 -12 (IT 11663) - MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
A total development of JR townhouses on 40 acres in the
R -2 zone, located on the east side of Archibald, on the
south side of Church, west side of Ramona - APN 1077 -341-
01, 1077 - 133 -08, and 1077- 631 -03.
Recommended that Council approve Ordinance No. 153 apnrov-
ing Planned Development No. 80 -12 and the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
ORDINANCE NO. 153 (second reading) 105a
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 341 -01, 1077-
133-08, AND 1077 - 631 -03 GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD, SOUTH SIDE OF
CHURCH AND ON THE WEST SIDE CF RAMONA, CONSIST-
ING OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES, FROM R -2 TO R -2-
P.D.
• B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 - _
LEWIS. A proposed change of zone from R -1 (single
family residential) to R- 1- 20,000 (single family resi-
dential 20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) on 52 acres of
land located on the south side of Summit Avenue between
Etiwanda and East Avenues - APN 225 - 181 -04 through 09,
26, and 43.
Recommended that Council approve Ordinance No. 156 approv-
ing Zone Change No. 81 -02 and the issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
ORDINANCE No. 156 (second reading) 121
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 225 - 181 -4 THROUGH
9, 26, AND 43 FROM R -1 TO R -1- 20,000 LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN
ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES.
E
City Council Agenda -6- October 21, 1981
• C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04
(TT 11614) - DEVELOPMENT GROUP. A change of zone from
R -1 and R -1 -5 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned develop-
ment of SO single family attached units on 10.1 acres
of land generally located on the west side of Ramona at
Monte Vista Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -05, 06, and 16.
Recommended that Council approve Ordinance No. 157 approv-
ing Planned Development No. 80 -04 and the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
ORDINANCE NO. 157 (second reading) 122
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 181 -05, O6, 16
FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTI
TO R- 3 /P.D. (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL /P
DEVELOPMENT) GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF RAMONA AT MONTE VISTA AVENUE.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -03
DAON. A proposed change in zone from M -2 (general
• manufacturing) to C -2 (general business commercial) on
18 acres of land located on the northeast corner of
Arrow and Haven - APN 208- 622 -01.
Recommended that Council approve Ordinance No. 158 aonrov-
ing Zone Change No. 81 -03 and the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
ORDINANCE NO. 158 (second reading) 123
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208- 622 -01 GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AND
ARROW, FROM M -2 TO C -2.
E. UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. DISTRICTS. 124
Council directed staff at the last councli meeting to
draft an ordinance which would implement a uniform
school fee. A development fee of $1100 would be anolied
to single family homes with a fee of $550 for mobile
homes and all multi- family developments containing two
or more bedrooms.
It is recommended that Council set November 4, 1981
for second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 69 -C.
10
City Council Agenda -7- October 21, 1981
•
ORDINANCE NO. 69 -C (first reading) 125
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SUB- SECTION "A" OF THE SECTION 16.24.080
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PRO-
VIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE FEES IMPOSED FOR
THE FINANCING OF INTERIM SCHOOLS.
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
A. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT PORTION OF PALO ALTO 127
STREET. Recommend Council approve contract with
American Asphalt to complete the northerly half of
Palo Alto Street in conjunction with Dona Merced School.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -166 128
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET AND DECLAR-
ING THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF THE PROJECT.
B. REQUEST DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL REGARDING DECEMBER
REDEVELOPMENT MEETINGS. An oral report will be presented
by Lauren Wasserman.
C. REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR 130
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC
CENTER. Staff report by Jim Robinson.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
iJ
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held
in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, October 21y
1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor pro tem Arthur H.
Bridge.
Present were Councilmen: James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombp, and
Mavor pro tem Arthur H. Bridge.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney,
Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development
Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey.
Absent: Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who was in Europe on business, and Community
Services Director, Bill Holley.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
a. Mr. Wasserman requested an addition to the Agenda; item 5F, Revenue Sharing,
which had been advertised as a public hearing and had been inadvertently omitted
from the agenda.
b. Mr. Wasserman also requested that Consent Calendar item d be changed to item 5A.
C. Councilman Palombo requested that Consent Calendar item 1 be removed until
he talked with the Finance Director since he had some questions. He would
see him during a break time. Council could discuss item as a staff report
number 5E.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81- 10-21, in the amount of $530,812.70.
b. Acceptance of Tract 11350, Bonds and Agreements - Lesney Development Co.
Recommend that Council accept the subject tract, bonds and agreements
located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Hermosa.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -146
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE-
MENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL
MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350.
c. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agrement for Tract
11350 - Lesney Development Co. Recommend that Council accept the Real Property
Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for Tract 11350 for a median island
on Base Line. Subject tract is located at the northwest corner of Base Line
and Hermosa.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -147
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCA.MONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
FROM LESNEY DEVELOPMENT CO. AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
menc.s that Uafety Striping be awarded the Contract as the lowest bidder at
$25,155.
f. Demens Channel Pedestrian /Equestrian Bridge Agreement. Recommend approval of
agreement with San Bernardino County Flood Control District for the Construction
of the Demens Channel pedestrian /equestrian bridge.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -160
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING NEED
FOR AND AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/
EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS DEMENS CHANNEL.
g. Intent to Order Annexation No. 7 to Landscape Maintenance District No. I for
tract 9584 and 9584 -1. Recommend that Council approve the annexation of the
subject tracts to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -161
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING IT3 INTENTION
TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING
SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO, 7 TO LANDSCAPE MAIN-
TENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OP 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO. (Tract 9584 AND TRACT
9584 -2).
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -162
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINkRY APPROVAL
OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRCCT NO. 1. (TRACT 9554 AND
TRACT 9584 -2).
h. Acceptance of Tract Map 9584, Bonds, and Agreement - Deer Creek Companv.
Recommenu that Council accept bonds, agreement, and the subject man; located
east of Haven, north of Hillside Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -164
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE-
MENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL
MAP OF TRACT NO. 9584 -2.
j. Acceptance of Bonds and Agreement for D.R. 79 -06 - Fredricks Development
Corporation, located at the northwest corner of 19ch Street and Ramona
Avenue. Recomned that Council accept bonds and agreement for Director Review
79 -06.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -165
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE-
MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR
REVIEW NO. 79 -06.
-Tract 9434 - located on the south side of 19th Street, east of Haven Avenue.
Owner: Chevron Construction Co.
Release Road Maintenance Guarantee Bond $6,400.00
-Tract 9617 - located southerly of Foothill Blvd., west of Hellman Avenue.
Owner: M. J. Brock d Sons, Inc.
Release Monumentation Bond $2,659.00
- Parcel Map 5157 - located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th
Street. Owner: John D. Lusk 6 Son.
Release Monumentation Bond $3,250.00
}:-- @nerter }r- Finnnein }- Repeet. Item removed to Staff Report No. 5E.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar with
the deletion of items d and 1. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
NU. nU -12 Cll llbbd) -
report was presented by
Lam.
A total development of 383 townhouses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone, located on
the east side of Archibald, on the south side of Church, west side of Ramona -
APN 1077 - 341 -01, 1077- 133 -08, and 1077- 631 -03.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 153.
ORDINANCE NO. 153 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 1077 - 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08, AND 1077 -631-
03 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE FAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD,
SOUTH SIDE OF CHURCH AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES, FROM R -2 TO
R- 2 -P.D.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance
No. 153. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
Mayor pro tem Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council
were:
Paul Brynes, Vice President of Engineering for Marlborough.
Andy Solorzano, Teak Way. He stated there had been many changes in the
development since it was first presented. The residents were pleased
they could work with city staff to bring about the many changes.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
2. Major ingress has been rerouted up to Church Street with most traffic
being directed onto Archibald.
3. Total reduction of number of units from 413 to 383.
Councilman Frost inquired as to the timing of the traffic signal at Archi' .'_d.
Mr. Lam responded by stating that the timing of the signal will be when C, access
road comes onto Archibald. The signal will be installed at that time.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the zone change for Planned
Development No. 80 -12, approve the issuance of a Negative Declaration, and approve
and adopt Ordinance No. 153. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost,
Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: None. ABSENT: Schlosser.
4B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 - LEWIS. Item was introduced
by Lauren Wasserman.
A proposed change of zone from R -1 (single family residential) to R -1- 20,000 (single
family residential 20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) on 52 acres of land located on the south
south side of Summit Avenue between Etiwanda and East Avenues - APN 225- 181 -04
through 09, 26, and 43.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 156.
ORDINANCE NO. 156 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 225 - 181 -4 THROUGH 9, 26, AND 43 FROM
R -1 TO R -1- 20,000 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive the further reading of
Ordinance No. 156. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
Mayor pro tem Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the zone change :'y aporoving
Ordinance No. 156 and to approve the issuance of a negative declaration. ::otion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Schlosser.
4C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04 (TT 11614) - DEVELOP-
MENT GROUP. Lauren Wasserman introduced the item.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 157,
ORDINANCE NO. 157 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 FROM R -1 AND
R -1 -5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 3 /P.D.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL /PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA
AT MONTE VISTA AVENUE.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the zone change by approving
Ordinance No. 157 and to approve the issuance of a negative declaration. Motion
carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Schlosser.
4D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -03 - DAON. Item was introduced
by Lauren Wasserman.
A proposed change in zone from M -2 (general manufacturing) to C -2 (general business
commercial) on 18 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven -
APN 208 - 622 -01.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 158.
ORDINANCE NO. 158 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL 'AMBER 208 - 622 -01 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AND ARROW, FROM M -2 TO
C -2,
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to waive further reading of Ordinance
No. 158. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1. (Schlosser absent).
Mayor pro tam Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the zone change by approving
Ordinance No. 158 and to approve the issuance of a negative declaration. Motion
carried by the following vote: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Schlosser.
4E. UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Item was introduced by
Lauren Wasserman.
Council had directed staff at the October 7 meeting to draft an ordinance which
would implement a uniform school fee for all the elementary school districts. A
development fee of $1100 would be applied to single family homes with a fee of
$550 for mobile homes and all multi - family developments containing two or more bed-
rooms.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 69 -C.
ORDINANCE NO. 69 -C (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUB - SECTION
"A" OF THE SECTION 16.24.080 OF THE RANCHO COCA -
MONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE
IN THE FEES IMPOSED FOR THE FINANCING OF INTERIM
SCHOOLS.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance
No. 69 -C. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
Mayor pro tam Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. There beine no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Frost pointed out that this would increase the cost of new housing for
people.
a
4F. ADDED ITEM: REVENUE SHARING. Lauren Wasserman introduced the item.
Item had been inadvertently left off the Agenda. However, advertising had been
made and several were present to address the issue.
Mr. Wasserman stated that because of changes in the apportionment, there were
approximately $57,000 additional funds. Therefore, Council must hold pd•Iic
hearings on how to fund the $57,000. In the past Council has directed the
revenue sharing funds toward offsetting the costs of the sheriff's contract. It
is staff's recommendation that this additional amount also be directed toward
public services.
Mayor pro tem Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council
was:
Herb Williams, who works at the Neighborhood Center on Arrow. He pointed
out that the Center needed improvements in the kitchen ; namely, ventilation
and additional space. He stated that they are serving approximately 1300
meals each month from the small inadequately ventilated kitchen. He also
pointed out that there was inadequate parking space for the number of people
that used the facility.
Nellie Ayala, who also works at the Neighborhood Center dispensing food.
She concurred with Mr. Williams in that the kitchen was too inefficient
with poor ventilation and inadequate space.
There being no further public input, Mayor pro tem Bridge closed the public hearing.
Councilman Mikels asked staff to look into the parking congestion.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the City had received petitions from the senior citizens
today and staff was already looking into this. Perhaps something could be worked
out with the Chino Basin Water District regarding joint parking.
Councilman Frost recommended that the item be continued to the November 4 meeting
for the second public hearing. Council concurred.
Mayor pro tem Bridge called a recess at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:00
with all members of Council and staff present.
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
5A. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT A PORTION OF PALO ALTO STREET. Mr. Hubbs pre-
sented the staff report.
Mr. Hobbs stated that this item had not been included in the budget. However,
staff felt it was the best approach to enter into a contract now with the school's
contractor, and to complete the work at the same time. It would be cheaper to
do this than to go out to bid ourselves.
Mayor pro tem Bridge opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no
response, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hubbs stated that no action would increase expenditure. The school's contractor
would be there now. We would have to go out for bids. There would be a time loss,
advertising costs, and we could end up with higher costs.
Councilman Mikels asked Mr. Hobbs if he felt confident that the situation which
developed has been worked out so that there would not be a reoccurrence of this
happening again. Mr. Hobbs answered that hopefully this would not occur again
since we have made out position clear with the school district.
Mr. Hubbs pointed out that at this time it was more cost efficient to use the
school's contractor. He said the school district has stated that thev would not
use the architect of this project again.
Councilman Mikels asked if there was a way we could be assured that this would
not happen again by somehow checking before the plans go to the State.
Mr. Hubbs stated that it would take the cooperation of the school districts. He
felt in this case that the school district had learned its lesson. We have not
had any problems with any other school district in the past.
Mr. Wasserman asked if whether a letter to the school district's superintendent
and board to indicate council's concern and that we did not want it to happen
again would be appropriate.
Motion: Moved by Mikels to approve using the school district's contractor to
complete the street and to send a letter to the school district's school board
and superintendent indicating our concern that it not happen again.
Councilman. Frost stated that as a matter of courtesy perhaps we should require
school districts that the city review plans before sending them to the State.
Mr. Hobbs said there was no simple procedure to accomplish this. A school district
is not under any legal mandate to seek the city's approval.
Councilman Mikels stated that one concern we must be concerned with and that is
our liability exposure.
Councilman Frost disagreed. He said the school district is in the same position
as the city with a fixed budget.
Mikels suggested that a subcommittee of the council meet with the school district
board to resolve the problems.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to approve the expenditure of one
half of the cost if the school district agrees to bear the other half of the amount.
Vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Frost and Palombo. NOES: Bridge and Mikels.
Councilman Mikels recommended the appointment of two representatives from Council
as a subcommittee to work with a subcommittee of the School Board to negotiate this.
Mr. Dougherty suggested that a special meeting could be held on Thursday, October
29 to approve the final negotiations.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to appoint a subcommittee to negotiate
with a subcommittee of the school board and to set a special meeting of the council
for Thursday, October 29 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lion's Park Community Center to
finalize the problem. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels,
Palombo, Bridge, NOES: None. ABSENT: Schlosser.
Council concurred in appointing Councilman Mikels and Council Frost to this sub-
committee.
reading of the ordinance which must be at least five days after the first reading.
Staff recommends the date of December 23 at 6:00 p.m. for the special meeting.
General concensus of Council was to approve the date if necessary, but for staff
to try to cut the process in order that the second reading could be done earlier.
5C REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SEE IC 9 FOR
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER. Staff report by Jim Robinson.
Mr. Robinson pointed out that the city has been at a disadvantage since the county
has selected their architect and construction managers. He said the city does
not want to be left with an area designated on the site which may prove to be
incompatible with a future city hall. He recommended that Council authorize
staff to seek qualification statements from potential architects to design the
future city hall and to assist in the completion of the master plan for the site.
And, that council also make appointments to a selections committee to review
potential architects.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to authorize staff to send out requests
for qualifations, and to appoint a selections committee comprising of two council
members, two planning commissioners, and three staff members. Motion carried 4 -0 -1.
Councilman Bridge suggested that the planning commissioners be selected by the
council.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to appoint Phil Schlosser and Jon
Mikels as council appointees to the selections committee, and to have the sub-
committee select the two planning commissioners to serve with them; and to
have the selections committee pick three or more of the top applicants to present
to council for final selection. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
5D. ITEM FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE STUDY ON THE DAY- ETIWANDA-
SA.Y SEVAINE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. Report by Lloyd Hubbs.
Staff had recommended approval to proceed on a cooperative drainage study to esta-
blish a plan for the Day, Etiwanda, and San Sevafne Creeks and to authorize $15,000
to fund the city portion.
Mayor pro tem opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the public
portion was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the staff's recommendation
subject to the following conditions:
1. There be a cost sharing of $15,000 from Fontana, Ontario, and $30,000
from San Bernardino and Riverside County Flood Control Districts with
remaining funds coming from the priviate sector.
2. San Bernardino County Flood Control be designated the lead agent.
3. The $15,000 be taken from the Storm Drain Fees.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
Motion: .ad ar by .s to
recommendations by staff:
1. Deactivate the Central Services Fund No. 55 and the fund balance
of $167,458 be transferred to the General Fund.
2. Balances from the Traffic Safety Fund of $15,815 and Revenue Sharing
Fund of $207,256 be transferred to the General Fund.
3. $128,809 be transferred from the Reserve Fund to the General Fund to
counter the short fall in motor -in -lieu fees.
Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. The city attorney said he had nothing to report
but requested an executive session to discuss pending litigation.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to adjourn to an executive session
not to reconvene this evening, but to reconvene on Thursday, October 29, 1981 for
a special meeting. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0 -1 (Schlosser absent).
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully �submitted,
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
^ *7 CITY OF RA4ON CUCA4O>IGA
RARR 9 VEN 0 V F Y 0 D R R A C E
11134
0141S
lWh
1 411
011 %10
A 1419
01W,
11441
7144.
1541
11154
01446
9145T
n144R
n I44Y
1
Y151 1
5
714
714551
11451
.11`%54 5
71
n1143A
9155•
)T " "5
41 ]+
E'i30
65i'1
T3l'.
7.45
]11�
2:1)
JS L:
l23A
12511
Y15n
i]]9
X155
155
9500
9!70
34 ?1
ansl
9[nn
:U
71515
WARRANT REC ^'XILMtQR 10RVA1
J lF NFFFREM,F DISCOUNT
REt
9.11
10^., n.91 nn
2.`154.95
]94.15
23, no
10.415. J]
90
14'9.4
]9.40
571..19
5,M11].M11
3,5;6.37
43.411
21733,49
].]40.37
40.00
12.0 1.90
Ida 27
2,1)1. ^.D
111.t19
tl.7
UL.70-
I2.01-
PAGE • 1
9 ! CITY IN,H) C.UCA!3n11:A
WARRANT
RFCF9!CI * ON 10/211011
f.W,
Y F IT U O R N A M E
MP
nis ca i NET
F
:p AE
4JJS
0:
i1I IT�AxgL
DF 9c .q
` /i"
I I
2h. i0
" ^4
4307
Srl•ILI V1P:1'11A
W /'1/11
15,99
' "h
4!04
iTorFt7••71111. III;,%
I.: /i 11x11
15.Gu
0•
4311
1.14 Sp•L G1, 1AIRICIA
11(H / ^I
15.99
0 L:1
411)
irUHlf, S•Ir•1
19 /'t /•N
IS.319
O n1A
4'11
K`NMF, fl C`IL
101:1191
15.90
P:•I)9
4-112
b:..51, 4• %IL
10/11 /61
15.•11
n 1,111
41111.:•:
1n<, rA 1)a
IrJ V2nt
. .1111
4315
ill• s. a'1) /•ur
IP /11/111
11.91
9::012
4115
1rSA, II"Ot
I0/21 /A!
311.10
0.111
471'.
H4IL. JIcF
11/'1/,11
)n.9n
17
f. ^xoL., 1319
Inn1 / ^1
10.9.1
0111315
4311
::.. ^911. :Anna
10 1211PI
10.03
nn 116
4 +1 -r.,-u
SnN. U'f8F
1: /71 /1)l
14.00
oL•01I
4 1')
.
IA ^l. ^S J5RCT
lC/21 /1i
54.31
Or•114
4111
Si't•'11r: 5A't1sA
Ir /2.1 / ^l
1•.3n
0OJl1
431 " .
IC 'J I':•:. JA1 Kir
1 ^ /�1 /:Il
15.90
02112'1
431
:'I:11Th
4.31.
�l16IC
satii,t
10%11%11
15.10
0"17?
:�
110/21 /311
Is.n.1
Of 1'l
4115
O ^J9if.•, AikrillfT
10/21 /111
15.13
01924
4377
IIFrAY, KAl HRY4 F
in/11 1RI
15.00
0.11 •
41'1
4`Pr. JUOY
IN.'1 /01
15.110
ns_Ill
4"1
IIC116 "al•. P - ^1:Y
10221 /PI
15.10
111.7;
All)
F9.'v` ?S, JUIlto
IC/7I /111
1i.00
¢:9>a
4+41
24x'175. ro.•A.,n
In 1?1 /4t
15.00
•.10^71
4411
t itFY C4? ^L
-
10/.'1 /el
15.01
014131
WPP71
4'13
M1aii
110'4 ?I0 JI•Y
' )11F. L1LnA
In/11 /Ol
]0/21 /1)l
15.00
15.:10
11:.31
5
T:1; 11111. 11. wL'1
Inrzln•l
11.111
01113
4115
J'1 l _'SIN, SY0141A
ln/2l/01
N.On
or!.4
4311
G^(K, C..CLN
11/71/11
I.J0
iv ^.a
4131
L;.;e.wrmlFl Ha
10/21/91
32.01)
-
4311
D:;a1F
In "l /01
15.09
92037
4 ?4`
0IIL-1F. ILSII
IWI1.1
2*.00
011. 51
1111)1
4341
la ": CA-III IN
,I•, " :5, 5191Y
IC /21 /1)l
0/21141
25.00
ls.n1
0 +041
4141
f.4!1TP 'L": Aa +IF RI"1'
{C.
10/71 1RI
22.50
11:)41
P
4141
SI'61.4
S.- Al.-2. IF LIT
110 /2t 1111
10%•1181
21.50
— 11^-52
4114 5
JU ^A
1 ^ /'1 / ^3
122.09
5.00
I.4
46 ^1
;t �V, n AL TFIFf -VIII° C^
10/.'t /ill
3.023.2A
Oars
4119
o: y- C11:i OLTANTS
110 /21111
21700.011
n"0401
4715
GAG-.f, Jr PJY P
1n /21 191
250.00
0.1:47
794
F.-M K YNFIS ^N
IO / ?I /al
34,391.36
079:1
411
11PRM r;nlfil 1.11'IIC
101211al
142.50
_ :1.159
441.1
f.AkY 91YI) ` LOUI(:
IO /%1161
120.00
O::-K`
411)
-I,•tArY. WILL 14.1 1
to /Jl /511
1 00.:)0
0,:051
4'11••
V''LLIn1Y nrfK Cn INC
I0121/61
4,11.54
4111.
1.11 LI "Ir- Ca
W-1 /91
66.22
01 1115'
911
11,32 V: "STmItT IGV SPEC
1C/21 tilt
115n3.13
09954
4'1,
µu•1. JULIE
In121 111
500.00
nl.155
Silo
I9H
14/21 /81
861`.51
1rl"
5175
III- CITY NiT ASSOC
111/21/91
29.50
n 019.1
'12.1
C R JA.3f.HKF INC
1411/11
A1.54
0' 159
111
,II •'S x••! Srr VICF.
10 /71 /8I
41. ?0
n:: 1c7
•IC:
IILAF`:Y 4SSrCIATFS, J!IH
IO /21 1AI
51.1,1
01169
6515
P. p«1 C ASS ^C, 30$1L0
110 /21/61
1.315.110
0`:!•61
660
,('JUTSFN. 1`::14
10221/91
475.20
".):V
6611
KiEW, CIMPLES
1012!1,11
99.00
01:'1.9
663n
LA'11 J1CP
110 1211 131
250.00
_
OM3_14
6x53
LA`.0 OCSIGr; PO:ILISHING
1o221/A1
53.•14
)65
661.1
LACSnI' VWnMICTS RI(:
10 /:1 /CI
31.'11
16166
6115
Lr6.81r r Ml CITIFS
10/21/91
4no.00
9• ""T
7^5
I,:CCY-Pr r I. SIJ.1VEJIM
to /2t /11
12,444.61
-l'.l
tf IWI ALLY
13/21/01
475.20
09051
:
6}5
LUNJ, °ICIIAEL
10/21/ ^1
16.00
0AO /0
Tit?
MAMIRSKY. fRI
10/21/01
141.50
PAO1
7105
4%PY III 1m4ES INC
10/21/,31
4.115.93
OR
72':1
KSARFS7 PFL
16221/11
"0.110
OPAL
7324
HI SSI�F SUPPLY Cn
10/21/01
1n.15
06014
7175
"'JAH4N. f.1.11:114
In /11/01
56.00
011315
1405
Y1LII COPY SYSTf CS INC
Inl21/AI
142.09
r
PA(e P.
I �
I
I
1
I
I �
I
I
I
I
t
i
r
1 •
.0
R,.. .'....,.. ..
.Fftj CITY A•-c!; CUCA.4C °GA
N3Rp p VF V F N O (I R N A P E
r.`76 T.1) ".111 S^.AI1 \2Y '. IPPLY CO
n. -)Ir )61: 11.11 V ^9'" •1 ^1'
COlrR 7145 1r.'.:' (�•[A`.qr lr.�FR
O:I9f9 Tfln P.1S "R SAL CS ,
-p 0An T /tl nAIT^•" Sn FS T P-1
O ann3 "II I'll, C11 1`1Il p'tIN1(Nf
OFI"3 7;115 PI -.:P'SS'rVLLrTtl
04 -• "4 dnh5 vlF (IY. 51 CP:rStl SFRVICH
PIJ IS t01^)) PIAOLi TTI` Rc IAIP
110.141 1311591:CUI Fra -.J
n9tnl4 BR5 PIT) (A +-RA CFNT(R
p? ^f.9 n2'l 1':IF (•1 "d' ^'. JAViS N
0:W9.1 1122] R1-0911UF/ DANA
0v0^1 01 11 11 -ITY 9`1'1`+.: SVC
ONV'V 0311 51:: l "O CL• SII'V•r 'p
. O4C91 11314 4L1 CAI `,TY
0.:994 13•f SUIT, JLR'•Y .)
rtp.1n5 91"!4 Sr Ai[ SUPVl'IS ST ^RF
P. 196 013P SFV`•' DAY AJIO PA ?TS
oblPlr 01l) SC "VLF JtinY
ISJe4 YET') VFV'l.'FR CP. v39n
05(99 all. :, l''RA L'LIF FolsO4
C-: 1:'9 394 Ir ..1bT W-IL 'T-L FFO
- 11l_ S .T rl,tf'.AS C:'
I ^2 lily'
Sr r1.
OP1,13 1471
00IO4 946' SVI11 C.C7.TC1 -L SPLY G MF
eel ^.s iso; C'19^
lnll1 Usii SUP, Tr CP PIC
I r!F. T.0 :T OCCUNPIT
1.•a••.• •11� O11^1411, SI091 ". DICK
nvinn
--f 1N T. g'!V.41- F',TILi I %C
p':I10 111; • "J PACIFIC 1STR M
00111 917-, 111K C CV.01,71.Y I -ILS
0C111 1!35 PIAo Ph3Tn
9911' 1.11.1 11`p 4A. GF: PGF
0:1116 91 G0 V ^:,.U,
_ ICtl1 rr'T° L SF �I'F'!CAL LAO
�G.-I.117
J�PIt.
(IN 12.1
• 9F121
0 >1»
11.•1, f
Li »r.l
• Ih55t
9fuf
9301
9515
9575
vii 5
LA
f4I. r
VARS ANT MCC5IK IL �Y 10 /il /01
N4Rp ..I1 1111^ LLL ntSCOUNT
^ATv PFFfRC'.!F
FI11AL 7TIT4LS
J
P4r 3
AFT
,
5n,•ID
121.
I1. 7
11
1(.99
:.21
121.21
J
M1.h(1
594. tq
J
627.9111 1
6,41
21.0.99
z. a9r,. T9
I T9.65
6.'12M1.4$
1
4.40
653.411
1.967.44
15.09
In5.'1J
J
5.931.44
125.25
46.
4'6.24 24
zsn.n0
.50
103.14
lOx.00
29.70
6n.00
13.14
I
J
IO.Dn
169.30
tot.5o
4 ?.x4
7.10.
29,308.15 15
3.200.29
160.52
o.0n
0,672.41
8.2T-
53U,012.i0
I
'
i
�i
:e
0
•
9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 21, 1981 " `=
F_
TO: City Council and City Manager O�
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tract 11350, Bonds and Agreements
Lesney Development Company
The subject map, located at the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Hermosa Avenue is submitted by Lesney Development Company;
it was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on November
26, 1980 for the division of 10 acres into 117 lots for 114 units
of planned development.
An agreement and bonds have been submitted in the following amounts
to guarantee the installation of off -site improvements:
Faithful Performance $420,000.00
Labor and Material $210,000.00
Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Union High
School and Alta Loma School Districts. C. C. & R's have been
approved by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the acceptance of bonds and agreement and the signa-
ture of said map.
Respectfully submitted,
C LDH:JS:bc
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 'S - w(A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11350, consisting of
117 lots, submitted by Lesney Development Company Subdivider, located at
the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue has been
submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved
by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of
California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28
of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet_ the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
• 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of
said City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto;
and,
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content
thereof by the City Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to
execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Phillip D. Schlosser, mayor
• ATTEST:
Lauren,M. Wasserman, City Clerk
F4-
4 a
wl-
Tr, AC 'r
IV E V S. 0 N 5
I
.............
IV E V S. 0 N 5
I
• CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
VICTOR A. CHERBAK. JR,. P-111.1
September 24, 1981
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Engineering Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mrs. Barbara Krell
V.—P ... u.,,
FRANK LESINSKY
S.. IN". I --, Ty-'-
LLOYD W. MICHAEL
Dirt
CHARLES T, VATH
EARLE R. ANDERSON
ROBERT NESBIT
Gentlemen:
Lesny Development Company, Developer of Tract No. 11350,
• situated in Rancho Cucamonga, have deposited with this
District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance
Bond, and a Utilities Improvement Agreement.
These bonds and agreements, previously filed with the County,
are now being accepted by this District as an assurance that
said improvements will be provided, as stated, within the
boundaries of the Cucamonga County Water District.
In addition, this letter is to verify that the above refer-
enced Developer has complied with all requirements for de-
velcp-,ent that are mandated by District policy.
Yours truly,
CCC;,::O;GA COUNTY WATER •DISTRICT
(;
am n T C >.nc, Jr,/
Ass>_stant Civil Engineer
071C: 1;;
rol
C
CHAVFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICLP,,,..1W9yw;;--w-
JIO
241 11110 FIFTH STREET. OM51110. CALWORMIA 11052 qf. r ivi.n4aeanq
p.... VUUrtt wswn..e[e wrwn...¢, wanwwparnoLwu [r.n[Vn.[.rwp.oetu.q. nwrtu....rmo wwn[Yn.4 wtln. T.[M�un
Letter of Certification/
of School District Capacity
t: ^ia the C-arfey-_J_o_in.t aninn Tli gh Schaol District and the
Alta Loma N. f— _ - attendance
5oulicaries for the-
ta n: 3ecte
i.or.,�ior�!nes <:ription: Tract 11350
Baseline 8 Hermosa Ave.
horror=
of liweJ J. i. airs 114 (Townhouses)
A;iticiu:ated Completion Rafe: September 1, 1982
Thin school district hereby csr,tifies that tilt: capacity for
17 studnnts will be provided within 24 months of the
c:1.Cciun of the above project. ^ahi5 certification is gi.ot:n
cn t9up cin-dition that the Stata of California continues to
I- the pro•:isions of Lae Leroy G. Greene Leasa /Purchose Act.
o% 1976, or any successor Act, in such mariner that the state
P11r ;cation Board r „ay fund all school building projects under
its curraant rules anJ regulations wi Lhout priority points.
Thu- commitmo-^-t of this capacity shall expire GC days frcm the
i, tv o!: thir. lntter. Appvoval of thn final. map or tluu lesoancr-
u: bpi.Jr'.in ^, permits by tba City of f:accho Cucr:cloaga within. -0b.1L
60- -day p•er Joel shalt, validste such commitment.
rdnui't;TsLL sa�rcrinunac ^t
btC0.<.�...L.A_ ( 1LiC11
cc: PJor,ning
ni.visinn
September 11, 1981
Ci Ly of
:tanchn Car-, monoa
nom.
M
Established 1885
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
ROBERT 5. FROST
ROBERT W. TANGEMAN
MRS. NANCY K. KETTLE
MRS, SANDRA A. OERLY
JOAN C. BOOK
to
0
Alta Loma School District - -
9350 F Baseline Road - Past Office Box 370 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 . 714/987.0766
JOHN' E. McMURTRY
5aprnmradrn4
October 13, 1981 FLOYD M. STOpK
Date Pr..rrVsapp,t Srrvaes
STACY NEES"
etu�nr :: Srmrrs
MILLY STRAVA
Camn.lum/Sprnal Projects
LETTER OF CERTIFICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY
V
an
JC!
Within Alta Loma School District and Alta Loma School an
District attendance boundaries for the following CO, Y
described project: as
Location /Description Tract Number 11350
Northwest corner of Baseline and Hermosa
Number of Dwelling Units
Anticipated Completion Date August 1982
Gentlemen:
The Alta Loma School District hereby certifies that the
capacity for 35 students will be provided'
within 24 months of the completion of the above project:
This certification is given on the condition that the
State of California continues to fund the provisions of
the Leroy F. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any.'
successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations
Board may fund all school building projects under its
current rules and regulations without priority points.
The commitment of this capacity shall expire 90 days
from the date of this letter. Approval of the final
map or the issuance of building permits by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga within that 90 day period shall validate
such commitment.
Sincerely, x
Floyd M. Stork
Administrator
Personnel and Support Services
cc: Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga
jh n
i..•l.-u L.g Lm,d
Gothic No. 6126
>srgin . 12 - 96 6127
• 61�61
CITY Of RANCHO CUC7d'ArIGA
SUBDIVISION
IRPROVEP.ENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO., 11350
CNOU ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Califon
and of the applicable ordinances of, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a
municipal corporation, by and between said City, hereinafter referred to as 'the
City, and d ursxv oeaetoanexr Co.
, hereinafter referred to as the ubdivider
HITNESSETH:
THAT, Ifd EREAS, said Subdivider desires to subdivide certain real property in said
City as shown on the previously approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 1135o ; and,
6WEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be met by said Subdivider
as prerequisite to approval of the Final Nap of said Tract by said City;
h0'A, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by said City and by said Subdivider as follows:
1. The Subdivider hereby agrees to construct at Subdivider's expense all Improvemen
described an Page 5 hereof within twenty -four months from the date hereof.
2. This agreement shall run for a period of 12 months from the date of t
resolution of the Council of said City approving said Final flap and this
apr:aent. This a:roe:ent shall be G. default on the day follo.,in; the se
anniversary date of said approval unless an extension of time has been granted
by said City as hereinafter provided.
3. The Subdivider may request an extension of time to complete the terms hereof.
Such request shall be submitted to the City in writing not less than
4 weeks before the expiration date hereof, and shall contain a staic:ient
of circumstances necessitating the extension of time. The City shall have the
right to review the provisions of this agreement, including the construction
standards, cost estimate, and improvement security, and to require adjustments
therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term hereof.
4. If the Subdivider fails or neglects to ccnpl)' with the provisions of this
agrecment, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions
to be met by any lawful means, and thereupon recover from the Subdivider and /or
his surety the full cost and expense incurred,
S. The Subdivider shall provide mrterod '.,afor >orvice to each lot on said Tract in
ac<ar once with the regulations, schedules, and fees of the Cucamonga County
Rnler District.
6. Utility Subdivider shall file with the City Engineer, prior
to lbu ✓ -nv n-ot of any w.uri, to Fr perfm. ed within Ll:e areas des. ribed by
said map, a writtnn statrnonf. si,ord by Subdivider, and each public utility
11,plratimp involved, to the effrcl that W,divider has pride the deposit
legally re ti
quired by s,,,.h public ulity corporation for the coun,•ctiun of any
and all public utiI itirs to he suppl ird by such Cm portion within such
sut.d i, k i no,
7. Tim So Fdivider shall be prsponsible for replacement, relocation, or romoval of
any cu-.pnnent of any irrigation •.ester system in conflict with ccnstnrction of
required improvcuents to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of
such pater system. •
/D
PI
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT .:D. 11350 PAGE 2
B. Improvements required to be constructed shall conform to the Standard Drawings
and Standard Specifications of the City, and to the Improvements Plan approved
b .and an file in the office of the City Engineer. Said improvements are
tabulated an the Construction and Bond Estimate, hereby incorporated on page 5
hereof, as taken from the improvement plans listed thereon by number. The
Subdivider shall also be responsible for construction of any transitions or
other incidental work beyond the tract boundaries as needed for safety and
Proper surface drainage.
9. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Subdivider from the office of the
City Engineer prior to start of work; all regulations listed thereon shall be
observed, with attention given to safety procedures, control of dust, noise, or
other nuisance to the area, and to proper notification of public utilities and
City Departments. Failure to comply with this section shall be subject to the
penalties provided therefor.
1D. The Subdivider shall be responsible for removal of all loose rocks and other
debris from public rights -of -way wichin or adjoining said Tract resulting tram
development work relative to said Tract.
11. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion.
12. Parkway trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Subdivider after
other improvement work, grading, and cleanup has been completed. Planting
shall be done as provided by ordinance in accordance with the planting diagram
approved by the City Commsnity Development Director in all locations where the
adjoining lot has been completely developed and built upon.
j+.. trs" rWzs,oP'M= Co. the Subdivider shall be re-
spon r maintaining a trees p ante to goad health until the end of the
• guaranteed maintenance period, or for one year after planting, whichever is
later.
13. The Subdivider is responsible for meeting all conditions established by the
City pursuant to the Subdivision Pap Act, City ordinances, and this agreement
for the Tract, and for the maintenance of all improvements constructed there-
under until the Tract is accepted for maintenance by the City, and no im-
provement security provided herewith shall he released before such acceptance
uMass otherwise provided and authorized by the City Council of the City.
14, this agreement shall not terminate until the maintenance guarantee bond here•
inaf ter described has been released by the City, or until a new agreement
together with the required improvement security has been submitted to the City
by a successor to the Subdivider herein named, and by resolution of the City
Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the improvement security
therefor has been released.
15. The improvements security to be furnished by the Subdivider with this agreement
shall consist of the following, and shall be approved by the City Attorney:
A. A faithful performance guarantee band assuring completion by the Sub-
divider of all conditions prerequisite to acceptance of the Tract by the
City.
B. A material and labor payment guarantee bond assuring payment in full by
the Subdivider for all mate.rialo, services, epuiprent rentals, and labor
furnished to the Subdivider in the course of meeting the conditions of
this agree ^.ant.
C. A cash deposit with the City to guarantee ra,-unt by the Subdivider to the
tract nngimgar or aurveyor •elmse cm tificate appparc ufon the Final Tract
Map for the settinn of all tract Mundary, lot corner, and street center-
line rmnurents and for furnishing centerline He notes to the City. The
a' ^cunt of the deposit cay bin any amount certified by the tract engineer or
surveyor as acceptable pap,:eut in full; or, if no value is su Flitted, the
cash bond shall be as shmm on the Construction and Cord estimate contained
herein.
•
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 11350 pAA9
Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as procedure permits after
receipt by the City of the centerline tie notes and written assurance Of
payment in full few the tract engineer or surveyor,
0. The required bonds and the principal amounts thereof are set forth on page
g of this agreement.
16. The Subdivider warrants that the improvements described in this agreement shall
be free from defects in materials and workmanship. Any and all portions of the
improvements found to be defective within one (1) year following the date on
which the improvements are accepted by the City shall be repaired or replaced
by subdivider free of all charges to the City. The Subdivider shall furnish a
maintenance guarantee bond in a sum equal to five percent (5:) of the con-
struction estimate of $200.00, whichever is greater, to secure the faithful
performance of Subdivider's obligations as described in this paragraph. The
maintenance guarantee bonds shall also secure the faithful performance by the
Subdivider of any obligation of the Subdivider to do specified work with
respect to any parkway maintenance assessment district. Once the improvements
have been accepted and a maintenance guarantee bond has been accepted by the
City, the other improvement security described in this agreement may Ce released
provided that such release is otherwise authorized by the Subdivision Map Act
and any applicable City Ordinance.
17. That the Developer shall take out and maintain, during the tern of this agreement
such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect him and
any contractor or subcontractor performing work covered by this agreement iron
claims for property damages which may arise because of the nature Of the work
or from operations under this agreement, whether such operations be by himself
or by any contractor or subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed
by said persons, even though such damages be not caused by the negligence of
the Ceveloper or any contractor or subcontractor or anyone employed by said •
pa ^ern T
s. ::e public liability and property eamage insurance shall also
directly protect the City, its officers, agents and employees, as welt as the
Developer, his contractors and his subcontractors, and all insurance policies
issued hereunder shall so state. The amounts of such insurance shall be as
follows:
A. Contractor's liability insurance providing bodily injury or death lia-
bility limits of not less than $300,000 for each person and S1,C00,000 for
each accident or occurrence, and property damage liability limits of not
less than $100,000 for each accident or occurrence with an aggregate limit
of 5200,000 for claims which ray arise from the operations of the Developer
in the performance of the work herein provided.
8. Automobile liability insurance covering all vehicles used in the per-
formance of this agreement providing bodily injury liability limits of not
less than 5200,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident or
occurrence, and property damage liability limits of not less than $50,000
for each accident or occurrence, with an aggregate of not less than $100,000
which may arise from the operations of the Developer or his Contractor in
performing the work provided for herein.
18. That before the execution of this agreement, the Developer shall file with the
City a certificate or certificates of insurance covering the specified insurance.
Each such certificate shall hear an endorsement precluding the cancellations,
or reductirn in coverage of any policy evidences by such certificate, before
the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall have received notifica-
tion by registered nail from the insurance carrier,
1.2
• li:PROVE"ENT AGREVIENT TRACT NO, 11350 PAGE 4
As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to
comply with same, the Subdivider has submitted the below described improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFO lANCE BOND
Description: Principal Amount $420,000.00
Surety:
Attorney -in -Fact
Address:
MATERIAL AND LABOR PAITENT BOND
Description: Principal Mount: $210,000.00
Surety:
Attorney -ia -Fact:
Address:
CASH DEPOSIT FsJNJ!ENTING BOND
Amount stipulated by tract engineer or surveyor:
• Amount as shown an Construction and Bond Estimate: $1.000.00
Amount deposited per Cash Receipt No. Date
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City.
Principal Amount: $21,000.00
IN 'WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly
execyted and ackncwled;od with all formalities required by law on the dates set
forth opposite their signatures. LESNY DMIAx'u= cro.
/-
Date, ph _ by Subdivider
Rudolph J. Low, or sldrae
Date v,_ by I Subdivider
.....xx .............x,..ar,,....x,,...
13
CCTV OF PAWHO CUCA'SONGA, CALIFMIA
a nonicipai corforation
by,______.__ F'ayor
A L'cs t:
`city C erk —
Date
— �Ci[yAtforney - -�
I
CITY OF MACRO CCCSIOSCA
CONSTRUCTION A::D BOND ESTI:ATE
EYCROAChMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
(Attach m "inspector's
Copy ")
•
DATE: A., It 1S 1981 PERMIT NO.
COMPETED
BY:
Shintu Bose
File Reference Tract 11350
City Drawing %O.a
430
NOTE: Does net include torrent
fee for vriting permit or
pavement
replacement depwlta.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTI:ATE
ITEM
QL'A.NTm
Ir IT
0IT COST
$ AMOUNT
P.C.C. Curb - 12" C.F.
1206
L.F.
$7.25
$ 5,743,50
P.C.L. Curb - 6" C.F.
535
L.F.
6.00
3,210.00
A.C. Bern ($200 min)
615
L.F.
4.50
2,767.50
4" P.C.C. Sidewalk
8422
S.F.
1.75
14,738.50
6" Drive >pptoach
1920
S.F.
2,50
61800.00
R" P.D.C. Cross Gutter
657
S.F.
3.40
2,233.80
Imported Ecbankmenc
17252
C.Y.
1150
25,878.00
Prepar,eiaa of 5ubgrade
92700
S.F.
.15
13.905.00
Chrushed AS, Base (per inch
chick) 92700
C.Y.
.12
11,124.00
A.C. (over 1300 tuna)
2410
Teo
30.00
72,300.00
A.C. D/R 2"
262
S.F.
2.00
524.00
1" Thick A.C. Overlay
1728
S.F.
.35
534.80
Adjeae Secer M.H. to Grade
2
Ea.
250.00
500.00
Adjua. Water Valves to Grade
4
Ea.
75.00
300.0
Street LiFhcs
8
Ea.
1500.00
12,000.00
Scree. Signs
2
Ea.
200.00
400.00
Removal of A.C. Pavement
22400
S.F.
.35
7,840.00
Removal of Rock Wail
1875
L.F.
3.00
5.625.00
Removal of P.C.C. Pave-ent
30300
S.F.
1.00
30,300.00
ReE iec co rs end Ponta
3
Ea.
35.00
105.00
Concrete Block tall
50
L.F.
22.00
1,10 00
Retaining ':all - 3'
550
L.F.
18.00
9, 9
cvrr _tc ? :rla 1: - ^e_ov,l
-
5.99
Retaining =all a5'
310
L.F.
26.00
8,060.00
Retaining '6.11 - 4'
120
C.F.
22.00
2,640.00
Retaining tall - 2'
50
L.F.
15.00
750.00
18" R.C.P.
340
L.F.
30.00
10,200.00
8" ASS Pipe
140
L.F.
14.00
1,960.00
Catch Basin :1.7'
4
Ea.
1500.00
6,000.00
Junction Structure
1
Ea.
1500.00
1,500.00
Local Depression 7'
1
Ea.
500.00
500.00
Outlet Structure
1
Ea.
2500.00
21500.00
Relocate Fire Hydrant
1
Ea.
500.00
500.00
Relocate e" Water Line
1420
L.F.
16.00
22,720.00
Re)OCace 4" Ga. Line
700
L.F.
20.00
14,220.00
Striping
3708
L.F..
Lump
Sum
260.00
Landacaping - Parkway
20500
S.F.
2.75
56,375.00
CON.MLL'TlaN
COST
$357,239.10
COATLIILENCI'
COSTS
$62.760.90
TOT.\], 01'.STRCCTIf
I:
:1015
$420,000.00
L'AITHiUL i4.HFn.R%C CK
BOND
(100:)
$420,000.00
FAROE V,D :WF.MAL
BOND
(50.)
$210,000.00
L'JGII::.ER1:6 IDSF&;FION
FEE
$9,025,00
MOALHEBTA(ION
BOND
(CASH)
$7,000,00
•
•
11
BOND NO. 1.013R1
PREMIUM; $S,0 .L
FAITHFUL PERFOF JVtn= 90N0
P•HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Curamonga,
State of California, and /. cMNY DEVer,OPMEN'E CO
(hereinafter designated a- have entered in [o an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated ,L Sint mEber z 19 91 , and identified as
project , 1nsO
15 hereby referred to and made Apart hereof; and,
I!Ft PEAS, said crd^r :pal 1 racuirad under the terms of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agree: ant.
NON, THEREFORE, we the principal and )( b£lEUAPERS
IHSEPF %EE C0xPANY as purety, are held and
i^ , hap unto the City o: Raccer, Cucamonca (hereinafter called
'City "), in the penal bum of Four 1 nd Yed and Trent, Thousand
Dollars 1 a}O.OGO GO ) aw: ul
no: ey o: :ne united States, for the payment of which sun well and
truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu-
ters and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents.
The condition of this chl'oaticn st such t
bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
succersoa or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide
by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, cond2-
tires and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration
thereof made as therein provided, on his or their mart, to be
kept and performed at the tine and in the manner :herein spec-
ified, and in all respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indemnify and 'a Va harmless City, its officers,
.cents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation
shall baccnc null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment
rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and a.reos that no chance, ex-
tension of tine, alteration or Ad d irion LO the toms of the
agre(;nont or to the work. to Le purforo -d thnrrund ^_r or the s :,ee-
lficnLiu::c nce:omomying the $age shall in any,ir.c affect iLn"
obligation.^• on Lk bond, and it does hereby waive notice oC any
Bitch channr, exto m :i ui o: ti,"', alteration or addition Lo the
tnr -a of lh^ 1,,,, writ or to the 'wcr): or to
this im, :tnnnrnt ho: Lnen dnly c s- cutod
by the. pe;nei :,at any cnr :;tp abc vn nanad, on J
moat-- --'
DEVELOPERS PISDPANCE Con NNY
n,
• Ste nfi .•n A. Sp9p a
Atror m•y- fn -(nc[
OCF.11 I [,
J ✓
LESNY DEVELOPMENT CO„ A California cI,ratia
urla i]]'vF P- rrr Id.n, - --
11 }ilea% •! air.. • /'J
hrlena Stovac4, hsst. Seers ury
J•
ao;:U 40. 103391 -A
PRL.11Ci1: INCLUDED
-i
LABOR AND MTERIALNEN DOBD
14H cegAS, the City Council of the City If Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and .clr n Lclp=x[nT Co. —
(hereinafter designated as ^Prrncipal ") have entered into an
egreer..ent whereby orincipal agrees to install and ooanleee cer-
tain designated public imorovemen ts, which said agreement,
dated ,A September 2 1981 , and identified as Pro-
ject T 11150
1s hereby referred to and made a —p .I. hereof{ and,
HFER =AS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is re-
u
fired bef w r *
ore entariOc on the cerfo-ance of t wor ?, to file
a coca and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cuca-
,00ga to .-cure the claims to which reference is .ads in Title 15
(co—. encing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
Civil Code of the State of California.
NOS, T9'_REFO?F, said principal and the undersigned as a
Corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho
Cucamonc_a and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material
-
men and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure
in the sum of TR o Hundred and Ten Thousand
Dollars ( 210.000.00 ) r erNI.
ur,.:shec cr labor tbereon of anv :[ind, or for arounts due under
the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to sec`. we:°. r_ la"ot,•
that saac surety will pay the same in an ar,.ount not exce, dine the
amount hereioabova set forth, and also in case suit is brava ht
upon t s bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof,
_ Costs and reasonable expenses and fees, incleding reasonable at-
torn^_y's fees, joc.:rrod by City in success -fully snfcrcite such
Obligation. to be awarded and fixed by the court, and no be taxed
as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby exprassly stipulated and agreed that this bond
hall irate to the be rc Eit of any and all persons, co.- .panics, and
corporation. entitled Co file claims under Title 15 (cop. enci.ng
wits Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so
as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit
brought upon this bond.
Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then
this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be
and remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no el ...... ex-
tension of time, alteration or addition to the tcrms of said
ayra: mr, nt or the sp^cificotious accomp,vlyi ng the same eha11 in
any m,00c, of Ertl. its obligAi.no on Lhis bond, and it do.. horc-
by vaiv^. notice of any such chance, extension, alteration or ad-
dition.
21: wI ^.:: :;5 bu Y.PI:OF, this instrrment has bcen 11111, :::ecuLrd
by the Principal and suro Ly :,Love named, on `srp,_:u,r_2
DEVELOPERS ItRUR NICE CO' +PNtl LES4Y 0EVEUPaf4P W., a Califcrni: rirporatim
N �
.f(r ' /nil' ..y -, ^Y (•• Rud—.1111 J. Lorry, Vrs itlen. _ -�.• •
s re pfien .l. SP avnnl ",' %/??
AC 6rt ne Y-in -fact toyack', Asst. ie r�'G
ilr iill,: i(OVa [4., 955[. apCYVtlfy
RCE24
6'
0
SOSOIVISiON
6UAPANTEE NO PERionA.CCE
(SETTING OF FINAL 40SLYENTS)
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Be. 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Gentlemen
Pursuant to Article 8 of City Ordinance No, 28, the undersigned hereby agrees Nap
All m encs shown on the final map of Tract 11350 Are Cu be At and
furnished by the subdfvider's engineer o "•yar r before March 1 1 -81
specified in the certificate of onthe Enoincer
And agwes to furnish tie n s thereon as required by Cnapcer 4 Article and no
complete all engineering requirements specified In Section 66497,of the Subdivision
Me, Act.
The undersigned hands you herewith the su of $ 7,000.00 as a cash deposit,
said deposit to guarantee that the monuments will be set and the notes furnished
a above provided on or before the date specified and that the engineer or surveyor
will be pale by he undersigned.
It is father understood and agreed that in the event the undersigned fails to com-
plete the above requi- ements within the time specified, the City of Rancho Cueenonga
is authorized to complete said cequireeents or cause them to be completed, and the
cost thereof is co be a charge against said cash deposit, and the City of Rancho
• Cucamonga is authorized to make the necessary c-ansfer it= said cash deposit to the
credit of the pros:: c und.
It is further agreed that if the undersigned does net present evidence to the City
Council that he has paid the engineer or surveyor for the setting of the final
mounments, and if the orgineer o sueyor gives the notices prescribed in Section
66:97 of the subdivision Map Act, ry the City shall pay to said engineer or surveyor,
the cash deposit herein mad,..
If the cost of completing said requirements exceeds the am unt of the cash deposit,
the undersigned agrees Cu pay the difference within thirty (30) days ,after receiving
written statement from the Clcy of Rancho Cucamonga specifying the amount of the
difference between the cash deposit and the actual east of said requirement.
Very truly yours,
LE"ai:V pi1•prgpryplT_ Co. Subdivider
Date P f i � P.O. nnv.i 536, Odl., CA vJ]lJ � AAd [esf
The JCpusi[er of record (far return of any pnrtion of the cash deposit) hnil be
To be signed by part Illy Isinl; his ri,;bl. to the Cash deyusit _.
V, of $____is hereby ,,Ln— Icdged
D.,pusit Poetic No.
• Cucamonga
NOTE: I. be w,ndA fully City of Rancho
ill let cur C and signet,
BY:
Signed o City Council City Engineer
Signed Copy: To SYSE i•: ids[
i 1
LJ
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: .October 21, 1981
UII Q1
TO: City Council and City Manager 1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and
Lien Agreement for Tract 11350 - Lesney Development
Company
Lesney Development Co. has applied for a building permit for the
construction of townhouses on the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Hermosa Avenue.
The conditions of approval for the construction of the townhouses
include entering into a Real Property Improvement Contract and
Lien Agreement for the future installation of one -half landscaped
median island on Base Line Road.
To guarantee the installation, Lesney Development Co. has entered
into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for
the future installation of one -half of the median island, including
landscaping and irrigation on meter, adjacent to their property
along Base Line Road.
It is recommended that the city Council adopt the attached Resolu-
tion and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept
the Lien Agreement on behalf of the City.
RespRctfully submitted,
LBH:JS:bc
Attachments
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM
LESNEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
WHEREAS, Tract No. 11350, located on the northwest corner of
Base Line and Hermosa, submitted by Lesney Development Company was
approved on November 26, 1980; and
WHEREAS, Installation of landscaped median island on Base Line
Road established as prerequisite to issuance of Building Permit has been
met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement
by Lesney Development Company;
NO'.-I, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does accept said Real Property
Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the
City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren Il. Wasserman, City Clerk
17A
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
0I A-
REVISIONS
, L
...............
TT
9 4 �9F
1 X
....... FHERMOSA
TOWNHOMES
............
CT
I
") MA
i r
W6 Allo,
' to piton Nag Card
Couriar No. 6118
H." 12 - 96 61]]
Singular
61]
61]
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
and
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIONGA
9120 -C Base Line Road
Post Office Box 802
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of
1981, by and between Lesav DWELarmesT m. _
(hereinafter referred to as - Developer'),
and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'City'), provides As follows:
WHEREAS, as a general condition precedent to the issuance Of
a building permit for residential development, the City requires the
construction of a Landscaped Median Island with irrigation oa meter
adjacent to the •
property to be developed; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to postpone construction of
such improvements until a later date, as determined by the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such postponement provided
that the Developer enters into this Agreement requiring the Developer
to construct said improvements, at no expense to the City, after
demand to do so by the City, which said Agreement shall also provide
that the City may construct said improvements if the Developer fails
or neglects to do so and that the City shall have a lien upon the real
property hereinafter described as security for the Developer's performance
and any repayment due City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE:
1. The Developer hereby agrees that they will install
one -hall of the landscaped median island with Irrigation on meter
, in accordance and compliance
with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of
the City in effect at the time of the installation, Said improvemente
shall be installed upon and along saeeline mad ediacent to oeveloeer's
— FUUerev h•ra ins bar dmcribed
•
2.
The installation of said improvements
shall be completed
not later than
one (1) year following written notice
to the Developer
from the City
to commence installation of the same.
Installation of
said improvements shall be at not expense to the City.
d. In the event the Developer fails or refuses to complete
the installation of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at
any time thereafter, upon giving the Developer written notice of its
intention to do so, enter upon the property hereinafter described and
complete said improvements and recover all costs of completion incurred
by the City from the Developer.
4. To secure the performance by the Developer of the
terms and conditions of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to
City of any funds which may be expended by City in completing said
improvements upon default by the Developer hereunder, the Developer does
in trust
by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey /to the City the
following described real property situated in the City of Rancho
• Cueamon ^,.a, County o3 San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit:
That Portion of rot 6, Block 4, Cucamonga nomastead Association
Lands, as per plat reiarded in Back 6 of Mops, Page 46 Records of
said County, (Also Known as Tract 11]50) , (AM 202- 182-1])
7
S. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purposes
described above.
6. Now, therefore, if the Developer shall faithfully
perform all of the acts and things by them to be done under this
Agreement, then this conveyance shall be void; otherwise, it shall
remain in full force and effect and in all respects shall be considered
and treated as a mortgage on the real property and the rights and
obligations of the parties with respect thereto shall be governed by
the provisions of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any
other applicable statute, pertaining to mortgages on real property.
g. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall insure
to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns of each of the parties hereto.
a�
0
B. To the extent required to give effect of this Agreement
as a mortgage, the term 'Developer" shall mean 'mortgagor" and the
City shall be the 'mortgagee' as those terms are used in the Civil
Code of the State of California and any other statute pertaining to
mortgages on real property.
9. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is
entitled to recover from the Developer hereunder or to foreclose the
right of the Developer to redeem the above - described property from the
mortgage eccated hereby, then the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be
awarded by the Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above written.
CITY: DEVE W PER=
CITY OF RANCHO CDCAMONGA, •
CALIFORNIA, a municipal
corporation LFSITY DWSW"ENT W.
BY•
PI!ILLIP 9CHLOSSER
MeyOz
ATTEST:
LAUREN M. WASSERMAN
City Clerk
BY:
Allan N
Benior Vice President
L
STATE OF CA LIFOKNIA }55.
CQCNTYOFWs Angeles Y
QOn 21St I+Y Of S ✓ot.eb r![ ITL .Mlnre me.rM ,Mr nn «I.
• Nnr«Y Aale m rM ler «W Cnunr[ +M Slnr. prwl +Yl +f9«rM
AI an N. Lewy
M lM Eenl.r VICe n «4;n I.rM
«mrn ra ale
mlrrMnm
I.M IFr Htrt.....Fe tarMSlmnrF'MMII
aM tlpn la mr ra N IFr prpF1 nM rrtnNl mr n,I F,n rMrr. nom M n111M e'"l rl
1
I
,vm[I,+Ma[YnJ�IM «tl rn mr lMl ruM tali«+Imne«t«N IM Ymr. prn+M In rn Lrvm+mMlnnn
xr lorN O /O.MmY
MIINEtS mYMM UJ afMW VM. ,AYnh OF:I
- eA Mateo
T
Rur «M! «.mu+wn
n,manp.« rw
ra sa nn
L
0
•
GIXAMO�
STAFF REPORT
o' p
F� D
U
L977
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: DAY- ETINANDA -SAN SEVAINE CREEK DRAINAGE STUDY
As the Council is aware, the Staff and Mayor have for sometime been
involved in a committee to develop a plan and financial mechanism for
the completion of Day and Etiwanda Creek. This study, which to date
has been funded exclusively by developers, has reached completion of
its first phase. Attached for your information is a letter summary
and minutes of the last technical committee meeting outlining the
major conclusions of this phase.
Briefly, the process has concluded that the plan should be expanded
to include San Sevaine Creek and to bring Fontana into the planning
process. Phase 2 of the study should begin as soon as possible to
prepare a detailed master plan of the entire system. To fund this
plan it has been recommended that the responsible agencies split
the overall study coat with the private interest. This cost sharing
has been proposed to include $15,000 each from Fontana, Ontario, and
Rancho Cucamonga and $30,000 each from San Bernardino and Riverside
County Flood Control District. Remaining funds would come from pri-
vate interests.
Also attached is a copy of the draft agreement outlining the scope of
work to be conducted in phase 2. San Bernardino County Flood Control
is the designated lead agent.
Phase 2 would complete a master plan for the drainage area and continue
financial planning to develop an implementation program. Financial dis-
cussions to date have revolved around fees, assessments, redevelopment
funds and grants. The most promising approach seems to involve elements
of each of these options. It has been determined that any of the plane
would likely require development of a Joint Powers Authority. The frame-
work for this J.P.A. would be one of the first items of work in phase 2.
Ca 4
City Council Agenda •
October 21, 1981
Day, Etiwanda, San Sevaine Creek Drainage Study
Page 2
CONCLUSION: The program to date has been an unusual model of public
and private cooperation which should not be allowed to stop because of
a lack of financial commitment on the part of the Public Sector. Staff
is confident that the process, if continued, will result in both a suit-
able plan and a funding program to allow responsible phased development
of our community.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve up to $15,000
from Storm Drain Fees to contribute to a cooperative program to complete
planning of the Day - Etiwanda -San $evaine Drainage System.
Respectfully submitted,
LLOYD HUBBS
City Engineer
LH:jr
Attachments
a5
lJ
•
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
Civil Engineering • Drainage — Flood Control • Special Studies
October 8, 1981
File #81 -08
!' = o D,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
TO: Day & Etiwanda Creeks Drainage Plan COPAMUNITY 6EVEIOPMENT DEPT.
Steering Committee OCT 12 1981
SUBJECT: Day and Etiwanda Creek Drainage Planplik P4
Committee Meeting of October 15, 198y1819110111112111213141516
The next Steering Committee meeting will be held on
Thursday, October 15, at approximately 10:30 a.m. in
the City of Ontario Council Chambers. There is a
Zone I Flood Control District Advisory Committee
meeting at 8:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Due to
the fact most of the Steering Committee members will
be attending the Zone I meeting, it was decided to
follow that meeting with the Steering Committee
meeting_ The Steering Committee will immediately
follow the Zone I Advisory Committee meeting.
• The proposed agenda is attached, along with the draft
minutes of the September 17 and the final minutes of
the August 28 Technical Committee meetings. Other
data and information will be made available at the
meeting.
The following specific recommendations were made by the
Technical Committee with hopeful action by the Steering
Committee on October 15:
Phase II of the Drainage Plan should be
initiated immediately with the inclusion
of San Sevaine Creek as part of the plan.
A contract with Bill Mann & Associates
for Phase II should be initiated. San
Bernardino County Flood Control District
will act as interim lead agency. See the
September 17 minutes for specific recommendations.
The formation of a JPA or other joint agency
should be initiated.
Due to the importance
the need to move into
hoped that most of the
members can attend.
1 i Fit. an
Consulting Engineer
of this meeting, particularly
Phase lI of the study, it is
Steering and Technical Committee
c�1p
823 Val Mar Road 6 San Bernardino, California 92404 • (714) 8862979
,.: BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
Civil Engineering • Drainage — Flood Control • Special Studies
DAY CREEK AND ETIWANDA CREEK •
DRAINAGE PLAN
Steering Committee Agenda
October 15, 1981 - 10:30 a.m.
City of Ontario Council Chambers
1. Opening Remarks: Supervisor McElwain
Supervisor Schroeder
2. General Status of Drainage Plan
3. Action on Recommendations by Technical Committee
(See 9/17 draft minutes)
(a) Initiate Phase II with contract with
Bill Mann & Associates
(b) Establish S.B.Co. F.C.D. as lead agency
(c) Enlarge study to include San Sevaine Creek •
(d) Include City of Fontana and San Sevaine
drainage area major developers on Committees
(e) Initiate formation of a JPA
4. Funding of Phase II of Drainage Plan
(a) Prior general recommendations
(b) General Discussion
(c) Action
5. Discussion of various methods of financing flood
control facilities
6. Other
7. Closing Remarks
Supervisor McElwain
Supervisor Schroeder
`J
C
823 Val Mar Road • San Bernardino, California 92404 • (714) 8862979
DAY /ETIWANDA CREEK DRAINAGE PLAN
MINUTES
. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING
September 17, 1981
All voting members present. Attendance list attached.
San Sevaine Creek - As recorded earlier, there is a $10 million
savings by combining the solution for the San Sevaine Creek with Day/
Etiwanda. Bob Nelson stated that Riverside County would support the
concept of combining the solutions. Bob Schoenborn stated that pending
the confirmation of the savings that the City of Fontana anuld nlcn
support the combining concept. Bill Mann stated that combining the
Etiwanda flows with San Sevaine was not necessarily a diversion of flows
since in flood conditions, San Sevaine and Etiwanda Creeks would co-
mingle anyway. Bill Mann reported that the previous, probably under-
stated, estimate for the costs of the Day /Etiwanda Phase II of $81, 000
would increase by an additional $71, 000 to include San Sevaine and
that the estimate on timing would go from six months to nine months,
but that the timing would not delay the Day and 'lower Etiwanda Creek
sections of the Study.
Formal Recommendation from Technical Committee - On a motion by
• Bill Budge, seconded by Bob Jackson, the Technical Committee unani-
mously voted to recommend to the Steering Committee that the Phase I1
Study for Day /Etiwanda Creek he commenced immediately with the
Study to include the combining of Day and Etiwanda with San Sevaine
Creek flows; further that the Technical and Steering Committees he
expanded to each include one member of the private and public sectors (both)
of the City of Fontana; further that a contract with Bill Mann be initiated
under terms acceptable to all agencies with the funding of approximately
$230, 000 for Phases I and 11, spread equally between the public and
private sectors, with the private sector having already contributed about
$80,000 and with tentative funding by the public sector to be shared by
the three cities and two counties involved; further that the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District to be named the interim lead agency with
the intention that a JPA or other joint agency be formed as the ultimate
lead agency, with the formation started immediately.
Financing - While the San Bernardino County Flood Control District would
initially be the lead agency for planning purposes, the Joint Powers Agency
most probably would have to be the lead agency for financing purposes.
The discussion on fees contained the following:
1. That any fee, whether one [line or yearly, would not duplicate any
• other fee.
2. That it would be possible to establish a specific fee either one time
rY�,
Day /Etiwanda Creek Drainage Plan
Minutes, Teclnical Committee Meeting
September 17, 1981 Page Two
lJ
or yearly for the water shed areas of Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine
Creeks as part of flood control zones 1 and 2. It was repeated that the
IPA could act as an "umbrella" agency with each jurisdiction providing
financing mechanisms underneath that umbrella. It was agreed that the
next step for financing would be for each jurisdiction to study the various
mechanisms (one time or yearly fees, assessment districts, redevelop-
ment agencies) within its boundaries.
3. Ralph Lewis asked that the Minutes show that Lewis Homes will pay
its "fair share ", that Milliken Avenue may not be the appropriate dividing
line between Day and Deer Creeks, that he would like to review the '
property ownership maps as they are completed and that he does not agree
with the concept of an equal fee per acre but rather that the fee should
vary with a runoff factor.
Recommendation from Technical Committee - It was agreed unanimously
to recommend to the Steering Committee to proceed with the formation of
a IPA or other joint agency regarding the overall financing scheme and
that each jurisdiction study appropriate financing mechanisms within its
own boundaries and that the joint agreement reflect the responsibility of •
each agency and all agencies combine to complete these efforts during
the Phase II Study.
Flood Control /Water Conservation - It was briefly reported that a
computerized analysis had indicated that there was sufficient area avail-
able in the existing San Bernardino County flood control spreading grounds
above Highland Avenue to provide for debris control and the storage of a
full winter's worth of rain for both Day and Deer Creeks, thereby opti-
mizing water conservation along with flood control with a possible substan-
tial reduction in total costs. This concept is to be studied further at the
next Technical Committee meeting, which will be held at 9:30 a. m. on
September 24 at the offices of Williamson and Schmid located at 17782 Sky
Park Boulevard, Irvine (off MacArthur Boulevard, north of the San Diego
Freeway).
The next Steering Committee meeting will occur October 7 at 10:30 a. m.
at Ontario City Council chambers immediately following the 8:30 a. m.
float control zone 1 meeting.
•
n./
Oi
DAY /ETIWANDA CREEK DRAINAGE PLAN
. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING
ATTENDANCE - September 17, 1981
Bill Budge
Joe DiIorio
Rick Doolittle
Dick Fields
Bob Ilowes
Bob Jackson
L. Dale King
Ed Levine
Ralph Lewis
• Stanley Liu
Bill Mann
Kay Matlock
Bob Merrell
Bob Nelson
Henry Roberts
Dick Schmid
Rohcrt Schoent
Mike Walker
Shaw & Talbot
RC Land Company
Hall & Foreman
Southern Pacific Company
Santa Fe Land Improvement Company
City of Ontario
LD King, Inc.
Southern Pacific Company
Lewis Homes
L & L Investments
Bill Mann & Associates
Lewis Homes
Willdan Associates
Riverside County Flood Control District
Chevron Land & Development Company
Williamson & Schmid
)orn City of Fontanta
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
33
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES /I
Civil Engineering a Drainage — Flood Control a Special Studies
September 29, 1981
Mr. Mike Walker
Assistant Flood Control Engineer
San Bernardino County
Flood Control District
825 East Third Street
San Bernardino, California 92415
Subject: Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creek
Drainage Plan - Consultant Agreement
Dear Mike:
File:' 81:-0$ 'J E D
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
CLT 8 1381
AM PM
718191101 H 112111213141516
A
I have enclosed a draft of the proposed agreement covering Phase II of
the subject drainage plan. Due to the time necessary to achieve approval,
I felt it necessary to initiate an agreement now, even though preparations
are still being made for funding and including San Sevaine Creek in the
project.
The agreement is similar to one approved earlier by the District, with
changes reflecting the addition of San Sevaine Creek. Due to possible
changes in the Scope of Work, I did not include budget figures in the
agreement. However, the budget is presently estimated at $150,000 to
$160,000, depending upon the Scope of Work. I have enclosed a copy of the
original agreement that was never consummated. I have also enclosed a
copy of the 'reimbursement agreement" between the developers and the District
that was never completed.
By copy of this letter, I am also forwarding copies of the draft agreement
to the Cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, and Riverside County.
I understand you would like a separate "letter of understanding" or agreement
from the other involved agencies requesting and designating the District as
the lead agency. However, I think this should be handled separately from
the Consultant Agreement.
If comments regarding the agreement could be received from the agencies in
two weeks, I will finalize the agroement for possible approval by or around
November 1st. Please let me know if there are any questions or if other in-
forwtion is necessary.
Cordially,
cc: Riverside County Flood
Control District
attn:
Bob Nelson
B ILL�'C. pL,
City of
Rancho Cucamonga
✓
Consulting Engineer
attn:
Lloyd Hobbs
City of
Ontario
Encl as noted
attn:
Bob Jackson
City of
Fontana
attn:
Jack Ratelle
823 Val Mar Road 0
San Bernardino, California 92404
0 (714) 8862879
0
•
•
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
STANDARD CONTRACT
FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY
san e.,n,romw co�n,v Frowl con owl o „m.,
cwmn=, N�mnv
iloOe<onvor DUwc, con4am RePre.enHrH
PN, e.,.
eunviLmr, U.... Numn «•,
auene, unit rvo,
sub onpct No.
Fina No. Jon No. Amwum of eon.....
Proleel N.m1.
I”" . m,n wn. P.vm.m or s.rm.
mo e,. tn. lolrowin9:
P., -.nN Eni-1.
Aonrwnm.m Amnom E-h
TI4IS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District, hereafter called the District, and
N.,+
Bill Mann S Associates hereafter called CONSULTANT
AI '11 '1 '1323 Val Mar Rd., San Bernardino, CA 92404
F, 11.1 ie':a. or Sam.l 5enry No.
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
(Use sn.-,ce below and slditinaaJ bond sheets. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, rime
lot pedorrnance or coup /enon, ecronninetion o! satisracrary performance and cause for termination, o0er rearms and
conditions, and att,—h plans, specificapons, and addenda, it any.;
W I T N E S S E T H
• WHEREAS, there has been a "Preliminary Drainage Analysis and Plan for the Day
Creek - Etiwanda Creek System" report and a "Preliminary Drainage Analysis for the San
Sevaine Creek System in the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside" report prepared
discussing alternative methods of improving the Day Creel:- Etiwanda Creek System and
San Sevaine Creek System to reduce the existing flood hazards in the flood prone areas; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a Drainage Plan for the improvement of Day Creek,
Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine Creek, along with a multi - agency agreement, financial
plan, and development phasing plan before development can proceed; and
WHEREAS, there is agreement among the development interests and cognizant public
agencies that an additional study and drainage plan are necessary, and private develop-
ment interests and public agencies are willing to fund such a plan; and
MIE.REAS, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District will act as the interim
sponsoring agency for the private developers and public agencies to administer the
additional study and drainage plan and act as trustee of funds to be deposited with
the District by private development interests and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for consultant services to assist the District in pre-
Paring the drainage plan and coordinating with the public agencies; and
1 12
o: q:d:94T Ilar, 1 r n 1 e... .r
WHEREAS, Consultant has the necessary qualifications to perform the required •
services; and
WHEREAS, certain private developer interests and public agencies will provide
the funds for said study and Drainage Plan, and District will be under no obligation
to said private developer interests by acting as sponsor for the project; and
WHEREAS. it is the desire of the District and Consultant to set forth in
writing the obligation and responsibilities of each party relating to providing
the engineering services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual benefits which
will accrue to the parties hereto in carrying out the terms or this agreement, it
is mutually understood as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS
A. DISTRICT shall mean the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
B. CONSULTANT shall mean Bill Mann E Associates and its officers, cgents
and employees. •
C. DEVELOPER or DEVELOPERS shall mean the private developer interests
that will provide partial funding for the above mentioned Drainage plan.
D. PUBLIC ACENCIEs shall mean Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and
Ontario, and Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside.
2. n1PLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT
The DISTRICT hereby employs the CONSULTANT and the CONSULTANT hereby
accepts employment to perform the described professional services upon
the terms and for the payments all described herein.
3. PERSOSNEL
The CONSULTANT will have, or will secure, all personnel required to perform
the services under this agreement. All of the services will be performed
by the CONSULTANT or under his supervision and all personnel engaged in the
a Page 2 of 12
i
•
• WHEREAS, Consultant has the necessary qualifications to perform the required
services; and
WHEREAS, certain private developer interests and public agencies will provide
the funds for said study and Drainage Plan, and District will be under no obligation
to said private developer interests by acting as sponsor for the project; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the District and Consultant to set forth in
writing the obligation and responsibilities of each party relating to providing
the engineering services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual benefits which
will accrue to the parties hereto in carrying out the terms of this agreement, it
is mutually understood as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
A. DISTRICT shall mean the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
B. CONSULTANT shall mean Bill Mann 6 Associates and its officers, agents
and employees.
• C. DEVELOPER or DEVELOPERS shall mean the private developer interests
that will provide partial funding for the above mentioned Drainage Plan.
D. PUBLIC AGENCIES shall mean Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and
Ontario, and Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside.
•
2. E`PLOYNENT OF CONSULTANT
The DISTRICT hereby employs the CONSULTANT and the CONSULTANT hereby
accepts employment to perform the described professional services upon
the terms and for the payments all described herein.
3. PFIM)O:SEL
The CONSULTANT will have, or will secure, all personnel required to perform
the services under this agreement, All of the services will be performed
by the CONSULTANT or under his supervision and all personnel engaged in the
/ Page 2 of 12
work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under •
State and local laws to perform such services, and shall be acceptable to
the DISTRICT.
Bill C. Mann will act as Project Director for the Drainage Plan development.
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project for which engineering service is to be provided is generally
described as follows:
Prepa-e a Drainage Plan for the construction of flood control facilities
for Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine Creek, including a
financing plan, construction phasing plan, development phasing plan,
water conservation plan, and multi- agency agreement.
5. SCOPE OF SERVICES
•
Phase I of the subject Drainage Plan has been in process for several months.
The scope of services under this contract are listed below under Phase II.
Although some of the work included in Phase II has been partially completed
as part of the Phase I work, it will be necessary to continue and complete
the tasks as shown under the Scope of Work items.
PHASE II
Task 1. Development of Plan Strategy and Coordination
Continue to develop a strategy for the development and approval
of the Drainage Plan in coordination with the various PUBLIC
AGENCIES and DEVELOPER interests. Coordination of the Drainage
Plan throughout its development with the PUBLIC AGENCIES and
DEVELOPERS through the use of meetings, workshops, status re-
ports, and public hearings as necessary. •
�h Page 3 of 12
• Task 2. Drainage Plan
Develop a Drainage Plan for Day Creek watercourse from the
mouth of Day Creek Canyon to the vicinity of the Pomona
Freeway and the U.P.R.R. in Riverside County, Etiwanda Creek
watercourse from the mouth of East Etiwanda Creek Canyon to
the Riverside Basin, and San Sevaine Creek from the mouth of
San Sevaine Canyon to the Santa Ana River. The Plan will
consider both the natural environment and economy of the
area. The Drainage Plan will include the following:
A. Plan and profile sheets for Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek,
and San Sevaine Creek ac a scale of 1" -200' horizontal
and I"= 10' vertical.
B. A hydrology study to determine detailed design storm
• flows for Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine
Creek. Hydrology to be used for the Drainage Plan shall
be approved by the San Bernardino and Riverside County
Flood Control Districts.
C. A detailed preliminary construction cost estimate for
the approved preliminary flood control facilities.
D. An analysis and determination of cost per acre in both
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to fund the approved
facilities.
E. The determination and general location of major drainage
inlet points to the channels and inlet design flows, based
on existing Comprehensive Storm Drain Plans and /or proposed
and known storm drain inlets.
36 Page 4 of 12
F. The possibility of developing flood retardation capabil- •
ities at the Day Creek Spreading Grounds, Etiwanda Creek
Spreading Grounds, San Sevaine Creek Spreading Grounds,
Wineville Basin, Riverside Basin, as well as other loca-
tions will be explored.
G. A preliminary site investigation of the debris dam sites.
The investigation will be based on a search of available
data and reconnaissance survey. The investigation of the
debris dam sites will be performed by a soils engineering/
geologic engineering firm. Preliminary dam locations and
design parameters sufficient to provide for preliminary
cost estimates will be established. This Task was initiated
in Phase I and will be completed in Phase II.
Task 3. Water Conservation Plan
If the final plans include hard - lining of channels, the re- •
placement of water losses will be necessary. A study will
be made to determine the losses and methods of providing off -
site recharge capacity in existing or new spreading grounds
and basins. Location and sizes of turnouts from the channels
into the water conservation areas will be provided. Coordina-
tion will be enacted with all of the water service related
agencies in the study area, including the Conjunctive Use
Study presently being pursued by the California Division of
Water Resources and the Southern California Metropolitan Water
District. Optimum use will be made of the spreading ground
area for water conservation enhancement.
Task 4. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
File a Notice of Intent with the Department of Water and Power
Services for grant and long -term loan funding for the •
Page 5 of 12
::?7
• construction of flood control, water spreading, and appurtenant
facilities. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(DISTRICT) will be the sponsoring agency. The possibility
of forming a Joint Powers Authority will be purused to manage
the financing and construction of facilities.
Task 5. Financing Plan
An exhaustive search of means of financing the flood control
facilities will be conducted. This will include, but will not
be limited to, the following:
A. The possibility of the development of an assessment
financing to fund all or a portion of the flood control
facilities, including lease /leaseback, special assessments,
and redevelopment agencies.
• B. The research of the use of EDA and UDAG funding for the
construction of a portion of the necessary flood control
facilities. Grant and long -term loan financing through
the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation will be sought.
C. The use of special assessment acts, including 1911 and
1913 Improvement Acts, to fund all or a portion of the
flood control facilities.
D. The establishment of drainage fees by all involved agencies
for flood control facility construction.
E. Presentation to and coordination of the recommended
financing plan with the various agencies.
F. The formation of a Joint Powers Authority or other joint
powers association will be reviewed to manage the financing
• plan and construction phases of the program.
Page 6 of 12
C
Task 6. Review and Development of a Preliminary Flood Control •
Facility Construction and Development Phasing Plan
The development of a Development Phasing Program and a
Flood Control Facility Phasing Program consistent with the
availability of construction funds and the availability of
the existing flood control facilities to receive increased
drainage flows without adversely affecting adjacent or down-
stream properties. Interim channel improvements, phased
channel construction, and the utilization of basin retarda-
tion of flood flows will be reviewed and recommended consistent
with the downstream problems, and in coordination with the
responsible agencies. This will require an elaborate and
detailed budgeting process.
Task 7. Multi- Agency Memorandum of Understanding
A Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement among all involved •
agencies will be prepared and coordinated with the agencies.
The Agreement will include the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga,
Fontana and Ontario, the Counties of San Bernardino and
Riverside, and the San Bernardino and Riverside County Flood
Control Districts. Workshops will be arranged with the various
agencies, decision- making officials, utility companies, and
developers to provide sufficient knowledge to allow the overall
Drainage Plan to be approved by the agencies. This Task will
be ongoing and will progress with the Drainage Plan in coordina-
tion with all involved parties.
Task 8. Environmental Analysis and Report
Review of the potential short -term and long -term environmental
concerns with the plan in coordination with the various agencies.
•
Page 7 of 12
• A brief report will be developed to accompnay the Drainage
Plan. The report will include basic data, comments received from
various utility companies and other interested parties, and
sufficient information to assist the San Bernardino County
Environmental Analysis Division to make a determination of
environmental concerns. This scope of work does not include
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
6. METHOD OF PAYMENT
DEVELOPERS and PUBLIC AGENCIES shall deposit funds in advance of work with
DISTRICT to hold in a trust account. DISTRICT shall reimburse CONSULTMNT
for services based on hourly rates as provided to DISTRICT by CONSULTANT.
Each Task is designated as a time and material fee as designated below.
DAY, ETIWANDA AND SAN SEVAINE
• CREEK DRAINAGE PLAN
ESTIMATED BUDGET
(See Scope of Services)
Phase II
Task 1
Estimated Budget - $
Task 2
Task 3
" -
Task 4
Task 5
"
Task 6
" -
Task 7
"
Task 8
-
Printing Costs
ESTIMTED TOTAL PINSE II e $
Page 8 of 12
NOTE: Due to the flexibility and ongoing changes in the Scope of Work 0
and the unknown factors inherent in the project, the budget and
payment will be on a time and material basis. The Estimated Budget
will be reduced or increased as necessary. All recommendations for
a change in the Scope of Work or the Budget will have to be recom-
mended by the Technical Committee and approved by the DISTRICT.
The printing costs included in the Budget are for material for the
Steering and Technical Committees, interim technical reports, and
communication with other interested agencies.
A. The above budget includes incidental expenses such as equipment and
instruments, the use of office space and minor materials, and supplies.
The budget does not include travel expenses or printing costs. Work
to be done outside the scope of the project shall not be without written
authorization from DISTRICT. Compensation for extra work shall be
determined at the mutual consent of DISTRICT and CONSULTANT.
•
B. DISTRICT shall pay the CONSULTANT upon billing twice each month. In
the event any monthly invoice is not acceptable for any reason whatso-
ever, DISTRICT shall notify CONSULTANT within ten (10) days of date
of such invoice giving CONSULTANT the reasons for the unacceptability
of such invoice in order to allow CONSULTANT to promptly respond and
make any correction necessary in order to ensure timely payment.
Billings shall be itemized by Task and shall indicate the percentage
of completion for each Task. Billings shall be in accordance with the
attached billing schedule of Bill Mann and Associates dated Nay 1,
1981. Any work after January, 1982, will be at the billing schedule
in effect at that time.
C. All copies of reports, plans, and other printed data shall be billed
at cost to the DISTRICT + 157..
/ Page 9 of 12
`(I
• D. All existing preliminary and final plans, mapping, hydraulic and
hydrology calculations, and other useful information shall be provided
the CONSULTANT by various agencies and developers at no cost.
The estimated budget is based on using available topographic mapping,
plans, or other existing data and does not include any costs for sur-
veying or mapping.
E. Any additional work, changes in scope of services, or reductions in
engineering services will be based on estimated time and material
charges, negotiated, and followed up with necessary paperwork.
F. The budget estimates are based on best estimates with expected high
emphasis on necessary meetings, workshops, and public hearings. The
final budget for these items could be less or more than estimated budgets.
G. DEVELOPERS and PUBLIC AGENCIES shall deposit sufficient funds with
• DISTRICT in advance to cover the projected work for the following
month. CONSULTANT shall keep informed of the trust account balance
at all times. At such time as it is determined sufficient funds have
not been deposited, CONSULTANT shall cease or limit work until such
funds are deposited.
17J
H. DISTRICT shall not be responsible for any payment due, unless funds to
cover the payment have been deposited into the DISTRICT's trust account.
7. PERIOD OF PERFOR %%XCE
The estimated time frame for completion of the Drainage Plan from the
date of this agreement is nine (9) to twelve (12) months. The time for
each Task is estimated below.
fl h Page 10 of 12
Phase II
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
8. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Pi
In the performance of the terms of this agreement, CONSULTANT shall
not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in
employment of persons because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry,
or religion of such persons.
•
9. ACCOUSTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT shall keep complete, accurate and detailed accounts of all time,
costs, expenses and expenditures pertaining in any way to the rendering
services by CONSULTANT under this agreement in a manner consistent with
generally accepted accounting procedures.
10. ACCESS TO WORK PRODUCT
DISTRICT shall at all times have access to the work product of CONSULTANT
hereunder whenever it is in preparation and progress.
11. SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT
Either party of this agreement shall have the right to cancel or suspend
the agreement by giving each other fifteen (15) days written notice to that •
Page 11 of 12
1
•
effect. If
such cancellation or suspension shall take effect
during the
performance
of any uncompleted work, CONSULTANT shall be paid
the reasonable
value of the
work accomplished.
12. OtdNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Upon completion of project or termination of the agreement pursuant to
Section 11, CONSULTANT shall deliver to DISTRICT copies of all reports,
calculations, maps and other documents relating to project.
17. ENGINEERS AND INDEPENDENT AGENT
The CONSULTANT and the agents and employees of the CONSULTANT, in the
performance of the agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and
not as officers, employees or agents of the DISTRICT.
14. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT
This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements
either written or oral.
SA +•: CCUNTY
FLOOD COPT ROL DISTRICT
_BI_LL_N_ A \N d ASSOCL \TES
► rr;,,:v d.cmorm :.. ,::r,nam•. ^rr.r
C'u ^'ten, L'n.:rz o. .,.•.. ]: /ou;5 .____ ___
..uu.,." ..r In:......: r. ;.r .�..... r „�
• ClurrrY CrwnYVl
rA,.r� JIr.
14') j
iAvP.OnxG Sp^ 11.10
^nr .rn nnrra'ar. C.10
one
p,., 12 or 12
By n
Dated _
ATTCSTE D.
Title _
S':cwtery of tn'• F,o..n t,t,.•itrol D';tnct - - ---
Address
..uu.,." ..r In:......: r. ;.r .�..... r „�
• ClurrrY CrwnYVl
rA,.r� JIr.
14') j
iAvP.OnxG Sp^ 11.10
^nr .rn nnrra'ar. C.10
one
p,., 12 or 12
0
U
•
s�
s
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Street Striping and Pavement Marking
Services Contract
The City's third annual striping contract proposal received three
bids ranging from $25,155 to $30,596. In spite of an increase in
quantities, the low bid is lower than obtained last year. The low
bidder is Safety Striping Service, Inc. who has been this year's
striping contractor. The quality of the company's work has been
excellent.
It is recommended that the contract for 1981 -1982 for Street
Striping and Pavement Marking Services be awarded to Safety Striping,
Inc. of Anaheim, California for $25,155.00.
LBR/.PAR:jaa
Attachment
q5
-r\
PROJECT G vw rk to
LOCATION
CITY 00 CUCAIVIOA •
Sun f ROVOSALS OPENED
DATE 't'Urr 5. I'M
CONTRACT NO.
Safety Str IP1nA_
Otenge Co. SteiPir,
] 6 5 Slgn Co.
ITE %:$
UDAi:T IT IES
0ID
fd'0'J0f
BID
M1' "OUllt
_ BID
A'B)DIIT
_ 010
AF%IpAi
UID
A:(OUNT
BL:de,I Sund
1
Reflective Centerline and
Lane L1nec
a. +" Broken Limes
320,000
I.F
.021
6.720.00
.027
8.640.00
.D33
11.200.00
b. 4's Solid Lt..
66.000
Lk'
.06
3.960.(0
.054
3.564.00
.04
2.640.DC
c. Two 4" Double Solid
lines with 4" black
sepaztton
54,0DO
LF
.13
7,020.00
.09
4,860.DU
.30
5,400.00
d. B" solid I.Ines
1,700
LF
.04
68.00
.075
127.50
.08
136.DO
2
Stencils - Reflective
a. B' Lec re rs
1,300
Ea
2.15
2,795.00
3.25
4.225.00
3.50
4,550.00
b. Limit Bars 12" Wide
1,300
LF
.24
111.00
.35
455.01)
.40
52D.00
e. Armvs
30
La
4.00
120.00
MO
210.00
4.00
320.00
d. R2% ComPle[e both aidea
of [tack
15
Se
60.00
900.00
5D.CD
750.00
50.00
750.00
3
Crosswalks - Reflective
1
12" 'Wide
9.DO0
LF
.24
2,160.00
.35
3,150.00
.40
3,600.00
PatklrF
a. Parking Tss
40
ea
.60
24.00
1.20
40.00
1.00
40.00
b. Curb Painting
2,000
Lk'
.09
380.00
.20
- 400.00
.35
100.20
5
Small Scencisl
l" umn -ref te¢ive letters
40
E.
.15
6.00
1.20
40.20
.50
20.00
6
tkiaA Remova3
Wet Sandblasting
1,000
rSF
.70
700.00
.85
850.00
.75
750.OD
7
Biackowc
1,000
SP
.13
130.00
.03
30.00
.31
110.00
8
Pre - Lining
2,000
LF
.03
6D.00
.03
60.00
.OS
60100
I
f
25,155.00
t 27.401.50
30,596.00
J
l J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM. Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
BY: Monte Preacher, Public Works Engineer
SUBJECT: DEMENS CHANNEL PEDESTRIAN /EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE AGREEMENT
Per previous Council action, the Engineering Division has been actively
working toward the construction of the Demens Channel pedestrian /equestrian
bridge. The design has been completed and reviewed and approved with minor
changes by key Advisory and Equestrian Committees.
For construction, only two options were available to the City; one being
formal bid procedure, the other contributing funds through the present
Cucamonga Creek project.
Informal bids were sought from three responsible contractors, including
the Corp of Engineers contractor, Resler Corporation, to determine the
feasibility of formal bid. (See attached summary.) After taking into
consideration the additional cost required to prepare for formal bid and
the timing problem, it was decided to pursue the latter option.
The Corp of Engineers and County Flood Control were sent plans for their
use in preparing a change order. We have recently received an Agreement
from the County Flood Control along with a request to deposit $20,000
into the Flood Control District Contributing Fund.
RECOMHENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolution establishing need and authorizing execution of the Agreement
and to authorize the Finance Director to deposit $20,000 in the Flood
Control District Contributing Fund from the Systems Development Funds.
Res ec [fullylly s
LL YD HURBS
City Engineer
LBH; MP: jr
ALtachments
0 RESOLUTION NO. '3 1 -1C (D
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING NEED
FOR AND AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/
EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS DEMENS CHANNEL
WHEREAS, the improvement of the Demens Channel between Carnelian
Street and Sapphire Street has Beverly impaired the access between Alta
Loma Junior High School and the residences to the north and the continuity
of the equestrian trail system, and
WHEREAS, current City policy is to correct as many deficiencies
as fiscally possible.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said bridge will be of benefit to the
community and be constructed through the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District contributing funds by Contract Change Order and Agree-
ment for same to be executed as provided for in the Master Agreement of
the current Cucamonga Creek Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
•
' 7
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
........... .
^ a CITY ulo wcanNGA
SUMA TPROPOSALS OPENED
PROJECT DEMENS CHANNEL CROSSING (EQUESTRIAN /PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
LOCiTIilN OEMENS CHANNEL NEAR JASPER
•
DATE SEPTEMBER 2, 1981
CONTRACT NO.
0
ITEP:S
QUANTITIES
onadiman -McCa i n, I nt
Kas Ier Corp.
K.E.C. Co.
GID
N10tIpT
pl0
A:10UNT
Elff—f
AMOUNT
BID
MAMT
BID
— •11:C @IT
010
NIOU:G
B 5ader's Cunt
1
2
3
-...
Reinforced concrete bridge
Cnain lint fence
Vechicle barriers
TOTAL
LS
LS
3
--
15. DO
60O.DO
8,200.00
3,400.00
1,200.00
12,800.00
- --
- --
--
IS
20D
11,000.00
5,500.00
600.00
—_—
___
_
1
1S,600.00
17,100.00
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMON USE AGREEMENT
Cucamonga Creek (Demens), Phase VI •
Equestrian /Pedestrian Bridge Crossings At
Vicinity of Jasper Street (Sta. 64t81.5D ±)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of , 1981,
by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation of the
State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT ".
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, DISTRICT is owner of or exercises cognizance over certain rights •
of way and easements for flood control and water conservation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the United States of America by and through the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, hereinafter referred to as "CORPS ", is constructing a
flood control facility and appurtenances thereto within said rights -of -way,
hereinafter referred to as "CHANNEL ", in accordance with plans entitled
"Cucamonga Creek and Demens Creek Channel ", hereinafter referred to as "CHANNEL
PLANS ", for the purpose of aiding in the confinement of waters of the Demens
Creek hereinafter referred to as "CREEK "; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to construct a pedestrian /equestrian bridge and
access roadway, hereinafter referred to as "BRIDGE ", crossing the channel for
use by the public; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT is the local interest representative for coordinating
construction of CITY'S facilities within CHANNEL: and •
AB12/09004
�� Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS, CITY desires to conditionally occupy portions of DISTRICT lands
• with BRIDGE and public utilities; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT entertains no objection to the occupation of those
portions of DISTRICT lands for said BRIDGE and for public utilities, which
lands are hereinafter referred to as "AREAS OF COMMON USE ", and outlined in
cross hatching on plat map marked EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires DISTRICT through the CORPS, to construct BRIDGE:
and
WHEREAS, CITY and DISTRICT will mutually benefit by setting forth herein
the rights and responsibilities of each within the AREAS OF COMMON USE and with
regard to construction and costs of BRIDGE.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
CITY SHALL:
• 1.1 Acknowledge the right of DISTRICT, its successors, permittes, or
assigns, to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain CHANNEL for flood
control and water conservation purposes within AREAS OF COMMON USE without
need for any further permit or permission from CITY; provided, however, that
any such use by DISTRICT and /or other specified herein, shall not endanger,
interfere, or conflict with the use of BRIDGE by CITY or the public without
first obtaining approval as set forth hereinafter.
1.2 Assume all costs for construction of BRIDGE and public utilities as
set forth hereinafter in paragraph 1.7.
1.3 Submit to DISTRICT, at least 30 days in advance, plans for any pro-
posed construction, reconstruction, or maintenance within AREAS OF COMMON USE
. •
A812/09004
Page 2 of 6
which may occupy, endanger, conflict, or interfere with CHANNEL or its func-
tional operation, and obtain written approval from the DISTRICT of such plans, •
which approval shall not be withheld, provided that the work contemplated does
not or will not, in the opinion of the DISTRICT, unreasonably conflict with,
interfere with, or endanger CHANNEL or its functional operation.
1.4 Indemnify the United States of America and the DISTRICT, their
officers, agents, and employees against and hold them free and harmless of and
from all claims and liabilities of any kind arising out of, in connection with,
or resulting from, acts or omissions on the part of CITY, its officers, agents,
contractors, and employees in its operation and maintenance of BRIDGE, and /or
in the performance by CITY of any work within or adjoining AREAS OF COMMON USE.
1.5 Accept full responsibility and liability for use of BRIDGE by the
public.
1.6 Accept full responsibility and cost for any and all reconstruction, •
maintenance, or operation of the BRIDGE subsequent to transfer thereof to
CITY, and including approaches, parapets, walkways, and railing. Transfer of
BRIDGE to CITY by DISTRICT for operation, maintenance, and responsibility shall
be effective as of the date of final inspection and acceptance by authorized
representatives of CITY and DISTRICT or within ten (10) calendar days of final
inspection of CHANNEL by CORPS and DISTRICT whichever is sooner.
1.7 CITY further agrees:
A. To provide the DISTRICT with plans and specifications for said
BRIDGE, including fencing and gate plans; and
B. To deposit with the DISTRICT prior to construction the amount of
$20,000.00 which covers the estimated cost of construction and
the Corps
of
Engineers'
overhead. The actual amount of the CITY
cost will
be
determined
after completion of the work.
•
A812/09004
i Page 3 of 6
C. Promptly pay to DISTRICT actual costs in excess of estimated
cost of construction should final cost including CORPS overhead
• exceed $20,000.00.
D. Construct and maintain BRIDGE in accordance with the provisions
of Permit No. P- 181075 issued by the DISTRICT to the CITY on
September 23, 1981, said Permit attached hereto as EXHIBIT "B ".
The terms of which are incorporated herein.
DISTRICT SHALL:
2.1 As cognizant Local Agency, agrees:
A. To provide for the incorporation of work described above into the
CORPS construction at no cost to DISTRICT; said work to be per-
formed in accordance with CITY'S drawings and specifications.
S. To submit to CITY a final report showing the actual cost of con-
struction of the BRIDGE and, in the event the final cost, in-
cluding CORPS overhead, is less than that advanced by OWNER, the
difference shall be returned to the OWNER within ninety (90) days
of completion of the CORPS contract.
2.2 Acknowledge the right of CITY, its successors or assigns, to use AREAS
OF COMMON USE in common with the public; to reconstruct, operate, and maintain
public utilities, provided, however, that any such use by CITY does not or will
not occupy, endanger, interfere, or conflict with CHANNEL or its functional
operation without first obtaining approval as set forth hereinbefore.
2.3 Indemnify CITY, its officers, agents and employees against and hold
them free and harmless of and from all claims and liabilities of any kind
arising out of, in connection with, or resulting from acts or omissions on the
part of DISTRICT, its officers, agents, contractors, and employees in the con-
struction, reconstruction, or maintenance of CHANNEL within AREAS OF COMMON USE,
• and /or in the performance of any work within AREAS OF COMMON USE.
2.4 Notify CITY ten (10) days in advance of final inspection of work
encompassed by this Agreement.
A812/09004
.� -m Page 4 of 6
2.5 Promptly refund to CITY all funds in excess of actual cost.
IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND MUTUALLY AGREED: •
Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement shall not terminate
CITY'S or DISTRICT'S rights within AREAS OF COMMON USE. Both CITY and DISTRICT
shall use AREAS OF COMMON USE in such manner as not to interfere unreasonably
with the rights of the other. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as a
release or waiver of any claim for compensation for damages which CITY or
DISTRICT may have or may hereinafter acquire resulting from the construction of
additional facilities or the alteration of existing facilities by either CITY
or DISTRICT in such manner as to cause unreasonable interference with the use
of AREAS OF COMMON USE by the other party.
The DISTRICT is the local interest representative for the CORPS in coordina-
ting this project and that the CORPS is the contracting agent for accomplishing
this work through their contractor and is responsible for this construction •
item as a change order to the original contact; therefore, that the DISTRICT
is not responsible for the construction, inspection, or other contract related
matters, however, if construction is found not to meet the specifications of
the change order, DISTRICT agrees to join the owner in whatever action required
to obtain compliance.
A812/09004
Page 5 of 6
•
THIS AGREEMENT shall insure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
•
successors and
assigns of
both parties.
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused
their respective names
to be hereunto
subscribed
and their respective seals to
be hereunto affixed by
0
lJ
their respective proper officers thereunto duly authorized.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Alan K. Marks
County Counsel
County of San Bernardino
By
ATTEST:
By
Secretary, Board of Supervisors
San Bernardino County
Flood Control District
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
By
City Clerk
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
San Bernardino County
Flood Control District
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA
By
'1
City Attorney
A812/09004
Page 6 of 6
0
p I - 400?w
Stu
BLOCK
%
Area of Common Use
'Ti
IPWI
f
S.
o-P. I .400/
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND FLOOD CONTROL
825 Ent Third Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415 • (7141383-1634
•
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
September 23, 1981
JOHN R. SHONE, Dvectw
PERMITTEE File: 1- 451/2.04
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
Re: Zone 1, Demens Channel, C/E
PERMIT NO. P- 181075
Gentlemen:
In reply to a letter dated August 10, 1981 from Associated Engineers on your behalf,
pemission is granted to construct and maintain a pedestrian and equestrian bridge
crossing and access roadway, subject to the following Special and General Provisions.
The proposed work is located on District's Demens Channel north of Banyan Street
• and east of Sapphire Street, in the northwest portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
•
1. The proposed construction shall be in accordance with:
a, The Plats, Exhibit "A ", and the General Provisions, all of which are
attached hereto and made a part of this permit.
b. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's Standard
Specifications, available at the District Office.
c. All applicable provisions of the "Construction Safety Orders" issued
by the State Division of Industrial Safety and "Manual of Accident
Prevention in Construction" issued by the Associated General
Contractors, Inc.
2. The Pemictee shall hold the District and all officers, employees and agents
of said public body free and harmless from any and every claim, demand or action
for damages, or injury to any person or persons or property of any kind whatsoever,
and any cost or expenne in connection therewith, and agrees to defend the Flood
Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and all officers, employees and
agents of said public body against any claims or demands which may arise out of
or result from Permittee's occupation and activities on District right -of -way.
3, Attention is directed to General Provision "Kr', and prior to starting activity
authorized in this permit, the Permittee, and /or his agent, shall discuss the work
to be done with the District and reach an understanding as to the manner in which
the work is to be done.
EXHIBIT "B"
R01KHr a RIGNLY 0uard of S.,w,iaon
l'mn 11 AUmn•,r n.e•r• un¢rr I 800 OLDrR ..... Pint Di,rnm DAVID L McRENNA ....... Thmt Distant
JOII \M 61flM1AND. A.I.���n lra rvr CAI M.EtWALV .. ���((C......���..Se<und Onu¢t ROOLRrO TO WNSEND ....Fourth Dnbwt
JOuram,.,.r �;N,;.bc 1':um.: is p•ncY Ro JEnrl HAMMOCK....... FIIh0otuo
J
CITY OF BA.NCHO CDCAi40NCA
Permit No. P- 181075
Page Two
•
4. Prior to beginning any activity authorized in this permit, the Permittee
shall provide to the District written confirmation accepting full responsibility
for the maintenance and operation of the pedestrian bridge and appurtenances upon
completion of construction.
5. In accepting this permit, the Permittee agrees that he will replace all
access road pavement, irrigation pipelines, chain link fencing and landscape
replacement with like kind products installed to size, line and grade as the
existing products removed as directed by the District.
6. Work done in the absence of prescribed inspection may be required to be
removed and replaced under the proper inspection, and the entire cast of removal
and replacement, including the cost of all materials used in the work thus removed,
shall be borne by the Permittee, regardless of whether the work removed is found
to be defective or not. Work covered up without the authority of the District,
shall upon order of the District, be uncovered to the extent required, and the
Permittee shall bear the entire cost of performing all the work and furnishing
all the materials necessary for the removal and subsequent replacement of the
covering, as directed by the District.
7. This permit will be void if construction has not started within one (1) year
from the date of this permit. All wort: is to be completed within sixty (60) days
from start of work on District right -of -way. •
8. No more than one -third (1/3) of any District facility may be obstructed
during the period October 15 to April 15, nor more than two- thirds (2/3) of any
facility may be obstructed during the remaining period. The term "obstruction"
shall include all temporary or permanent structures, falsework, excavated material,
and equipment connected with the construction. For the purpose of computing the
area of an obstruction, dimensions shall be taken normal to the channel flow of
the actual physical outline of the obstruction.
9. No floatable materials or stockpiling shall be maintained in the channel
area, and equipment shall be kept out of the channel except when in use during
working hours.
10. In accepting this permit, the Permittee agrees that he will pay the cost of
all survey work of referencing, checking and replacing of all District right -of-
way monur..:ncs or survey control points that are removed, disturbed or destroyed
as a result of work perfumed in connection with this permit.
11. Access to the District's levees, channels and patrol roads shall remain open
and free to vehicular traffic at all times. Alternate access to the facilities
shall be provided when existing access is severed or impaired. Contractor must
prevent the public from entering the construction area or the District's right -
of -way.
12. Permittee shall, at all tines, exercise proper dust control and dust abatemen0
f EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA
Pen it No. P- 181075
• Page Three
13. All hardware on District's sixteen -foot (16') double -drive access gates to
be tack welded.
14. Should future activities of the District so require, the Permittee shall,
at its own expense, relocate all or any part of the subject works as so required.
15. The location of any temporary construction roadways or ramps which the
Permittee may wish to build on District right -of -way shall be subject to the approval
of the District.
16. Any structures or portions thereof, including fences, shall be a temporary
nature and shall be constructed in such a manner that removal or relocation may
readily be made. Said removal or relocation shall be made at no cost to the
District.
17. If the Permittee should refuse or neglect to comply with the provisions of
the permit, or the orders of the District, the District may have such provisions
or orders carried out by others at the expense of the Permittee.
18. Permittee agrees to pay all costs of suit arising from the breach of any
covenant or condition herein contained on the part of the Permittee to be kept
. or performed. The District shall be entitled to such reasonable attorneys' fees
as shall be fixed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and all other costs and
expenses of suit.
19. At the completion of the construction activities, the area shall be cleaned,
graded and dressed to the satisfaction of the District. A joint inspection
(Permittee /District) shall be made to determine if the work has been completed in
accordance with permit requirements. The Permittee will submit "As- Built" plans
at the time of the final inspection.
Very truly yours,
OHNR. SHONE, Director
Dept. of Transportation d Flood Control
JRS:RASI: cm
Attachments as noted
EXHIBIT "B"
s
PERMIT NO. P- 161075
GENERAL PROVISIONS •
A. This permit is valid only for the purpose specified herein. No change on
program as outlined in application or drawings submitted with application is
permitted except upon writcen permission of the Flood Control Engineer.
B. Activities under this Permit are subject to anv instructions of the Flood
Control Engineer or his representative. ALL INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE STRICTLY
OBSERVED.
C. District activities shall take precedence at all times, and when, any work
or activity must be performed to carry out the functions and purposes of the
District, Permittee must allow same to be done without interference.
D. Permittee shall assume entire responsibility for all activities under this
Permit, and shall save the District free and harmless from any and all expense,
cost or liability in connection with or resulting, from the exercise of this Permit
E. Any damage caused to Flood Control facilities or structures by reason of
the exercise of the Permit shall be repaired at the cost of the Permittee to
the satisfaction of the District. Permittee will be billed with the actual cost
to the District should Pernittee neglect to make such repairs promptly.
F. Any Flood Control right -of -way monuments that are removed, disturbed, or
destroyed as a result of activity under permit will be replaced by the District.
Permittee will be billed and agrees to immediately pay all costs of such •
replacement.
G. Any structures, portions thereof, or other works placed on District rights -
of -wnv or which affect District facilities or structures must be removed, revised,
or relocated by Permittee without cost to the District should future activities
of the District so require, unless otherwise specified.
H. This Permit is valid only to the extent of District jurisdiction. Permits
required by other interested agencies and consent of underlying fee owners of
District easement lands shall he the responsibility of the Permittee. NOTHING
CONTAINED IN THIS PERMIT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS
NOW HELD BY THE DISTRICT.
1. unless otherwise specified herein, this Permit is subject to all prior
unexpired permits, agreements, easements, privileges or other rights, whether
recorded or unrec.ordod, En Lhe area specified in this Permit. Permittee shall
make his own arrangements wiLh holders of such prior rights.
J. Exercise of this Permit shall indicate acceptance of all provisions. Violation
of any provision shall be caora for imledlato revocation of Permit.
K. AT LEAST AS HOPES NOTICE SI1:11.1. IiE GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT BEFORE STARTING
ANY I %)F,'T::OCII TIIIS PI',F'!IT. Telephone number to be used for this notification
is Urea Code ]1.) 751 -1739. Failure of notification is cause for revocation
of this Permit. •
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT
EXHIBIT "B"
0
OTT AV D A Airiln nt TO a MnXTOe
Attached for approval is a Resolution declaring the City Council's
intent to annex Tract 9584 and Trat 9584 -2 to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 1 and setting the date for Public Hearing on November
18, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the attached Resolution
declaring :.he City's intent to annex Tracts 9584 and 9584 -2 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and setting the date of
Public Hearing.
/ Respectfully submitted,
LHB:BBKK:bbc`
Attachments
STAFF REPORT'
DATE:
October 21, 1981
V
TO:
City Council and City Manager
1977
FROM:
Lloyd B. Rubbs, City Engineer
BY:
Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT:
Intent to Order Annexation No. 7 to Landscape
Maintenance District Y1 for Tract 9584
and 9584 -2
Attached for approval is a Resolution declaring the City Council's
intent to annex Tract 9584 and Trat 9584 -2 to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 1 and setting the date for Public Hearing on November
18, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council approve the attached Resolution
declaring :.he City's intent to annex Tracts 9584 and 9584 -2 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and setting the date of
Public Hearing.
/ Respectfully submitted,
LHB:BBKK:bbc`
Attachments
RESOLUTION N0.
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS IN-
TENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT:
DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 7
TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (TRACT 9584, AND TRACT 9584 -2)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code
of the State of California, as follows:
SECTION 1. Description of Work That the public interest and
convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to form
a maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance
and operation of those parkways and facilities thereon dedicated for
common greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map
within the boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in
Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and
• supervision of any sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings, landscaping,
ornamental lighting, structures, and walls in connection with said
parkways.
SECTION 2, Location of Work The foregoing described work is
to be located within roadway rtgh� -way and landscaping easements of
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 enumerated in the report of the
City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file
in the office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 7 to landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 ".
SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District That the
contemplated work, in the opinion of said ity Counct , is of more than
local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes
the expense of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said
district is assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which
district is described as follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary
lines shown upon that certain "Mao of Annexation
No. 7 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1"
heretofore approved by the City Council of said
City by Resolution No. _^;_. indicating by
said boundary lines the extent of the territory
included within the proposed assessment district
•' and which map is on file in the office of the
City Clerk of said City.
LI��
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer The City Council of said City •
by Resolution No. has approved the report of the engineer of work
which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district
boundary, assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 7,
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1" is on file in the office of the
City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for
all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the
extent of the work.
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments The assessment shall be
collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing
upon said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time
assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Heario9 Notice is hereby given
that on the November lg 1981, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers at 9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any
and all persons having any objections to the work or extent of the
assessment district, may appear and show cause why said work should not
be done or carried nut or why said district should not be formed in
accordance with this Resolution of Intention. Protests must be in
writing and must contain a description of the property in which each
signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must
be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for •
the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be considered. If
the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment
roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property described in
the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written
evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described,
SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting_Act of 1972 All the work
herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act
of the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping
and Liqhtinq Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California.
SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention Published
notice shall be made pursuant to Section 61961 of the Government Code.
The Ilayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to
the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10
days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in The Dailv Report,
a newanaoer of general circulation published in the City of Ontario,
California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
h3
• RESOLUTION NO, S) - 16w'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
(TRACT 9584 AND TRACT 9584 -2)
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1981, the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the
City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscap-
ing and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City
Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said
Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration;
and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and
each ar.J every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said
report is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires
or should be modified in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
• of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs
and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby,
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2. That the diagram showing the Assessment District
referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the sub-
divisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby prelimin-
arily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 3, That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions
of land in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated
benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work
and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is
hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to
the proposed district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
• NOES:
ABSENT:
6 r�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
• Engineer's Report for
ANNEXATION NO. 7
to the
Landscape Maintenance District Number 1
Tracts 9584 and 9584 -2
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chaoter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the
areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tract
9584 and 9584 -2 as well as on the lots directly abutting the landscaped
areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed tracts are
shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted
to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared
by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans
for Tract 9584 and 9584 -2. The plans and specifications for the land-
scaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission.
•
Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment
diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and
specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the
same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on historical
data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated
that ,iintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (S.30)
per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment
will be based on actual cost data.
/9 '1
Engineer's Report
pane 2
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 •
(including Annexation No. 7 comprised of 0 square feet of landscaped
area and 97 lots) is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
5.30 X 236,688 square feet = 71,006.40
Per Lot Annual Assessment
1257 lots ; 71,006.40 = 56.49
Per Lot Monthly Assessment = 4.71
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and
the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this
annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which
are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be
maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall
be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner
maintenance.
SECTION S. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this •
report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby
incorporated within the test of this report.
SECTIO'7 6. Assessment
Improvement for Annexation No. 7 is found to be of general benefit
to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for
each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1982, to
determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by
the City during the 1981/82 fiscal year which are to be recovered through
assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District
and sets a public hearing date.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony
and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the
City Council. •
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing
and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
6 i�
0
0
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
ANNEXATION NO.7
CITY OP RANCHO) CUCAAIONC,,\
ENGINEERING DIVISION
r�? R
�,7 vICINITV MAP i
ATfCT 9584
N52 LOTS
jc° * CITY OF IZANCI10 CUCAj%lO \G;\ A
TRACT 9594-
45 LOTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
` -T' VICINITY MAP i N
n
0
,Tr r^L n,%Tnxn nt.n A%.rnwtn
The subject map, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north
of Hillside Road is submitted by Deer Creek Co. for final approval.
This tract was approved by the County with approval extended by
the City on October 26, 1980 for a one year period.
An agreement and bonds insuring construction of off -site improve-
ments have been received in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance $272,000.00
Labor and Material $136,000.00
A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water
District, C. C. S R's have previously been recorded.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map and
forward it to the County Recorder.
R�sp�ertc tful lLted,
LHB:BK:bc
Attachments
STAFF REPORT',
,
DATE:
October 21, 1981
0l
t
TO:
City Council and City Manager
U11 i
1977
FROM:
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY:
Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Tract Map 9584, Bonds and
Agreement -
Deer Creek Co.
The subject map, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north
of Hillside Road is submitted by Deer Creek Co. for final approval.
This tract was approved by the County with approval extended by
the City on October 26, 1980 for a one year period.
An agreement and bonds insuring construction of off -site improve-
ments have been received in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance $272,000.00
Labor and Material $136,000.00
A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water
District, C. C. S R's have previously been recorded.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map and
forward it to the County Recorder.
R�sp�ertc tful lLted,
LHB:BK:bc
Attachments
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9584
WHEREAS, the Tentative Flap of Tract No. 9584, consisting of 49
lots, submitted by Deer Creek Company Subdivider, located east of Haven
Avenue, north of Hillside has been submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
• 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of
said City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto;
and,
•
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content
thereof by the City Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to
execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor
0
" 9,^ CITY 017 RANCI10 CUCANK
ENGINEERING l)ll'ISION
3y VICINiTI' NIAP
TRACT 9584
Page
Gothic" No. 6:'E
-_ Margin - 12 - 96 _ 612i
6128
612•
CITY OF RANCHO CUMIONGA
SUBDi'715ID14
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 9584
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Califorr,
and of the applicable ordinances oG the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a
municipal corporation, by and between said City, hereinafter referred to as the
City, and THE DEER CRREK COMPANY
eretnafter referred to as the Subdivider
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS, said Subdivider desires to subdivide certain real property in said
City as she. on the previously approved Tentative Map of Tract No. ggga_; and.
WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be not by said Subdivider
as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by said City;
NOU, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by said City and by said Subdivider as follows:
1. The Subdivider hereby agrees to construct at Subdivider's expense all improvement
described on Page 5 hereof within twenty -four months from the date hereof.
2. This agreement shall run for a period of one year from the date of the
resolution of the Council of said City approving said inai Map and this
agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day following the seco
anniversary date of said approval unless an extension of time has been gran
by said City as hereinafter provided.
3. The Subdivider may request an extension of time to complete the terms hereof.
Such request shall be submitted to the City in writing not less than
four weeks before the expiration date hereof, and -shall contain a statement
of nrcumstances necessitating the extension of time. The City shall have the
right to review the provisions of this agreement, including the construction
standards, cost estimate, and improvement security, and to require adjustments
therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term hereof.
C. if the Subdivider fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this
agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions
to be amt by any lawful means, and thereupon recover from the Subdivider and /or
his surety the full cost and expense incurred.
5. The Subdivider shall provide metered water service to each lot on said Tract in
accordance with the regulations, schedules, and fees of the Cucamonga County
Water nistrict.
6. Utility- Oeposit- Statement. Subdivider shall file with the City Engineer, prior
to the co=encement of any wort to he perfor:red within the areas deae r5 bed by
said nap, a written sL'tdrent sicnM by 9rtd ivide r, and each public utility
carpe �'.uon involved, to tM eftnct that Su6divider has made the deposit
legally required by Stich ruhlic utility corporation fur the concr:c; ion of any
and all P"l a utilities to be sutplled by such Corporation within such
subdivision.
7. The Sritlivider shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or removal of
any co ^000ent of any irrigatinn water system in conflict with construction of
re;:uired improvements to the Satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of
such water system.
CJ
7 1 ^
It1r ROFEIEar ACACEa,IE'tT TMCT t:0. 9584 PACE
8.
Imp rove +w nta 1e9nired to he mn:arueted shall ten Gum to the Standard
•
prawfn gs and Standard Specificncions of the City, and to the Improvements
Plan approved by and no file In the office of tla City Pngineer, Sold
Improvements a e tabulated en the Construction and Pond Estimate, hereby
incorporated of Page 5 hereof, as taken from the improvement plans listed
thereon by ponder. The Subdivider shall also be responsible for construe-
then of any transitions or other incidental work beyond the twee bound-
aries as needed for safety and proper surface drainage.
9.
Construction permits shall be obtained by u+r Subdivider from the office of
the City Engineer prior to start of work; all regulations listed thereon
shall be observed, with attention 6fee. to safety procedures, control of
duct, noise, or ether nuisance to the area, and to proper notification of
public utilities and City Departments. failure to comply with this section
shall be subject to the penalties provided [berefor.
10.
The Subdivider shall be responsible for removal of all lease rash, and other
debris from vuhlic rights of way within or adjoining said Tract resulting
from development work relative to said Trace,
11.
Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion.
13.
Putkvay trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Subdivider after
other improvement work, grading, and cleanup has been completed. Planting
shall be done as provided by ordinance in a ce.,dnote with the planting dia-
gram approved by the City Community Development Dir.cinr in all locations
where the adjoining let bas been completely developed and built upon.
The Subdivider shall be res-
ponsible for maintaining all trees planted in Sued health until the end of
the guaranteed maintenance period, or for one year after planting, whichever
is later.
13.
The Subdivider is responsible for meeting all conditions established by the
•
City pursuant to the Subdivision slap Act, City ordinances, and this agree-
ment for the Tract, and for the maintenance of all improvements constructed
thereunder until the Tract is accepted for maintenance by the City, and no
improvement serntity provided herewith shall be released before Inch accep-
tance unless otherwise provided and auchorixed by the City Council of the
City.
14. This agreement shall not terminate until the maintenance guarantee bond here-
inafter described bps been released by rile City, or until a new agreement
topetl,ua with tlu required Improvement I aril, he, been submitted to the
City by a successor to the Subdivider herein m.iced, and by resolurion of the
City Council s me has been accepted, and this agreement and the Improvement
security therefor has been released.
15. Tic improvement s urity to be furnisled by tlu Subdivider with this agree-
ment shall <o esisn of the following, and shall be .pp roved by the CIL,
Attorney:
A. A ruithful err Rnn.m re guarantee bond assuriel completion by the Sob -
divider of If rondltinns prercanioite to acceptance of the Tract by
the City.
R. A material and 1n1.or pnvn,mrt goar.nere hand a inS p.rmr.t in full by
the 5 „bdivider for ell m.tcr64s, servieec, e4nirmrnt rentals, end imbue
firnirlmd to the Subdivlder in the course of meeting the condttlong of
this mgr, mrnt,
C. A rant, epns,t vilh The City to guarantee payrrnt by the subdivider to
ehr trorl vigi,T'v, . rveyor whole rerluicaty ar,ear•, upon the final
trarl Hon• fill Ibr .etting er 111 h art hnundarv, pot r .11,11 street
•,n aril nr. rxnm -Into and for fnrninbpng centreline tie netts to the City.
711, amn,mt of nw, Arrnslt m v be any a ma certified by the tract eng-
v rep Uhlr paynrnlnfn Odli or, if n value Is cub -
rin rJ�r that, rob rleedar. hall be as chnwm on tl,e [nnstructlon and Aoad
E.tirl c.mtalmJ herein.
F_
L 1
Y BfOlg
VITROVEIVIT A(;nE'IE::T TRACT t:0. 9584 FACE _
♦ Said cash deposit may, be refunded as soon as procedure permits afteO
receipt by the City of the c ntorline tic notes and written assurance
of payment in full from the tract engineer or server.,
D. no required bonds and the principal amounts theeeef are act forth on
page 4 of this agreement.
Ib. The maintenance gm .also bond herelnabove referred to shall be furnished
by the Subdivider to guarantee any and all portions of all improvements
free of defects of materials or workmanship for a petted of oM year from
the date of acceptance of the Tract by the City, and shall be furnlshed
prior to such acceptance and release of the above de ... lbed it cm,ement
security. Vila ma inten.nee guarantee bend also specifically includes all
specified work .f any parkway maintenance "eE.ament district that may be
requirement of this tract, during 'let period of time for which the Sub -
dietder, is required to provide such maintenance.
Said maintenance guarantee bond shall equal 5E of the construction esti-
mate or 5200.00, whichever is greater.
17. That the Developer shall take out and maintain, during the term of this
ngrtemmt, s rlr public liability and prnperte damage insurance as-ahatl
protect him and any contractor or subcontractor performing work covered
by this agreement from claims for property damages which may .rise because
of the nature of the work or free operations under this agreement, whether
such operations be by Mirm,lt or by any contractor or subcontractor, or
anyone directly or indirectly employed by said persons, .wen though such
damages be not caused by the negligence of the Developer or any contractor
or subcontractor or anyone employed by said persona. The public liability
and property damage insuranee-shall also directly protect the City, its
officers, *Cants and employees, as sell a. the Develops.. his contractors
and fill subcontractors, and all Insurance policies issued hereunder shall
ao lest.. The amount. of ouch insurance shall be as follovat
A. Coat mein r'x liability insurance providing bodily injury or death lie
bility limits of not less than $700.000 for each person and $1,000,000
for each accident or occurrence, and property damage liability It-it'
of not lens than $100,000 for each accident or occurrence with an agg-
regate limit of $200,000 for claims which may arise from the operations
of the Developer in the performance of the work herein provided.
A. Automobile liability Insurance m vering .11 vehicles ..ad in the per-
formance of this agreement providing bodily injure liability limits
of not less thon $:00,000 for each person and $300.000 (.f each acci-
dent .1 nnrrnc., and prep -et, damage liability limits of not less
than $50,000 for each Acddent or oc n,rrente, still an aggregate of net
I... than $100.000 which m OF arise Irem the .,,felt... of the Developer
or his Eo,ttrctar In pert. cm(ng the work provided fat herd..
la. That before the execution of this .gteement. the Developer shall file with
the City a certificate or certificates of insurance covering the specified
Insurance. Each such certificate shall bear an andotsement precluding the
coneeilatiess, or reduction it cnverage of any policy evidence* by such
crtmcate, before the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall
have received notification by registered mail from the insurance carrier.
•
gCE23C ^���
• 11PR07EMENT AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 9584 PAGE 4
As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to
comply with Same, the Subdivider has suF.uitted the below described improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
Description: Principal Amount: $272,000
Surety:
Attorney -in -Fact:
Address:
- MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT BOND
Description: Principal Arai $136,000
Surety:
Attorney -in -Fact:
Address:
CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTING BOND $3,850.00
Amount stipulated by tract engineer or surveyor:
Amount as shown on Construction and Bond Estimate:
• Amount deposited per Cash Receipt No. Date
NAINTE9ANCE GUARANTEE BOND
To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City.
Principal Amount: 13,600.00
IN ':ITIIES5 HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these present; to be duly
executed and acknowledged with all formalities required by 1a., on the dates set
forth opposite their signatures.
THE E9 cFEBA COSIPhIY
Date Ontoher 2. 1981 by ^,RG'� Gi I'i+'i1P• a ° r 'SLAiA .tfL?.r
B
Oa (_= Oc tnbrr ., In ?t by Fta / Subdivider
;. L" ?Si t 'vtnnr
P.vaI i. trirfin. es'+,t
CITY OF RANCPi CUCT,'?;GA, CALiF: }'dd
a municipal corporation
by , Ma"r
Attest:
[I ty C1 a 4.
-f ,
--- Tit, itterncy
Clr( OF RANMIO CCC:aIONGA •
CONSTRUCTION AND BOND ESTI:4ITC
ERCEOACTIENT PERMS FEE SCLEOULS
(Attach to "Inspector's Cup, ")
October 2, 1981 PERIIT N0. COMPUTED BY C r..
Fite Reference TR 9584 City Br..0, No.. 698
NOTE Oeee not inelude current fee for rlei., pS.iL er pa,tcrol replace -
.ent deposica.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTS TE
ITEM
OTIAN7MLFNTT
I UNTT OS
5 •0'^.
"r
S
Pr . r.'9 -A" e.
F.
A On
4R 114 00
^.E.0. '
Cure only C.F. QF
L.F.
A.C. Xern (s,an nin)
I. F.
4" P.C.C. S drvalk
S.F.
5" Ori re Annrracn
]980
S.F.
2.10
16 75 .00
N" P.0.C. Croix fu t[e[
94
S.F.
0 .00
Street E[eal.linn
I
imu: cetl E.banR d.r
0.1'.
Pre.Naratlan of Sub -lade
1 49
S.F.
.)
7 24 .65
"1]00
S.F.
A.C. Inver [Una)
3875
TON
A.C. f9OO to 1300 tonal
TON
a r [n Son [ona
TON
e—d., 5M na)
I TO]
Pace A.L. (trench)
I S.F.
1" Thick A.C.
I S.F.
AM 1— p r de
Admat Sever C.O. to Grade
I EA.
f EA.
ld 1.SL Rater falvex to trade
I F.A.
'In-e.
1 1S
I F.A.
I-SOO.00
22-Son-00
5 r r "In,
1 4
1 EA.
200,00
Street —1 a
I iA.
ARRICA0E5
IZU
I kA-
700
18" RCP
24" REP
CATCH BASIN L•_ 14
LA.
w,z5u.uO
I,zuu.uu
REMOVE EXIST BARRICADES
1 3
VV— .
�G
CONSTRUCTION COST $247,123.65
COHTtNr,EOCS' COSTS 4 24.212„j2_
TOM CONSTRUCTION COSTS l 71 RVA 01
FAITHFUL FERFOMANCC BONG (10050 $272.000 OD
UBOR AND MATERIAL BOND (50.) t136.n00 On
ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE 11,505.00
(FEE SCHEDULE)
MO:.VIENTATIO': FANG (CASH) 3,850.00
•
BOND NO.: 103554
PREMIUM $2,720.00
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State
of California and
(hereinafter designate as "principal") have entered into an agreement
whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated
public improvements, which said agreement, dated ac,oem > font
199, and identified as project Tgw, -�.
is hereby referred to and made a part
WHEREAS, said principal is required under the terms of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and c Rucu onuY
as surety,, are held and "firmly
bound unto the City 0, Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter called "City "),
in the penal sum of Iwo Hundred Seventy Two Thousand and no /100 ---- - - - - --
Do lars ($ , 1 aw ul money Of
e United States, or the payment o w E—h l ct sum ve 1 and truly to be
made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and admini-
strators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
/ 7
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above
•
1 bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and
well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions
in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein
provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time
and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to
their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless
• City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then
this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and
remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the
face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and
reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees,
incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be
taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
,
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension
of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to
the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accmnpanying
the are shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it
does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration
or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the
specifications.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the
principal and surety above named, on OCTOBER z. , 1981.
BY: THE DEER CREEK COMVANV, a General Paetnarflhi
BY: GRIGSPI' MVVE�LOPH INC., A Grtue ral Nairn,
BY: //(
IOC
BY: UEVfn,MTRS INSUMNIE COMPANY, surety
H. er Incby. lr • Pte4 ident
^/
NSA'
•By
-t ') +V�o.t. BY: GRIFFEN rR;vg9PMEHT,CO., d Gencrnl Parana,
_
Larry R. Ande r:aon, Attorney-
in-Fact BY:
Paul E. Griffin, J,/, Pre Sidpnt
/ 7
BOND NO.: 103554 -A
PREMIUM : INCLUDED
LABOR AND MATERIALMEN BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State
of California, and THE DEER CREEK COMPANY
(hereinafter designated as "princapa ) ave ¢n to red nto an agreement
whereby principal agrees to install and complete Certain designated
public improvements, which said agreement, dated oCM9Ex 2 1981,
and identified as project TRACT 9594 _
1s ereby re —C -T— to an ma e A part
ereo� ate—
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is required
before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and
sufficient paynent bond with the City of Rancho Cucanonga to secure
the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with
Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State
of California.
NOti, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a corporate
surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other
persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and
referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the Sum of
One hundred thirty six thousand and no /100 -------- ---------
------------
ars or mater als
urnrshed or a or t ereon o any kind, or or— i—amoun isdua under the
•
Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that
said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount
hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond
will pay in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable
expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by
City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and
fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the
judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall
inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations
entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082)
of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Coder so as to give a right of
action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this
obligation shall become null and void, otherwl9e it shall be and
remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension
of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the
specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its
obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such
change, extension, alteration or addition.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the
principal and surety above named. on OCceFR 2 , 1981.
BY: THE UrR CUE. COMPANY, a General ParOVt] hip
By CD Jgs0V DEVVEEEWr4ENT INC., a Central Partner
Y: COMPANY, Surety BY:
r• �+ Paolo M. Grigg +Y •i 'f President
LarPy R. Anderson. Attorney- in -6Y: GRTPPTN DEVELOPMENT CO., a General Partner
Tact
BY; / •.
Pout F G[i (fl n, 1[.i ProeidMt
�1n
•
•
7
n,mv nc o A XTPUn rT Tr a unhM e
The subject map, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north
of Hillside Road, submitted by Deer Creek Co., was tentatively
approved by the County and extended for one year by the City on
October 26, 1980.
An agreement and bonds insuring the construction of off -site
improvements have been received in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance $230,000.00
Labor and Material $115,000.00
A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water
District. C. C. 6 R's have previously been recorded.
"CUPOLNUA IUn:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map
and foward it to the County Recorder.
Respectfull submitted,
LBti:BK:bc
Attachments
%y
STAFF REPORT
god
n
DATE:
October 21, 1981
I Z
TO:
City Council and City Manager
O�
1977
FROM:
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY:
Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Tract Map 9584 -2, Bonds
and Agreement -
Deer Creek Co.
The subject map, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, north
of Hillside Road, submitted by Deer Creek Co., was tentatively
approved by the County and extended for one year by the City on
October 26, 1980.
An agreement and bonds insuring the construction of off -site
improvements have been received in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance $230,000.00
Labor and Material $115,000.00
A letter of approval has been received from Cucamonga County Water
District. C. C. 6 R's have previously been recorded.
"CUPOLNUA IUn:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map
and foward it to the County Recorder.
Respectfull submitted,
LBti:BK:bc
Attachments
%y
RESOLUTION NO.
• 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9584 -2
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 9584 -2, consisting of
45 lots, submitted by Deer Creek Company Subdivider, located east of
Haven, north of Wilson Avenue has been submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
• and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of
said City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto;
and,
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content
thereof by the City Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to
execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
z ��
0
9
,.
crry or• ►t:\Ncl io cuci \io.Nc,\
A
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY \I: \I'
1
�, l
TRACT 9584 -2
P .1Si
CITY OF RANCID CUCAMONGA
SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AOREEt6NT
TRACT NO. 9584 -2
KNOW ALL LIEN BY THESE rfUSFNTS: That this agreement is made and entered
into, in conformance with the Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the
State of California, and nr he app li cabin ordinances of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California. a municipal corporation, by and between as id City, here-
inafter referred to as the City, and
- DEER CREEK COMPANY , hereinafter
voleered to as the subdivider. ,
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS, said Subdivider desire., to subdivide remain real property in
said City as shown on the previously approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 9584 -2
and,
WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be met by said Sub-
divider as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by said City;
NON, TIEREFORE, it is Irtreby agreed by said City and by said Subivider as
fol low:
I. The Subdivider hereby agrees to construct at Subdivider's expense all Im-
provements described on Page 5 hereof within twenty -four months frm th�
data hereof.
i. This agreement shall run fnr a period of two Years from the date
of the resolution of the Council of said City approving said Final Map and
this a6,,ment. This .,moment shalt be in default on the day following
the second anniversary date of said approval unless on ion or Cie.
has bren granted by said City as hereinafter provided.
1. The Subdivider may regvest an excension of rime to complete the terms here -
Of. Such request shall he n,,bOtttcd to the City in writing not less than
weeks before the expiration date hereof, and shall contain a statement
Of circumstances nceessitating the extension of t1we. The City sball have
the right to tvvicw the Vtovisions of this ioraco -rt. iocludlnc tLe crn-
slruction so�uda sin, lost estimate, and improvement securitY, and to rrquf re
adjustmentx therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term
hrreof.
4. If the Subdivtdrr fails Or ncglectx to comply with the provisions of this
agreement, :br City 'hall III— 111e ftgnt at airy too to cause said
.� prm'1-
sions to hr mrl b, a lawful n d the re,q.on r r fern the Sub-
divider and /tar his surety the Mull an
cost and expense incurred.
5. The Subdivider - I�.,II 11OIi'II eltnr,:d water Polo to rash tut on ..aid Tract
in rnnlaurr vihh fta rv'gnl ,Minns, srhnAulcr„ and Ices of the Cucamonga
County N.ltnr Ui:.t Pic 1.
b. U"Itt Y1b1un1it- Slnle,mnt. Subdivider shall file with Ihr Clly Enclorer,
Pnnr to for c anent of a work to he yorlors,d within the a s Jes-
"t"ed by slid ..m....1 wriu cu stnlrment slgnvJ by subdivider, and each public
util lay volP^tnl inn involved, to the offutt that Subdivider b,, mrde the
d- posit legally hrdnilrd by ,orb public utility ,nhpurat inn for the ennoee-
Linn of any and ell publle utilities to be supplied by sudl Corporation with -
to such sublivislon. ,
T. The Subdivider shall Im resPmwthlc for ro.plu,vet. , rele,.W.n, dt re10
of any component of any Irrigation water syslrm in conflict with construction
al regoirrd Improvements to the satj,f.,tlu. of III, City Engtneer sod the
owner of and, water system.
RCE22A
�c hl
evL
u'I:n \T -`IlLr n:bf.Cli':T TgAC: ':O, 958: -Z PACE
. 8. InT roar rc etc rcgnireA to he constructed shall ronfnrn to the Standard
Drawings and Stamdntd Specifications of the City, and to the lep[ovemonts
Plan arproved by and on file in the office of the City Engineer. Said
i mp rove vents .+ a tabulated on the Conctrvctfon and Bond Estimate, hereby
incorporated n: page 5 hereof, as taken from the improvement plans listed
thereon by tn,mbor. Tile Subdivider shall also he responsible for monde.,
tion of any transicfoos or other incidental work beyond the tract bound-
aries as naednd 01 safety and paper, surface drainage,
9. Constramtion perelta shall be obtained by the 5111ldivider from the office of
the City Fnpineer prier In sear[ of work; all regulations listed thereon
shall be observed, with attention given m safety procedures, control of
Just. AuiAr, or other nuisance t. the area, and ro proper verification of
public utilities and city pel•artmco[s. Failure to comply with this section
shall he subject ro the penalties provided therefor.
10. The Subdivider shall be responsible for rearval of all loner ranks and other
JMri. (ram- pnbllc rights of way within or adjoining said Tract resulting
fro. development work relative to said Tract.
11. Nark done uitbin cailtin, streets shall be diligently pursued to conpletioa.
13. Pakway trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Subdivider aft.
ether irs,relemm, week, grading, and cleanup has been ca.pleted. Planate,
shall be done as provided by ordinance in accordance with the planting dia-
gram approved by the City Cnr,monfty Development Director in all locations
where the adjoining lot has been completely developed and built capon.
Tim Subdivider shall be rcs-
"ralible for m a intaining all trees planted in good health until the end of
the guarante•dmaintenance p.tied, or for one year after planting, whichever
is later.
• 13. The snbdivider, is rle,ce.ibin for meeting all conditions established by the
City pursuant to the Subdivision ?lap Act, City ordinances, and this agree -
mont for the Tract, and for the maintenance of all improvements constructed
thereunder until the Tract is Accepted for maintenance by the City, and n
imTnovem aI s ... 1ritY Provided herewith sbali be released before snch aerep-
tn"r, unless otherwise provided and authorized by the City Council of the
City.
14. This agreement shall net terminate until the maintenance guarantee bond her.
inafur deacribed bas been released by the City, or Instil a rev agreement
together with the reluired lmrmvom nt sncnrity has been submitted to the
city by A swcces.,nr to the Subdivider herein armed, and by resolution of ehe
City Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the improvement
security therefor has been released.
15. The ing,m vemvnt seorrlty to be furojshed by the Subdivider with this agree-
ment shaft conpist of tin following, and shall be approved by Oho City
Attorney:
C.
A. A fuitbful rerfnre+nce guarantee bond a taring cnmlfletion by the Sub-
divider of all condition, prerrAnisits to acceptance of the Tract by
Iia Cit,.
B. A material :unl Inhnr pay meat guarantee band a ,n ri of payment in full by
the Snbn:ividvr for all materinls, s ,viers, ngnipment rentals, and mbar
fur ' shrd to thSubdivider e S in the course of meeting the conditions of
this a grrrm,•nt.
C. A ra..1, dr l,,,It with rho City tow gnarnnI er p. vs, A by the Suhdf vide, tA
❑sr vurI rag I er , w ynr who,, rev ilirnto nrrears upon the Final
T"" 'lq• in, iii• <rlt•In F. n1 all unct bon....." lot ,er. and street
rem eel n•r n nnA I'll f.no llIte, centerline Lie pet,'. to tho City
11- It of the drrnlit ray be Any ., of rertdfiod by the rtaot eng-
resin
Inerr n �,1111c, o ar1.,tablr P.hy... l fell; .1, 11 no wait,, I sub-
rtile
mitted, r,.l, broil •,hall be as shave on Ilse Cen%trnctlon And Bond
•
fslimnc con minvJ Imrcin.
C.
• ❑Sit +v[`IC:ry R:. _'EIlE1:T TRACT Y.D. 9584-2 FACE
Said cash JrpeiiI may be reftoded a soon as p,.ccdgre permits site•
eeipl by the City of the centerline tic notes and written aaauranct
of payment to full from the tract engineer o r
vcyor.
D. the required hard, sad the principal aemuata thereof are get forth on
page 4 of this agreement.
16. The maintenance guarantee bond hereinabove referred to shall be furnished
by the Subdivider to guarantee any and all portions of all improvements
free of defects of materials or workmanship for a period of one year from
the date of acceptance of the Tract by the City, and shall be furnished
prior to such a c ceptance and release of the above described improvement
security. This maintenance guarantee hand also specifically includes all
specified work of any parkway ,naintcuance asea..mont district that may be
requirement of this tract, during the period of time for which the Sub-
divider is required to provide such maintenance.
Said maintenance g,harancee bond shall equal 50 of the construction esti-
mate or $200,00, whichever is greater.
❑, That the Developer shall take out and maintain, during the term of this '
np ree,n'nL such public liability and prnpert, damage Insurance a shall
protect him and any contractor or subcontractor performing work covered
by this agreement from claims for property damages which may arise because
of the nature or the work or from operations under this agreement, whether
such operations be by himself or by any contractor or subcontractor, or
anyone directly or Indirectly emploved by said persons, even though such
damages be not c a pe
sad by the negllgente of the Develor or any eon tractor
or subcontractor or anyone employed by said persons. The public liability
and pfope c,y damage ins urance'shall also directly protect the City, its
officers, agents and employees, as well as the Developer, big Contractors
and his subcontractors, and all insurance, policies issued hereunder shall
ao state. The amames of such insurance shall be as follows:
A. Contractor's liability insurance providing bodily injury or death 19 bility limits of not less than $700,000 for each person and $1,000,000
for each accident or occurrence, and property damage liability limits
of not lens than $100,000 for each • cident or occurrence with as agg-
regate limit of 5200,000 for claims which may arise from the operations
or the Developer in the perfprmance of the work herein provided.
B. dntomobile liability insurance covering all vehicles used in the per-
of this agreement providing bodily injury liability limits
of not less than $:00,000 for each person and $100,000 foi each acci-
dent or mccolclnce, and property damage liability limas of out less
than $50,000 for each accident or occurrence, with an aggregate of not
less than $100,000 which m v arise from the operations of the Developer
or his Coneraclor to performing the work provided foe herein.
18. That before the execution of this agreement, the Developer shall file with
the City a certificate or certificates of insurance covering the specified
Insurance. Each such certificate shall bear an endorsement precluding the
cancellations, or fednctipn in coverage of any policy evidences by such
certificate, before the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall
have received notification by registered mail from the Insurance carrier,
RCg1tC /�
d 4
IIIr NUCEMEN1, M ;RMIENT TRAIT Y.O. 9580_2 PAGE c
•
As evidence of n derstandine the Prnvlaions contained herein, and of intent
In conply with s s , the Subdivider has Fu bmitted the below described reprove.
u
.not scvity, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHrUL PEAFOWIANCE BOND
Description: Princfpal Mount: 230,900.CO
Surety:
ABtorO,-in -Fact:
Address:
MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYNENT BOND
Description: Principal Mount: 115,000.00
Surety:
At comp• -i n -Fact :
Address:
CASH DEPOSIT NONUHENTING BOND
3,450.00
Amount stipulated by tract engineer or surveyor:
Moue; as shn.,e on Construction and Bond Estimate:
2aaount deposited per Cosh Receipt No, Date
M14TEYANCE GUARANTEE BOND
•
To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City.
Principal Amount: 11,500.00
♦RRRRRRRRR I,RRRaa,lRRxa1
IN t!IIPCSS HFSF.OF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
'
duly a cuted and acknowledged vi N: al] Formalities required by Aaw on the
dates set forth opposite their signatures.
THE DAR CREEK CO,ypANYr fGe� 47 Partnership
• Date October lr 1981 byEY:G f,5a nEVRLOP IT,�.((t. Nff1�iO�-.a/,aaG1 oral Parf:9abdivider
Date octobar 1 1981 byY' all+an A.Grigsay, flea +dent
_ Subdivider
8Y:GR1FYI"VCWPMENT CO., a Nerveral Partner
RY: eel E. Gr1 (Y1n,Sr•r Preaadent
• CITY OF RANC110 MCAHOBOA, CALIFORNIA
a municipal cnrporatlnn
by Mayor
Attest:
C1 17 Clcck
Date
•
R
RCE220
it
,
lw
C. TO,:CA
c"p.,
DATE: . 9/30/81 PERMIT NO, COMPUTED 3Y C.R.
File R.j.,n, TR 9584-2 424
:OTC: W..
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
T 7 It I
LNTT
1-VI r,
2",660,00
TOTAL CONq•CTTON COSTS
F I
I
23n.000.00
IACC', AND MATERIA1. WND (50.)
T I
INSPECTION FFF
91825.P
(rFE SCI"ULE)
NON0.. I CNTAT TO'; RUND
3,450.00
I. G. Holn IS2OO mtn)
•
...C.C. Cr,, 1p .-_U erl
_.F•
I,
1 9000
. .
.....
0,
A.C.
TON
F
TON
70%
S. F.
lows[ r C.O. to Glade
EA.
t,
°a.
00.0
u.
•
F I woes i
A.
LA.
n n
0
CONSTRUCTIO.'; COST
207,30 O.nn
CONTPXENCY COSTS
2",660,00
TOTAL CONq•CTTON COSTS
220.900.00
FAITHFUL PCRFORNANCE WND (100',')
23n.000.00
IACC', AND MATERIA1. WND (50.)
115,C00 00
INSPECTION FFF
91825.P
(rFE SCI"ULE)
NON0.. I CNTAT TO'; RUND
3,450.00
•
iii
0
BOND NO.: 103552 -A
PRGMIUM : INCLUDED
LABOR AND MATERIALMEN BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and
((hereinafter designated as "principal
r °)e have entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain des=X.
d public improvements, which said agreement,
dated 1, 1991 , and identified as pro-
ject
is hereby 'referred to and made a part hereof; and,
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is re-
quired before entering upon the performance of the work, to file
a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cuca-
__ monga to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15
(Commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
1 Civil Cede of the State of California.
NOiv, THE.EICIIR, said principal and the undersicned as s a
corpo -ate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material -
men and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure
in the sum of One hundred fifteen thousand and no /100 --------------- - - - --
Dollars IS ,000.0 ), for materials
• furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under
the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor,
that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the
amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought
upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof,
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
oblicaticn, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed
as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond
shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and
corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (tormenting
with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so
as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit
brought upon this bond.
Shoald the co•3i Lion of this bond be fully performed, then
this nhligaticn shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be
and re,,iin in full force and effect,
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no chance, ex-
tension Of tiro, alteration or addition to the fens of said
or spcci:;Glticns aceonpanying the same shall in
ev. - .. ge
!t its oF,lination, on this bond, and it d... her. -
b. v, nct;rl of any such charge, extension, alteration or ad-
this instr.,cnt h..n been dul;' esncuad
by th- 4vinci Del Dr.d surety above nacod, on OCME.R 1.
•
Ur.V!.I4PCi5 1N..:UR46CE CG::PAUY, Surety
I
arry R. Anderson, door re y -ln -Fact
�7
BY: THE DEEP CREEK COxi'id:Y,a Len•`rul Partn -rship
BY: GRIGSBY DEVE'IGPaxT,INC Ge..' Yartnar
aT:�I�fil)f
BY: GNlrfin DIoVELOPMENT CO., a General P.artncr
�
BY; i� p
Veul E. G If rn, h., Pfe.id .t
BOND NO.: 103552 •
PREMIUM $2,300.00
FAITHFUL P£RFOPYANCE BOUD
NHEREAS, the City Council of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and Ms DESA CRIZK CO AKY
(here r nafter designated as - prr:.clpal ") have entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated pubiio improvements, which said agreement,
dated ornosER !. , 19 E1 , and identified as
Project TRACT 9584 -2
is hereby refcrrei to and made a part hereof; acne
WHEREAS, said principal is required under the terms of said
agreement to furnish A bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement.
NON, THEREFORE, w0 the principal and DEVELOPERS INSURANCE COMPANY
, as surety, r— a he l� dOd
firmly bound unto the City of Rancto Cucamonga Ihereirafter called
"City "), in the penal sum of Ten Rundred Thi,tV Thousand and Wloo -
Dollars ( 230 000.00 I awful
money o; the Unr ted States, or the payment of which sum well and
truly to b- made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu-
tors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above .
bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide
by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, condi-
tions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration
thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be
kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein spec-
ified, and in all respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers,
acents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation
shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in
full force and affect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment
rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no chance, ex-
tension of tine, alteration or addition to the terns of the
aq.ner.ont or to the worl: to be performed thereunder or tha spec -
i— cation:; accce. r.r.yinrn the care shall in ar.,,, sa affect its
oR!iq:.Gluns of thts bond, and it does hereby ,,aive notice of any
cveh cim Agee c::t.enslon of time, alteration or addition to the
tors of the anrcen:ent or to the t: nih or to the sceeifieaeionP.
Lhis inr.Lr::: vIt has been du:v e::eec:ed
r:r.c ioal 'In'! ..u:e ;y cbove nared, on =C:n.r 1.
19 nl - -_
DF.V—EIWFERi VlZU,,P.AY!'E CIKrV Y, Surety
Ljj:,,x,R. Anderson, Attorney -ln-
P.Y t
4`.'_
BY: THE LEER CAEEr. Co8>dNY,a General Partnergrip
BY: GFIGaaY DE \TWFY2Nt,IGener Port•
BY: R.
YT
'll LLam P. Gnaca Y, csumr
BY: GAIErttr o8l•E.WPFYIIt CO., a General Partner
BY: 2i
J / 4
Paul L. G ';fin, Jr., President
Ul
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 21, 1981
0
TO: City Council and City Manager u
1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bonds and Agreement for D.R. 79 -06 -
Fredricks Development Corp., located at the northwest
corner of 19th Street and Ramona Avenue
Fredricks Development is submitting the attached bonds and agre
to insure construction of offsite improvements for Director Rev
79 -06 located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Ramona
Avenue.
Faithful Performance $63,000.00
Labor and Material $31,500.00
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept the
agreement and bonds.
Respectfully submitted,
LHB:BK:bc
Attachments
,
• RESOLUTION NO. —/--
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR
REVIEW NUMBER 79 -06.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed
on October 8, 1981 by Fredericks Development Corporation as developer,
for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property
specifically described therein, and generally located at the northwest
corner of 19th Street and Ramona Avenue.
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in
said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be
done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred
to Planning Commission, Director.Review No. 79 -06; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied
by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said
Improvement Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
• of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and
said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved and the
Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren hl. Wasserman, City
•
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
C�
0
•
:
........
�Y
i'
i
r I
:n 4w.w
A',
CITY 017 RANCHO CUCAIMONGA /.� D. R.
'cr /; :• y; F\G\ffRl \G DI \1510\ � T
.,
VICINITY MAP page
1477-�y
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered
into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and Fredericks
Development Corp. _ hereinafter referred to as the Developer.
WITNESSETH
THAT, WHEREAS, Pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the
City of, Director Review 79 -06 in accordance
with the pravanons of the report a the Community Deve opment Director thereon,
and any amendments thereto: located on the northwest Corner of 19th Street and
Rxnnna and.
WHEREAS, the City has established Certain requirements to be met by said
developer prior to granting the final approval of the development: and
WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and Posting of improvement security
as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are seemed to be
equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing
said approval;
NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer
as follows:
1. The developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all
•
Improvements described on page 3 hereof within 9 months from the date
hereof.
2• The term of this agreement shall be 9 months , commencing on the date
of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on
the day Following the last day of the term stipulated, unless said term
has been extended as hereinafter provided.
3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provi-
sions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to the
default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for
additional time. In consideration of such request, the City reserves the
right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards,
cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require
adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein.
4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this
agreement, the City shall have. the right at any tire to cause said provi-
sions to be completed by any lawful means, and thereupon to recover from
said Oevelaper and /or his Surety tfa full cost and expense incurred in so
doing.
5. Enc era c n:ne n[ permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office
of the City Engineer 1110, to start of any work within the public right.
of -stay, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with
the regulations contained therein. Non - compliance may result in stopping
of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided.
6. Public right -of -,ray inprovement work required shall be constructed in
conformance with approved Improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and
Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. Construction shall
Inclw:e any transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for
drainage or public safety.
`5`a
n
u
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
7. Mork done within existing streets sMll be diligently pursued to comple-
tion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work in the
event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and
expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful
means.
B. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or re-
moval of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with
the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner
of the water system.
9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and
other debris from the public right -of -way resulting from work done an the
adjacent property or within said right -of -way. -
10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the
Community Development Director.
11, The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee
c- oletion of the terns of this agreement shall he subject to the approval
of the City Attorney. The principal amount of said improvement security
shall be not less than the amount shown below:
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUMMED;
Faithful performance Bond tea onn an
Material and Labor Bond tat con on
• IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly
executed and acknowledged with all formalitias required by law an the dates
set forth opposite their signatures:
///��— BE
j.G /`/
BY: DATE:
-fee a er Exec�ve v.ce PreeTdS1R
B'f:r_- &,•'L�LIf DATE:
—Char o p%yp :; !(-a sysEaRF Sgt'Y2 [SYp
WITNESS: .Y� " ; ^7 e DATE: ED -e -el
ave ra y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA, CALIFORNIA
C7
a municipal corporation
san ar tuu0range
}"
ta.m. or_ob_
October A 1981 a.rw. ..w. n. „wr.y.w.
CLERK
o„
Wade Cable
_
"Ex VL Cherlocee Yeear
AS., [a at _wrr. nr ei .. ..... rN rM .limn ro,rrrm.nr.
<xaXa,SeX�Gi:
.^.
ul^Yy.+s9epn.
A�..� .................r..a ... _ // 00NI4 `.f FOIVLui
'm/r
•e•••�•
�"�N
V f �. [ me 1. If ^a '
m�a
•.65 .r �M. -n e. i . DDOO
i
D,r M. li wl.r
•
.." I.
C7
CI:': OP N ', ::P.O 0:;D OTM
CCIDACTITIOn EC!1 ]O:A ESCNEDUL
E:(ttacto PERMIT PEE SCopy")_
(Attach co ••xnzrec co is Copy")
GATE: 10 /5 /e1 PERMIT 30, COM PUTED BY 8. Kral!
File Reference D,R. 79 -06 City Drawing No.s ThfO
NOTE: Wes net inexude current fee for writing peenie oc pavement replace-
..., depoeica.
CONSTRUCTION COST EST ME
t-r,,
OG.AYRTY
I VITT
I V
4.355.00
n., - I,° :- r
63,000.00
I I
S
63,000.00
* .,C. rn h - All r s.
610
1 *... y.
8.00
2.960.00
4 BO.CO
n C.F.
L. F.
MON=T.NTATION BOND (C \Sip
0
A.C. gam 19::)0`n(nl
I L. F.
I" o,G r. Sidr•:al'a
.1. F.
2.00
.0
V mile 4 ?rh
S. F.
°. f.. f.. t'ren< rnttcr Spandrei
1
77— .
•U
Screer :: rarfan
1
C.Y.
IraS2ehan:aent
C.Y.
Pa noon nF Bu6:rade
rcllll
B.F.
=(9100
A.C. fLtXM
0
TON
to 130
A. C.. f900 to ❑00 mrsl
I
TON
1
r. 9
�� ,
I
TON
C. r. nn
TON
Pntrh A.C. RrenrM
I
S.F.
•' Cnick Ad. R—lav
—q. F.
ddlusr e r C.O. to Crade
I
Fl4
G.
Adinar • salves t0 trade
EA.
I ..... .
F.\.
S1r111 S -
EA.
.w
street T
I
,A.
Wheel Chav an s
r I
Red'n0O Mea er
I 40
LT.
60.00
I
F
55.00
4 400.00
In" R.C.P.
Inlet aoron
=1
1
1
I
L
COYSTRUMON COST
58.fi45.00
CONTINGENCY COSTS
4.355.00
TOTAL CONSIRUCT105 COSTS
63,000.00
FAITNrCL PERFORMANCE BOND (100°)
63,000.00
IAftOR AND `LATERIAL BOND (50])
31,500.00
E::CINECR/NC ISSPFCTICN FEE
2.960.00
(FEE SCHEDULE)
MON=T.NTATION BOND (C \Sip
0
•
q't
Bond No, 4164827
• eie: 5670.00
Executed in Triplicate
FAITIUML PERFOP.M1ICt OOIIO
MICMIS, the City Council of the City of Reecho Cucamonga,
State or' California, and FREDRICKS OEVELOPMENT CORVORATIO4
(hereinafter designated as "principal ") have entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated October 81h 19 el „ and identified as
protect Own Hin nl - n R 79 -06 MC 19th Street and Ramona
is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and,
1.'H-AEAS, said principal is required under the terns of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement. '
NO:4, TNEVPFORE, we the principal and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMFRI CA , as surety, or -- a held an8-
firnly Louna unto the Cnty of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter called
"City"), in the penal sum of sixty-three thousand and 001100--------- - --
Sollars IS 63 000 lawru
money of the Unite States, for the payment a whit sum well and
truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu-
tors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above
•
bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide
by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, condi-
tior6 and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration
thereof Dada as therein provided, on his or their part, to be
kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein Spec-
ified, and in all respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indemnify and Save harmless City, its officers,
agents add employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation
shall beccae null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
to face amount specified therefor, there shall be included
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
toraey's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
pbilgatio n, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment
rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, ex-
eensinn of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the
anr ^.^.nent or to the wor!: to be oprforned thereunder o: the spec -
icOtione accompanying Lhe same shall in anywise affect its
01)11- atinn; on thin bond, and iL does hereby waive notice of any
such rho ngp, extoOr,non of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications.
I:1 Wr T::IIOS WHSRWV, this inatrumnnt has been duly executed
by the principal and surety above named, on OCTOBER 8th
19 81 .
FREORIC (a✓✓(R�� L���,,,,}; jT CORPORATION
ey:y_i( LIGI�
A e Ca b, e, %ccu ry i e Pres.
by.: �rr11LCLC /< F3r�
cr,
C a[lo Cte Y� ec �e Fa "ty
SAFECO INSURAUCCCCCC�WTANY OF AMERICA
OY�ny,
A�arneY n• att
RCEt7 n
Vj1
Bond No. 4164827
Executed in Triplicate
Premium included in that
on performance bond.
LABOR AND MATERIALMEN BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT N
(hereinafter designated me pr ano'pal ) eve entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated October 8th , 1981 , and identified as pro-
ject ad Ramina _
is hereby re errs to ar. s ma e a pact eree an ,
WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is re-
quired before entering upon the performance of the work, to file
a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15
(commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
Civil Code of the State of California. -
NON, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a
corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material -
men and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure
in the sum of thirty -one thousand, five hundred and 00 /100--------- - -- ----
--------------- ------ °----'-'---- Do lar9 B r Or materla
under
kind, or ar amounts due
uzn'sned of ahoy t ereon of any
the unemployment Insurance Ant with respect to such work or labor,
that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the
amount hersinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought
upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof,
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed
as costs and re be included in the judgment therein rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond
shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and
corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 Commencing
With Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so
as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit
brought upon this band.
Should the condition of this bond be fully perforred, then
this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall le
and remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, ex-
tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said
agrnemcnt or the specifications accompanying the samo shall in
any manner affect its obligatiorm on this bond, and it does here-
by waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration or ad-
dition.
IP WITNESS IillrPTOF, this instrument has been duly executed
by the principal and surety above named, on October 8th
19 81
FREnRICS 11 C OPMENT OR� PORITIOB
By. jca c (�xoc. v ce Preaid�
1. /�dttiis� c
C a[lc
It Ygao [, �cgig i[y
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF t4JERICA
�(
J I
Igry h. ny, Att .ey - Fatt
sOEi4 By: ��
Is
•
•
i
hi.
111v / 1 n J ).111}1 1111 ♦ un \,n
- STAFF REPORT
r
g
DATE: October 21, 1981
o c
TO: City Council and City Manager
U U �
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer rm7
SUBJECT: Consent Calendar, Release of Bonds
Tract 9440 - Located on the west side of Hermosa, north of Banyan
OWNER: Crismar Development Corp.
2120 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90406
Release Road Maintenance Guarantee Bond $6,402.48
The road improvements for Tract 9440 are in an acceptable condition at this
time and it is recommended that the Maintenance Guarantee Bond be released.
Tract 9434 - Located on the south side of 19th Street, east of Haven Avenue
OWNER: Chevron Construction Co.
2120 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90406
Release Road Maintenance Guarantee Bond $6,400.00
The road improvements for Tract 9434 are in an acceptable condition at this
time and it is recommended that the Maintenance Guarantee Bond be released.
Tract 9617 - Located southerly of Foothill Blvd., west of Hellman Avenue
OWNER: M. J. Brock 6 Sons, Inc.
6767 Forest Lawn Drive
Los Angeles, California 90068
Release Monumentation Bond $2,650.00
Certification from Thomas 0. McCuthan, Engineer indicates that all final
monuments have been set and they have been paid in full.
Parcel Map 5157 - Located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street)
OWNER: John 0. Lusk 8 Son
17550 Gillette Avenue
Irvine, California 92713
Release Monumentation Bond
1 7
$3,250.00
•
v MEMORANDUM V
October 14, 1981
To: City Council - City Manager
From: Finance Directo
Subject: Quarterly Financial Report
Please find attached a copy of the First Quarter Financial Report for fiscal
year 1981 -82.
The General Fund is experiencing a serious lack of revenue support for the
expenditures incurred. As a result of the first three months of activity,
the General Fund is in a deficit situation by $349,960. The deficit can be
reduced, however, by transferring into the General Fund, $207,256 of Revenue
Sharing and the available fund balance in the Central Services Fund of
$167,458.
An interesting note is that there has been only one month out of the first
three that produced more revenue in the General Fund than was expended.
This whole process has put a severe strain on cash flow, as more often than
not, the General Fund supports the activities of other Funds until these
other Funds have had a chance to catch up. If it weren't for the cash from
Reserves, we may be in a borrowing situation. As a result, it has been
necessary to freeze the use of Reserves until the General Fund has had a
chance to recover.
As things stand right now cash in Reserves has had to support deficits in
the following funds:
General Fund:
Capital Reserve:
Special Districts:
Short Fall In Motor
Vehicle in Lieu:
$(349,960)
(272,649)
( 8,263)
(128,809)
$ 759,681
We have all been aware of the effects of SD 102. This is the Bill that
eliminated Financial Aid to Local Agencies (FALA) ($55,000); Liquor License
Fees ($25,000); and Highway Carrier in Lieu Fees ($14,000). Also SB 102
reduced the amount of Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees that we will receive and
that amount has just been made available. For Rancho Cucamonga it is $128,809•
This coupled with the permanent elimination of the above mentioned revenues,
and a total slow down in building activity, has essentially forced a turn
around in what otherwise has been a very healthy General Fund.
Some of our fee related funds are showing signs of erosion due to the lack of
building activity, i.e., the Storm Drain Fund.
0 I The Capital Reserve Fund is $272,649 down, however, it is anticipated that
-I
Quarterly Financial Report
Page Two
October 14, 1981
by the January 15, deadline for payment to the County, that this Fund, will
in effect, have the necessary $750,000. This will necessitate transferring
from Reserves approximately 100 -300 thousand dollars.
Recommendation;
Fund 55 (Central Services) deactivated and the fund balance of $167,458
transferred to the General Fund.
Also fund balances from the Traffic Safety Fund ($15,815) and Revenue Sharing
($207,256) be transferred to the General Fund. This will, for now, eradicate
the deficit situation in the General Fund.
In addition, $128,809 should be transferred to the General Fund from Reserves
to counter the Short Fall in Motor in Lieu Fees.
MJE:mk
1?
E
•
•
.. Y'
TAXES
Property Taxes - Current
Property Taxes - Prior Year
Penalties & Interest
Other Property- Related Taxes
Total Taxes
LICENSES b PERMITS
Business Licenses
Non - Business Licenses
Building Permits
Other Permits
Total Licenses b Permits
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Sales b Use Tax
Motor Vehicle In Lieu
Other Intergov'tal Revenues
Federal Grants
State Grants
a Total Intergov'tal Revenue
-,CHARGES FOR SERVICES
General Government
Public Safety
Recreation
Total Charges for Svcs.
FINES b FORFEITS
Fines
Forfeitures
Total Fines b Forfeitures
MISCELLANEOUS
Interest
Rents 6 Leases
Other Revenue
Total Miscellaneous
TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUE
Y.T.D.: Year -To -Date
INTERIM STATEMENT
OF ACT* AND
ESTIMATED REVENUE
•
Total 1991182
Sept. 1991/82
Y.T.D.
Act.
Nnrralizrd
Y.T.D. Actual
Rev. as a % of
Est. Rev.
Art.
Rev,
Revenue
Revenue
Est. Rev.
$ 774,160
$
-0-
$
-0-
$ 774,160
-0-
29,950
-0-
9,592
19,358
33.14
1,000
-0-
-0-
1,000
-0-
634,544
6,638
29,268
605,276
4.62
$1,438,654
$
6,638
$
38,860
$1,399,794
2.71
$ 190,000
$
5,138
$
15,222
$ 174,778
8.02
16,900
15
16,506
394
97.67
484,000
24,937
57,336
426,664
11.85
1,000
115
175
825
17.50
$ 691,900
$
30,205
$
89,239
$ 602,661
12.90
$1,589,596
$
259,435
$
481,033
$1,109,563
30.27
961,620
66,790
259,909
701,711
27.03
1,549,517
36,103
151,204
1,398,313
9.76
560,239
151,132
260,875
299,364
46.57
275,777
992
5,700
270,077
2.07
$4,936,749
$
514,452
$1,158,721
$3,778,028
23.48
$ 622,193
$
37,965
$
193,100
$ 429,093
31.04
1,075,000
160,634
198,266
876,734
18.45
52,635
19,487
28,706
23,929
54.54
$1,749,828
$
218,086
$
420,072
$1,329,756
24.01
$ 96,500
$
91101
$
26,700
$ 69,800
27.67
13,500
598
1,709
11,791
12.66
$ 110,000
$
9,699
$
28,409
$ 81,591
25.83
$ 340,360
$
83,809
$
184,821
$ 155,539
54.31
3,564
285
855
2,709
23.99
18,345
779
1,617
16,728
8.82
$ 362,269
$
84,873
$
187,293
1 $ 174,976
51.70
$9,289,400
$
863,953
$1,922,594
$7,366,806
20.70
• INTERIM STATERENT OF
ACTUAL EATED
•
AND
EXPENDITURES
- GENERAL
FUND
Total 1981/82
Total Y.T.D.
Y.T.D. Exp. 6
Appropriations
_�PL,1981/B2
Outstanding
Expenditures 6
Unemcumbered
Enc. as a X of
(Revised)
Expendicures
Encumbrances
Encumbrances
Balance
Appropriations
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Legislative
Personnel Services
$ 14,400
3,231
-0-
3,231
11,169
22.44
Supplies
9,889
1,221
394
1,615
8,274
16.34
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Capital Outlay
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Total Legislative
$ 24,289
4,452
394
4,846
19,443
19.96
Administrative
Personnel Services
$ 147,570
36,096
-0-
36,096
91,482
24.46
Supplies
62,945
9,214
5BB
9,802
53,143
15.58
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
47,704
13,128
-0-
13,128
34,576
27.52
Capital Outlay
1,450
-0-
1;361
1.361
89
93.87
Total Administrative
$ 259,669
58,438
1,949
60,387
199,282
23.26
Finance
Personnel Services
$ 152,074
37,708
-0-
37,708
114,366
24.80
Supplies
69,400
13,252
425
13,677
55,723
19.71
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
So,903
13,530
-0-
13,510
43,393
23.75
Capital Outlay
9,460
-0-
4,823
4.823
4,637
50.99
Total Finance
$ 2R7,837
64,470
5,248
69,718
218,119
24.23
City Facilities
Supplies
$ 147,757
53,605
1,046
54,651
93,106
36.99
Capital Outlay
572 060
-0-
750,000
750y 00
177 940
131.11
Total City Facilities
$ 719,817
53,605
751,046
904,651
(84,834)
111.79
Non - Departmental
Supplies S Services
$ 875,366
105,691
-0-
105,691
769,675
12.08
TOTAL GENERAL GOVT
$2,166,978
286,656
758,637
1,045,293
1,121,685
48.24
• INTERIM STATEMENT OF
ACTUAL
ESATED
•
AND
EXPENDITURES
- GENERAL
FUND
Total 1981/82
Total Y.T.D.
Y.T.D. Exp. 6
Appropriations
Sep_ 1981/84
Outstanding
Expenditures 6
Unemcumbered
Enc, as a % of
(Revised)
Expenditures
Encumbrances
Encumbrances
Balance
Appropriations
PUBLIC SAFETY
Personnel Services
$ 91,879
18,141
-0-
18,141
73,738
19.75
Supplies
2,423,575
752,378
9,268
761,646
1,661,929
31.43
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
687,228
198,784
-0-
198,794
488,434
28.93
Capital Outlay
88,783
-0-
-0-
-0-
88,783
-0-
Total Public Safety
$ 3,291,435
969,313
9,268
978,581
2,312,854
23.70
PUBLIC WORKS
Personnel Services
$ 777,196
183,973
-0-
183,973
593,223
23.68
Supplies
1,006,809
224,588
30,488
255,076
751,733
25.34
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
1,068,166
211,551
-0-
211,551
856,615
19.81
Capital Outlay
2,4D7,410
412,759
43,733
456,492
1,950,918
18.97
Total Public Works
$ 5,259,581
1,032,871
74,221
1,107,092
4,152,489
21.05
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-� Personnel Services
$ 781,925
177,083
-0-
177,083
604,842
22.65
Supplies
94,886
28,446
9,543
37,989
56,897
40.04
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
224,924
52,592
-0-
52,592
172,332
23.55
Capital Outlay
5.780
-0-
1,119
1,119
4,661
19.36
Total Cam. Dev.
$ 11307,515
258,121
10,662
268,783
838,732
24.27
CULTURE - RECREATION
Personnel Services
$ 218,896
55,702
-0-
55,702
163,194
25.45
Supplies
88,735
18,967
11165
20,132
68,603
22.69
Other Svcs. 6 Charges
186,470
17,889
-0-
17,889
166,581
9.60
Capital Outlay
424,064
1,930
_0-
1,930
422,134
.46
Total Culture - Rec.
$ 918,165
94,488.
1,165
95,653
822,512
10.42
Total Service Centers
$10,576,696
2,354,793
95,316
2,450,109
8,126,587
23.17
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS
* There is an unallocated reserve of $1,320,185 in the General Fund.
** Park Development Fund. $121,018 received as a result of the sale of part of the park property. The amount received
is restricted to the development of Heritage Park.
* ** Central Services Fund to be deleted and fund balance transferred to the General Fund.
ESTIMATED
ENCUMBRANCES
ESTIMATED
BALANCE
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
AS OF
BALANCE
FUND
7 -) -8)
MM SEP
TRANSFER IN
TRANSFER OUT
MM SFP
9 -30 -81
9 -30 -81
General
*$ -0-
$1,339,285
$ 153,262
$ 86,3D8
$1,702,505
$ 53,694
$(349,960)
Traffic Safety
15,815
26,699
-0-
7,243
-0-
-0-
350271
Gas Tax
168,640
102,384
-0-
1,348
6,987
-0-
262,669
Article 8 S.B. 325
531,004
2,208
-0-
1,941
101,660
5.217
424,394
Recreation
37,154
22,082
-0-
-0-
23,339
2,457
33,440
Benefice Contingent
42,343
-0-
5,073
-0-
-0-
-O-
47,416
Capital Replacement
169,758
-0-
5,835
-0-
11,266
-0-
164,327
Revenue Sharing
207,256
99,068
-0-
99,068
-0-
-0-
207,256
Insurance
58,918
-0-
27,812
-0-
45,660
493
40,577
�. Capital Reserves
429,763
-0-
47,588
-0-
-0-
750,000
(272,649)
,J Park Development
216,698
* *124,921
-0-
-D-
1,803
-0-
341,816
Beautification
117,760
5,160
-0-
-0-
789
-0-
122,131
Systems Development
439,223
28,428
-0-
1,980
12,928
-0-
452,743
Storm Drain
236,989
27,866
-0-
36,182
259,740
1,431
( 32,498)
F A U
-0-
130,181
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
130,181
Grants
( 19,927)
32,616
-0-
-0-
30,706
-0-
( 18,017)
Central Service
* *x167,458
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
167,458
Special Assess. District
17,971
-O-
-n-
5.500
20.f86
-0-
( 8.263)
TOTAL
$2,838,775
$1,940,898
$ 239,570
$ 239,570
$2,218,069
$ 813,292
$1,748,312
* There is an unallocated reserve of $1,320,185 in the General Fund.
** Park Development Fund. $121,018 received as a result of the sale of part of the park property. The amount received
is restricted to the development of Heritage Park.
* ** Central Services Fund to be deleted and fund balance transferred to the General Fund.
•
TOTAL AMOUNT INVESTED $5,946,976.01
AVERAGE C.D. RATE /INVESTMENT ON $100,000.00 16.79047.
a FLOATS AT 1.3752 BELOW PRIME
1D L/
cny OF PANCHO CUC
INVESlMENr SCHEDULE
—%Qpt---3Or
ioal
Locations of Investnent
Type
Amount
Pexcentage rate
11 State S/L
C.D.
$ 100,000.00
18.750
Bank of America
Savings
1,126,011.68
5.5
C.D.
700,000.00
16.875
C.D.
100,000.00
17.00
C.D.
200,000.00
16.75
C.D.
100,000.00
16.25
C.D.
100,000.00
15.50
C.D.
100,000.00
15.00
Central Federal Savings
C.D.
100,000.00
18.875
Chino Valley Bank
C.D.
100,000.00
17.50
Far West Savings
C. 1).
100,000.00
19.00
Fidelity Federal S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
19.00
First Interstate Bank
Savings /C.D.
1,012,124.70
17.00
First Interstate Bank
C.D.
300,000.00
17.10
Foothill Independent Bank
C.D.
100,000.00
13.50
Foothill Independent Bank
C.D.
100,000.00
16.375
Glendale Federal S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
17.50
Glendale Federal S/L
Def. Comp.
108,839.63
16.750
Great Western Savings
C.D.
100,000.00
17.00
Great Western Savings
C.D.
100,000.00
16.75
Imperial S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
17.00
Monterey Park Nat, Bank
C.D.
100,000.00
• 17.625
Pacific Federal S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
18.75
Pacific Federal S/L
C.D.
200,000.00
19.25
cific Federal S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
19.00
rogressive Fed. S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
17.00
Republic Fed. S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
17.50
San Diego Fed. S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
18.75
Sierra S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
18.825
Southwest S/L
C.D.
100,000.00
14.25
•
TOTAL AMOUNT INVESTED $5,946,976.01
AVERAGE C.D. RATE /INVESTMENT ON $100,000.00 16.79047.
a FLOATS AT 1.3752 BELOW PRIME
1D L/
•
a
`a
CITY OF RANK}IO CUCAMQNQI �pC�Ir_AAJO c
STAFF REPORT '
r
DATE: October 21, 1981 l a z
>
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager U 1977
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary
SUBJECT: ENT VI RO O -12 AMOE ANNED D DEVELOPMENT NO 80
663 L ROUGH DEVELOP OROA -
- A Tota
development of 383 town ouses on 40 acres in the R 2 zone,
located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side
of Church, west side of Ramona - APN 1077- 341 -01, 1077-
133-08, and 1077- 631 -03.
At Council's direction this item was referred back to the Planning
commission with the concurrence of the developer, the Marlborough
Corporation. In the meantime, several meetings have taken place
with staff, the homeowners and representatives of Marlborough to
discuss alternatives that could mitigate the neighborhood concerns.
As a result of those meetings modifications have been worked out
with the developer which would alleviate the homeowners' concerns.
The Planning Commission met on October 14, 1981 and adopted Reso-
lution No. 81 -124 which contains modifications that address the
concerns raised. The neighborhood representatives were present
at the Planning Commission meeting and no objections were raised.
RECO14MENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council proceed
with the second reading of Ordinance No. 153, adopting the zone
change.
Re pectful y slbbmiittteeddl,
JackanY,, R"[CP
Cmmmunity Development Director
JL:JK:jk
Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report - 10/14/81
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81 -124
Site Plan and Phasing Map
c c
ORDINANCE NO. 16'.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
1077- 341 -01, 1077- 133 -08, AND 1077- 631 -03, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD, SOUTH SIDE OF
CHURCH AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA, CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES, FROM R -2 TO R- 2 -P.D.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
following a public hearing held in the time and manner
prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property
hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a
public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law
as duly heard and considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
1077- 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08, and 1077- 631 -03, generally located
on the east side of Archibald, south side of Church and on the
west side of Ramona, consisting of approximately 40 acres,
from R -2 to R- 2 -P.O.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shat cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and
ADOPTED this
day of 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
'�
ABSENT:
0
•
•
C
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 14, 1981
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -12
TT 11663 MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A total
development of 393 townhouses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone,
located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side
of Church, west side of Ramona - APN 1077- 341 -01, 1077-
133-08 and 1077- 631 -03.
BACKGROUND: The City Council, with the concurrence of Marlborough
Development Corporation, referred the Marlborough project back to the
Planning Commission to consider alternative design modifications that
concerned residents and Marlborough might develop. Further, the Coun-
cil continued the zone change until October 21, 1981, to enable the
Commission to review and act upon such alternatives prior to finalizing
the zone change.
Staff and the homeowners group net with representatives of Marlborough
at numerous meetings to try and develop alternatives that could miti-
gate the concerns of the neighborhood. The following summarizes the
neighborhood concerns:
1. The desire for the Ramona frontage to have as similar an ap-
pearance as possible with the single - family scale across the
street.
2. The desire for the major Ramona access road to be rerouted
in such a way that less traffic will utilize Ramona to en-
ter the project.
3. A reduction in the number of units especially in the area
closest to the Ramona frontage.
4. Encourage the use of the Archibald access and further disuade
traffic from utilizing Ramona.
5. Phase the project with construction occuring first along
Ramona so that subsequent construction would have less of
an effect on the existing neighborhood.
6. Provisions be made to assure the opportunity of school child-
ren to have access through the project enroute to school.
7. Completion of all the street improvements along Ramona as
part of the first phase.
' ITEM K
October 13, 1981
Marlborough - PD 80 -12 (TT 11663)
Page Two
r �
As a result of the numerous meetings Marlborough has submitted for your
review a revised plan. The project has been totally re- engineered on
the Ramona half. Marlborough proposes the elimination of 20 units
along the Ramona frontage and has deleted the major Ramona access road
and rerouted the street up to Church, the effect being that there will
be no major entry to the project from Ramona. Any major access will
be from Church and Archibald and because of the requirement of a traffic
signal on the Archibald access, it will be more convenient for traffic
to go on to Archibald than Ramona. Furthermore, the design now re-
flects a unit type that is more closely associated with the single -
family residences on the other side of the street. The four -plex and
six -plex units of the original single -story design along Ramona have
been deleted and replaced by a unique duplex unit. This results in
a density along the Ramona frontage approximating the single - family
density across the street. To add further to the single - family cha-
racter, a number of driveways have been introduced into the project.
These driveways are intended to add an element associated with single -
family but yet are few enough that these would not significantly de-
tract from the project nor cause any safety hazards. Please notice
that the duplex units are laid out in such a way that access from one
of the units is from Ramona while the other one is from the project
side. All units along the Ramona frontage have floor plans designed
in such a way that the main living areas are along Ramona. In other
words, the units all "front" Ramona. The residents felt that would •
not only give a greater measure of single - family character but also
promote a better sense of security.
The developer has deleted the number of units that were originally
planned for the long -term future on the retention basin south of the
project. The developer has also agreed to provide access through the
project as a route to school and will coordinate this with the Central
School District. Further, the developer has agreed to change the
phasing of the project so that the Ramona frontage will be built
prior to any other phases of the project. It must be understood,
however, that the entire frontage units cannot be constructed all at
once but that the phasing will move up from the southern end to the
northern end. The street improvements, however, will all be placed
at the same time.
The Design Review Committee met to review the site plan modifications
that were made as a result of the discussions with surrounding residents.
Upon review of the plan, the Committee recommended the following
changes in the plan:
Reduce the main roadway, with the median island, to 16 or
17 -foot travel lanes.
2, Eliminate parking on the main roadway that contains the
median island.
•
�i
•
October 13, 1981
Marlborough - PD 80 -12 (TT 11663)
Page Three
3. Reduce the 36 -foot interior street to 26 feet and provide
pockets of parallel parking where appropriate.
4. Alter the tot lot areas to provide better secured play
areas and better continuity with other recreation areas
and open space. In the Committee's opinion, this will
necessitate the elimination of approximately ten (10)
dwelling units.
5. Redesign the roof on garages facing Ramona, to eliminate the
flat look.
The developer has submitted a revised site plan in response to the
Design Review Committee comments. The revised plan does not fully
address the following items:
1. Parking is still shown along the main roadway. The ORD
recommended complete elimination.
2. The tot lot areas, recreation and open space areas have been
redesigned to provide better continuity, and the additional
ten units have been deleted.
• Staff and the Design Review Committee strongly recommends that these
two items be incorporated in any Commission approval.
SUMMARY: The total effect of the changes if adopted would be:
1. Deletion of 30 units from the original plan.
2. Shifting of densities off of the Ramona frontage so that
the frontage now approximates the density of the single -
family homes across the street. Furthermore, units have
been designed as much as possible to give the scale and cha-
racter of a single - family neighborhood and all access has
been rerouted to collectors other than Ramona. These major
shifts have also resulted in other shifts internal to the
project both described in this report and the plan itself.
REC- INE,'IDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission
re�ci,)nsider the original approval of the Marlborough project and approve
modifications recommended by staff and the Design Review Committee.
Staff has worked closely with the neighborhood representatives and
feels these modifications would do a great deal to alleviate the
concerns of the residents. New conditions and additions, stating
modifications are attached for your consideration. If the Planning
Commission concurs, these new conditions must be adopted and added
to the Resolution of Approval.
• Reslpec ulhy Ilsu I
td,
�I�115� L /l
-JACk LAM, AIC
Community Development Director
Attachment: Resolution of Approval ,
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -70
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE •
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11663
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11663, hereinafter "Map"
submitted by Marlborough Development, applicant, for the purpose of
subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a subdivision
for a total development of 413 townhouses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone,
located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side of Church, west
side of Ramona - APN 1077- 133 -08, and 1077- 631 -03 into 437 lots, regularly
came before the Planning Commission for public hearing an on June 10,
1931, and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning
Divisions reports; and ,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other
evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION I: The Planning Commission makes the following findings •
in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11663 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable
interim and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to
humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public
health problems;
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with
any easement acquired by the public at large, now of
record, for access through or use of the property within
the proposed subdivision.
•
Page 2
• (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and a Negative Declaration is issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11663, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. Site and Landscape Plans shall be revised to provide
an adequate landscape buffer along the westerly boundaries
of the project adjacent to existing school and apartment
complex. Such revisions shall be subject to approval by
both the City Planner and the Foothill Fire District,
prior to final map recordation.
2. A continuous looped pedestrian walkway shall be provided
along all interior boundaries of the project.
3. A minimum of six (6) permanent children play areas shall
be incorporated into the design of the project. Three (3)
of the areas shall be active areas with play equipment.
Precise location of such facilities shall be subject to
approval by the City Planner prior to final map recordation.
4. The temporary retention basin /play area shall be fenced
• with a 5' high wrought iron fencing, and its periphery
shall be heavily landscaped. A lawn or other appropriate
ground cover shall be installed and maintained within the
fenced area.
5. The design and intensity of architectural detailing of
all structures and patio walls shall be in substantial
compliance with submitted elevations.
6. CCLR's for this project shall be subject to approval by
the City Planner prior to recordation. Clear indication
of five lanes shall be included.
7. All units along the southern most property line shall
not exceed one -story in height.
8. Directories, identifying location of units and buildings
shall be provided at key positions within the development.
ENGINEERING DIVIS1071
9. A soils and geological study regarding the effect of
ground saturation due to the storm retention basin on
the foundation of the existing adjacent house and any
suggested mitigating measures shall be submitted to the
• City Engineer for review and approval prior to recordation
of the map.
10. An on -site and off -site drainage study for the project
shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior •
to recordation of the map. After review of the study,
the City Engineer reserves the right to determine requirements
of construction, reconstruction or alteration of on -site
storm drainage system to his satisfaction.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 1981.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY /O.F( RANCHO CUCAMONGA
�Richard Dahl, /Chahaaiinna
ATTEST: ��l/ 1,6 j��/,�/ �
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning •
Commission held on the 10th day of June, 1981 by the following vote to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
•
r
C !
Mr. Hogan asked if that is relative to additional parking.
• Commissioner Tolstoy replied that is what he had in mind.
Motion:- Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 81 -68 and the environmental assessment on this project.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that
the Planning Commission review the current standards for cul -de -sacs
within the City.
Commissioner King stated that earlier he said he wanted a study done
on parking and would like aesthetics of cul -de -sacs examined also, especially
off of streets like Sapphire.
• * f *
8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
E. ENVIRONNiNTAL ASSESSMEIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11663 - (P.D. 80 -12) -
MARLBOROCGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A total development of 413
townhooses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone, located on the east side
of Archibald, on the south side of Church, west side of Ramona -
APN 1077 - 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08, and 1077 - 631 -03.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He recommended
a change to Condition No. 1 on page 2 of the Resolution relative to
landscaping because he felt that this could be worked out with the
developer.
Commissioner Sceranka asked what the General Plan designation for this
area is.
Mr. Vairin replied that it is medium - density with 4 -14 dwelling units per
acre and the proposed project is proposed to be 10.8 dwelling units per
acre.
Commissioner Sceranka asked what the density is to the east of this project.
Mr. Vairin replied that they are betwe n 3.25 and 4 dwelling units per
acre.
C,:r::gi. ;sinner Sceranka stated that he would like to see more consistency
whcri thoro are multiple i,unily units and that there should be no more
than a one -story units next to single family hnmes. fie indicated that
he would like to see a policy where the Commission dues not encourage
mare than one -story units bordering single family homes and stated that
this is a privacy and security issue.
• Planning Commission `ltnutes -6- June 10, 1981
c c
Chairman Dahl stated that this type of precedent was set with the project
at Hellman and Foothill. He then asked if a condition had been included •
for a children's play area in the project.
Mr. Vairin replied that they will be required to show this in the final
landscape plans.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the roof the was traditional or flat.
Mr. Vairin stated that he would let the architect reply.
Comnissioner Tolstoy asked what the standards are for sound proofing in
a project such as this.
Mr. Vairin replied that they would have to meet the Building Code requirement
and that he was unable to provide that information.
Mr. Lam stated that the Uniform Building Code requirements would have to
be met at the time of plan check.
Commissioner King asked if the developer intends to have totally along
the perimeter of the project an interconnecting or interlocking pedestrian
path, and especially around Ramona.
Mr. Vairin replied that this is a condition.
Hr. Paul B,vrnes, representing Marlborough Homes, stated that they did
not specifically address tot lot areas because they felt there were an •
adequate number of places within the complex to place tot lots -- they
anticipated having to put in 6 and the 3 requested by staff are well
under what they thought they would have to put in.
Commissioner Sceranka asked what Mr. Byrnes' definition of tot lot is.
Mr. Byrnes replied that it is a grass -lined area without a lot of play
equipment that may be fenced for security. He indicated that if the
tot lot was along a major street, it would be fencedt if it were along
the green belt, it would not be.
Co;-�missioner Sceranka stated that one of the trade -offs of higher density
adjacent to single family is the provision of parks that the single family
units may utilize and it is a fact that tot lots are necessary. Further,
that they should be positive and keep children from the street as much
as pocsibic.
Mr. Bvrnos stated lhnt he wan not sure that this is an issue because it
is a mnrkotina, cnncern and he had not had any input that tot lots are
desired. lie indicated that he did not have a problem in accepting this
condition and having swingsets. Further, that they are planning on 6
tut lots. Mr. Barnes stated that a perimeter wall was not considered
but was not sure at this time if it would be more desirable to put the
perimeter wall in front of or behind the walkwn,v because of the heavy
landscaping, that will be put in. He indicated that there would be no •
problem with this condition.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 10, 1981
C C
Mr. Byrnes stated that the roof tile is the traditional "S" type. He
indicated that they want a quality project and have wanted it from day
• one and that this will not be an inferior project. Mr. Byrnes provided
the price ranges of these units for the commission and the audience.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked that since Commissioner Sceranka brought up
one -story frontscape and since he was not on the Design Review Committee,
he would like clarification.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that on the south perimeter of the property
there would be a problem with these units.
Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Byrnes if he would have a problem with making
these units one - story.
Mr. Byrnes replied that he did not know and could not say.
Airs. Elaine Parnham, 8003 London, was opposed to this project because of
the increased densities. Further, that she did not want a two -story
building next to her home so that people could look into her back yard.
Mrs. Gay Lesch, 9913 Norwich, was opposed to this project because of
being told that single family homes would be built at the time that she
purchased her hone, also being told that there would be a park and she did
not want two -story units looking into her property. She indicated it
was her feeling that property values would deteriorate.
• Mr. Bill Butek, 7960 Perlite, asked what would be done to handle increased
traffic because it is difficult on Ramona now.
Mrs. Alvarado, who lives just across from this development on Ramona, was
opposed to the entire project and especially the two -story units.
Mrs. Mary Brite, 8021 Melvin, was opposed because of increased school
impacts and higher densities. She felt that traffic would be increased
and asked when the zone changed on this property.
Mr. Vairin replied that this zone was created prior to the City's incorporation.
Mr. Max Agate, 9911 Stafford, stated that when he purchased his property
he had been told that there would be a park area and single family homes.
fie indicated a concern of increased traffic. He asked why he had not been
notified by letter of this hearing.
Commissioner Sceranka asked that staff advise the audience of the notification
procedure.
A resident, of 8016 Pasero, stated that he did not want two -story units
looking info his back yard and was totally against this project. He
Indicated that the Mnrlharonch Development Company told lies to the
property owners relative to theit plans for this project.
• Plannln}� Commission "!inures -8- June 10, 1981
Mr. Oscar Jones, 7752 Ramona, was opposed to this project because of
the reasons stated by the other residents. •
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
lir. Byrnes stated that this property was always zoned R -2 and was that
way before the property owners purchased their homes. He indicated
that while he did not doubt that they might have been told that there
would be single family homes developed on this land, the statement that
it would he single family homes, was not authorized. Mr. Byrnes explained
that they would have to procure school letters before development can
commence. He indicated that this project will be completed in six
phases approximately 6 months apart.
Chairman Dahl stated that it was his understanding that the developer
is putting in a park site.
Mr. Byrnes replied that they are as part of this and another project
site near Turner and Church and that it would be approximately 7 acres
in size. He stated that this park will also serve existing residents of
the area.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the idea of the park probably came from
the Blavney Plan. As far as the rest, Design Review has done a good
job in reviewing the plan overall. He further stated that people are
saying that they don't want this density but that more efficient land
uses must be made. Mr. Hempel stated that if this were a single - family
development there would be nothing to prevent the homes from being two- •
story and that the applicant has stated that he would have single - family
along the south perimeter. Commissioner Hempel stated that there will
be no units built until there is a school letter and as far as property
values are concerned, a good condominium that is well maintained could
be like the units that are in Red Hill and he was in favor of this
project.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to be stronger than Commissioner
Hempel and would like to emphasize the condition of having one -story units
along the existing houses. He indicated that this will help their concern
and felt that this project would boost property values.
Commissioner T,,'.stoy asked Paul Rougeau to give some information on
traffic on Ramona Avenue.
Mr. Rougeau replied that he did not have any numbers available. He indicated
thnt this is a collector street and of adequate size to handle traffic.
There was discussion of the traffic and water drainage.
Commissioner Kin; stated that he agreed with the consensus on single - story
along the southern perimeter of the project and was concerned that there
is euou;th room to really add any children's play areas. He indicated
that he also wanted an access trail.
Planning. Commission Minutes -9- June 10, 1981 •
1 ;
0
L
i0
There was discussion of tot lots between the developer and the Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at some point in time the Commission
needs to define what a tot lot is and what they should contain.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to make a recommendation
as part of the condition of approval that this be a minimum of at least
three active lots and at least three others.
Chairman Dahl stated that he believed that the phasing and traffic was
well covered. He further stated that he did not feel that density of
10.8 was very much different than 7200 square foot lot sizes where you
are looking at 4 -5 dwellin., units per acre. He felt that the growth
management plan goes a long way in easing the impaction on schools and
added that the developer will be putting in a fully developed park at
Church and Turner. He stated that it is a good idea for prospective
buyers to check the zoning on surrounding property before they purchase
and thought that it should be a policy of the Planning Commission that
whenever a townhouse development abuts a single family tract, it should
be mitigated by single -story buildings.
Commissioner Rempel thought that even if it was necessary to eliminate
one or two units, there should be provisions not only for tot lots but
for areas for adults to enjoy as well.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that one reason there seems to be a traffic
problem is because the streets are not at full width. He indicated that
when they are fully developed, they will help the traffic problem. He
indicated that the project would not he approved if the street would not
be improved. He did not feel that this project would depreciate property
values.
Commi;sioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see the CCSR's state
where the fire lanes are and that they cannot be encroached upon. He
indicated that he would be in favor of a homeowner association and also
a badninton court. He indicated that he would rather see a turf block
situation in this project because when there is open space you are always
afraid that the fire lanes will be blocked.
Mo [Son: Moved by Scoranl:n, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 81 -69 to change the zone from R -2 to P.D.
Motion: Moved by Scernnka, seconded by Rempel,
adopt Resolution No. 81 -70, approving Tentative
nmendr,ont to remove the 10 -foot landscaping and
,areas he contained within the projects 3 active
Planning Commission Minutes -10-
I,
carried unanimously, to
Tract No. 11663 with an
that a minimum of 6 play
with play yard equipment
June 10, 1981
in the north, west and east areas. Further, that there be only single -
story units on the south side of the project abutting single family
residences and that fire access not be encroached upon. The project
should also contain a directory board to be located at the clubhouse.
9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
9:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -10 - VICTOR D. EASON - Interim use of
the business office located at 9513 Business Center Drive, Suite J,
for the Foursquare Gospel Church in Rancho Cucamonga.
City Planner, Barry Mogan, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner King asked relative to Conditions Section 2, No. 2, was it
fair to restrict the times that they can do business and felt that this
could be amended.
Mr, licpson replied that the condition is somewhat ambiguous and does not
mean what it implies.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the first part of the sentence could
be strikes.
Commissioner King replied that this would be acceptable. •
Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing.
Mr. Victor Eason, 6635 Masada, the applicant, stated that this is a
subsidiary of the Four Square Church and that they would hope to locate
within the Etiwanda area in two years.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sreranka, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 81 -71 with the change to Item 2 in Section 2 of the
Resolution.
H. E1:111R0iJ!ENTAL ASSES ffi4ENT ARD DEVET,nPP1!:NT RP.VT6W NO. 81 -11 - DEASoN
The dev,•lopmonc of a 17,860 square lout professional office complex
.ind o 4050 sgnue toot restaurant building on 1.84 acres of land
in the A -P zone located on the west side of Archibald Avenue approximately
150 feet south of Devon Street - APN 208 - 801 -39 6 40.
Miehnrl pnirin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
•
Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 10, 1981
ii -
• RESOLUTION NO. 81 -124
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITION-
ALLY APPROVING REVISED SITE PLAN FOR PLANNED DE-
VELOPMENT NO. 80 -12 (MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION /TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11663)
WHEREAS, the site plan for Planned Development No. 80 -12
(Tentative Tract No. 11663) has been approved by the Planning Commission
by Resolution No. 81 -70; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Marlborough Development Corporation
has agreed to refer the original submission back to the Planning Commission
to consider alternative modifications that would help mitigate neighborhood
concerns; and
WHEREAS, City Staff, representatives of the neighborhood
group, and Marlborough Development Corporation have met and discussed
various design alternatives to do the same; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all
reports and evidence presented at the public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes all the findings
contained in Section 1 of Resolution No. 81 -70.
SECTION 2: The Planning Commission approves the modified site
plan for Planned Development No. 80 -12 (Tentative Tract No. 11663) a
copy of which is attached hereto subject to all the following conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolution No. 81 -70 shall become
conditions of Resolution No. 81 -124. Wherein those
conditions that may conflict, Resolution No. 81 -124
shall take precedence.
2. Marlborough Development Corporation shall work
closely with the Central School District to provide
the proper route to school access through Planned
Development No. 80 -12, and shall be included in
CCY.R's,
3. All elevations and design of units along the Ramona
frontage shall be as per the revised elevations sub-
mitted and attached hereto.
• 4. Parking as shown along the main roadway through the
project shall be completely eliminated, between
Archibald and the circle.
p 0
Resolution No. 81 -124
Page 2
5. The tot lot areas and recreation and open space •
areas shall be redesigned to provide better
continuity. To provide su -h better continuity,
ten additional units shall be deleted from the
site plan and shall be subject to Design Review
prior to final map approval.
6. All construction phasing shall give priority to
the Ramona Street frontage prior to other portions
of the project.
7. Ramona Street improvements shall be done at the
time the first increment of street improvements
are started.
8. A traffic signal shall be installed at the Archi-
bald entry to the project at the time this main
road is constructed to intersect with Archibald
Avenue.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the P anning Commission
I, ,TACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 14th day of October, 1981, by the following vote-
to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl, Remoel, Sceranka, Tolstoy, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
n
U
)1�
•
SITE PLAb AJWD PHASING MAC
TENTATIVE
it
TRACT NO. 11663
.. ..........
c
am
SITE DATA
UM
Y
ORDINANCE NO. ')SW
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
225 -181 -4 THROUGH 9, 26, AND 43 FROM R -1 TO R -1- 20,000
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN
ETIHANDA AND EAST AVENUES
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
following: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
following a public hearing held in the time and manner
prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property
hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a
public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law
as duly heard and considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
• impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
Cherein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
R -1 (single family residential) to R -1- 20,000 (sinqle
family residential)
Said property is located on the south side of Summit
Avenue betneen Etiwanda and East Avenues know as Assessor's
Parcei Numbers 225 -181 -4 through 9, 26, and 43 .
SECT ;;_'1 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Cier- sho—caii
llsa Che same to be publ i ;hed si thin fifteen (15) days
aftor • passege at least once in The Daily Report, a nev;snaper of
ril r v!at ion pn hlisiicJ in the Ci [v o -I`�lr [j rio, California, and
c iec,.,.,- in ;hr City of Rancho Cu r,.ar.;n nqa, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
• ABSENT:
L
r �
ORDINANCE NO. X57
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5 ACRE (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 3 /P.D. (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL /PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA
AT MONTE VISTA AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION! 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time
and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of
the property hereinafter described, and this City Council
has held a public hearing in the time and manner pre-
scribed by law as duly heard and considered said recom-
mendation.
• B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
Assessor's Parcel Number 202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 are
hereby changed from R -1 and R -1- 5 acre to R- 3 /P.D.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Cler% shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
generil circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
eirculntrd in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASS-10, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
/• ABSPIT:
I fIP
ORDINANCE NO. 15c1
•
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
208- 622 -01 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
HAVEN AND ARROW, FROM M -2 TO C -2.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time
and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of
the property hereinafter described, and this City Council
has held a public hearing in the time and manner pre-
scribed by law as duly heard and considered said recommen-
dation.
8. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
Assessors Parcel Number 208- 622 -01, located on the
northeast corner of Haven and Arrow, from M -2 (General
Industrial) to C -2 (General Commercial).
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shat -cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
•
L
•
•
�r nc o A nvy.ui r v-. �%.h%�A V%%CAMn
S UT REPORT <�
O ' C
H
U i
1977
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary
SUBJECT: UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
At their last meeting, the City Council responded to a request by
the elementary school districts to impose a uniform SB -201 school
fee. A development fee of $1100 would be applied to single - family
homes with a fee of $550 for mobile homes and all multi - family de-
velopments containing two or more bedrooms.
In accordance with.Council's direction, a Uniform School Fee Or-
dinance has been prepared by the City Attorney which would imple-
ment the uniform school fee.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt
first din9 of the attached Ordinance implementing a uniform
school fee for the elementary school districts.
Respectfully s bmitted,
Je "Lam; tAICP"'V(L
Community Development Director
JL:JK:jk
Attachment: Uniform School Fee Ordinance
Chu
0
0
9TAFF REPORT
v
lkrm
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: Members of City Council, and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET
Attached for Council review is a previous memo dealing with problems re-
lating to construction of Palo Alto Street fronting the Dona Merced
School.
In order to complete this construction, Staff has been negotiating a con-
tract with the School District Contractor. we are in the process of final-
izing a proposal in the area of $12,000. This amount being nearly $2,000
lower than the initial bid submitted to the District. The final proposal
will be made available to Council as soon as the details have been com-
pleted.
Because of the unusual nature of this project, and the need to complete
construction to alleviate public safety hazards, it is recommended that
the Council declare the urgency of the situation and order the emergency
completion of the work.
RECOFIMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached
eso ution declaring the emergency need to complete this project and
authorize the Mayor to execute contracts to complete the work.
Respe/eccaat��fuullyb Iittt /edd,,
/ / ///II " -v '4
Lloyd B. Hubbs
City Engineer
LBH:kp
lr^7
• RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET AND DE-
CLARING THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF THE PROJECT
WHERFAS, Palo Alto Street is a significant missing street
improvement serving the newly constructed Dona Merced Elementary School;
and
WHEREAS, Without City participation in completion of this
project a substandard hazardous project will be constructed that will
endanger the lives of residents and children utilizing said street; and
WHEREAS, School contracts to complete the substandard con-
struction are eminent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California that construction of the northerly
half of Palo Alto Street is an emergency project requiring immediate
attention and hereby authorizes execution of contracts with American
Asphalt to complete said construction.
• PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
•
Phillip p D. Schlosser, Mayor
Y f�'
1 V
•
•
0
MEMORANDUM
.r
DATE: September 14, 1981 0 <
a
TO: City Council and City Manager 1 u a S
1977
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer}
SUBJECT: Dona Merced School :
With school opening this week the Council may hear some complaints about the
lack of a street in front of the Dona Merced School. This unfortunate
problem was due to negligence on the part of the Central School District and
its architect to properly coordinate the construction.
Palo Alto Street fronting the school currently exists as a unimproved private
easement accessing several homes. Because of grade differences the City Staff
spent a great deal of time with the schools engineer and property owners
obtaining dedication to allow construction of a standard street that would
access the homes and the school. Prior to completion of the final plans the
architect bid the project with an unapproved set of plans. When the final
plans were complete changes in the contract were required. When these changes
were submitted to the State they refused to participate in anything north of
the street centerline. This would leave a 18 foot street unsuitable for two
way traffic and did not make provisions to connect drives to existing houses.
The School District appealed to the State to fund the improvements and were
denied. The District further refused to fund the improvements. The City faced
with a no win position with local homeowners and parents reluctantly consented
to present a recommendation to Council to fund the remaining street improve-
ments. The District rebid the project splitting the improvements. The City
portion came in at ;13,875.
This entire process, which was fully coordinated by the District has yet to
be concluded and it will likely be another month before construction on the
District's portion will begin.
Engineering feels the bid received by the District is inflated and will try
to negotiate a better price for our portion if possible. This contract will
be presented to Council after the District has awarded its contract.
Construction of the two portions will be coordinated as best as possible
under pror conditions.
It should be noted that the Alta Loma District has constructed a similar street
to City Standards without these problems.
If you have any questions please call.
LBH :bc
0
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 15, 1961
TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager ir-
RE: Request To Authorize Staff To Seek Proposals For Architectural
Services for Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center.
As you are already aware, the City and County for the past few months
have been evaluating development of a master plan for a joint Civic
Center on a 25 acre site located at Haven and Foothill. Next week
staff hopes to have a refined master plan,which Council has previously
seen, as well as a proposed alternative. In addition, Gilbert Aja
and Associates should be close to completion of our "Needs Assessment"
outlining the size of a structure necessary to accommodate the City's
current and future space requirements.
The County has retained H.M.C. in Ontario as architects and Metcalf
d Eddy as construction managers to complete their portion of the
Civic Center project. The County has also retained the services of
H.O.K. of San Francisco to design the Master Plan for the site.
Throughout the development of the Master Plan the City has been at
a distinct disadvantage because the City has not yet developed a
"footprint" based on the design of a structure. The County has an
advantage in that their portion of the site plan is being developed
concurrent with the design of the Court Facility. The City does not
want to be left with an area designated on the site that may prove
to be incompatible with a City Hall yet to be designed. In summary,
it would be to the City's advantage to design a building that meets
our community's long range needs without being constrained to any
great degree by a poorly developed Master Plan.
Therefore, staff would request that Council consider initiating the
preliminary process for selecting an architect. This process would
include sending out "Qualification Statements" to a representative
Continued....
0
Auth. Staff to Seek
Proposals for Architect
October 15, 1981
Page Two
group of architects. Qualification statements would be reviewed and
a manageable number of architecture firms would be selected to parti-
cipate in an interview process by a selection committee. Staff would
suggest that Council consider appointing two (2) Councilmen, two (2)
Planning Commissioners, and three (3) staff members to the Selection
Committee. Staff members on the selection committee at a minimum
would include the City Manager and Community Development Director.
1. That City Council authorize staff to seek Qualification Statements
from potential architects to design the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall,
and assist in the completion of the Master Plan for the site.
n
U
2. That the City Council make the necessary appointments to establish
a Selection Committee to review potential architects and ultimately
prepare a recommendation for selection to the City Council. •
JR /vz
11
•
171
C,
J
•Rnw,n w
v - MEMORANDUM n�77 October 13, 1981 Oj a, ' I U' �
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserma�
City Manager
SUBJECT: Civic Center Prio ies
Councilman Mikels has suggested that we provide a summary of the issues
which must he dealt with concerning the development of our civic center.
The issues to be resolved are as follows:
1. Consideration by Council f architect's estimate of space needs. This
docarent is netring completion, and copies will be forwarded to you in the
near future. The architect has recommended that we plan for a civic center
of approximately 60,000 square feet. This estimate is somewhat higher than
our original estimate, but is based upon the information received by depart-
ment heads and reviewed by the city manager and assistant city manager.
2. Selection of Architect. It is important that we begin the selection
process for our architect even though construction is obviously quite some
time away. We find that we are at a great disadvantage in discussing the
site plan since we have not even decided what the shape of our structures
may be. We should also plan to establish a long -range schedule for con-
struction of the civic center. This particular action is, in our view,
estremely important and is in the city's best long -range interest.
3. Location of Dad for future police building. We have reemphasized the
imoortance of designating a future location for a police facility if the
city ever desires to construct one. While we have indicated that at the
,resent time we are satisfied with the contractural law enforcement services,
we do not want to foreclose on the option of having our own police department
in the event the services deteriorate or become too extensive.
4. Anoroval of Site plan. This is a very high priority. The County has
indicated that if the city council is satisfied, they will probably concur
with sour approval. The staff has spent some months now negotiating, arguing,
and fighting for a site plan which is in keeping with the type of development
we are encouraging in the community but is still practical. Within the next
few weeks we hope to have some alternative site plans for the review of the
Council.
5. Financing Alternatives. As we have indicated in previous memos, there are
a number of alternatives which are being studied as a means for financing the
civic center. At this point, it appears that no matter which alternative is
ultimately selected, it is in the city's best interest to tie in with the
I —�
Hemp Re. Civic Center Priorities
October 13, 1981
Page 2
County since that will result in a more attractive financial program for
potential investors. Naturally, at some point in the future we will have
to decide whether or not the city is really ready to go or whether we will
be forced to wait because of the difficult economic conditions which
presently exist.
6. Traffic Studies by City Staff. Our city staff is presently analyzing
the traffic which will result from the overall civic center development.
We want to be certain that whatever is planned will be able to handle the
large volume of traffic generated by the city and county use. This is
particularly important since the courts will generate a substantial number
of clients each day.
7. Precise Designation of City Property. As you may recall, the city has
agreed to purchase 7.5 acres of the total site for the city hall /law and
Justice center. At some time in the near future, Probably after we have a
specific site plan approved, it will be necessary for us to designate the
city property. We do not see this as a high priority item; however, it must
be taken care of as soon as we know what the overall site plan looks like.
8. Lone -ranee Parking Problems. It is our view that at some point, perhaps
many years from now, the price of land will be so high that a parking structure
will be necessary to make the most efficient and best use of the land. If a
parking structure is ultimately needed, we should provide some means, perhaps
in our joint powers agreement which will require the County to participate in
the financing of that facility. The County has clearly stated that they have
no intention of financing a parking structure. It is more economical at
today's prices for the County to purchase more land than it is to plan and
finance a parking facility. That is one reason why the County originally
agreed to purchase a larger block of land.
The above summary indicates all of the major decisions which will required
over the next several months. We are intending to bring the selection of
an architect to the city council at your next meeting. We will be suggesting
some tvne of committee, Perhaps composed of council members, staff, and a
planning commissioner to interview and recommend the selection to the city
council. All of the other issues are being worked on a day -to -day basis.
As we resolve them, we will keep you apprised,
If yon have questions or would like additional information concerning anv item
on this memo, please contact either me or Jim Robinson.
cc! Department Heads
40
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 13, 1981
TO: Jack Lam, Director of Community D elopment
FROM: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETI S DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER
The Consultant has indicated that it will be necessary for the Redevelop-
ment Agency and City Council to hold three meetings during the month of
December. The reason for this is that C e m en 1
o� Redevelopment Plan may not occur until after December 16. There-
fore, the City Council will need to conduct a public hearing on December 2
on both the Plan and the EIR and a first reading of the adopting Ordinance
on December 16. It will be necessary for the City Council to conduct a
second reading of the adopting Ordinance sometime around December 23 in
order that we may be able to record all necessary documents with the
County before December 31. I would suggest that we discuss this schedule
with the Council at their next meeting in order to establish a specific
time for a meeting around December 23. � r3
DECEMBER 2 DECEMBER 16
Open public hearing on Plan Close public hearing
and F. (Coned. to Dec. 16) rot
tin
Ordinance
TJB:jr
Attachment: Memo from MSI dated September 28, 1981
CC: Lauren Wasserman
Jim Robinson
d*
`I M 7,
DECEMBER 23
2nd reading of
g adopting Ordinance
t1
z
A
i
MI!S:CIPAL Sf.liw'I�Fa I�G
September 28, 1981 - ,
'..: _Tim Beadle
City of Rancho Cucamonga
I'• - P. O. nox 807 - -
j 1 Rancho Nczmonge, Cali. 91730 n --
Subjectt Rancho Redevelopment Project Plan adoption schedule .. -
I Der TUB: ,,, .. 7.
Thaui% you fa- the sending me copies of the correspondences from the. State Board of
Egan .ration and San Bernardino's Chief Administrative Officer. 1 would eppreciate "- .
continuing to receive copies of any future correspondence regarding Rancho Rer'evelopment
t7miect which. the Agency may receive.
With r•ogards to !h" Deechib r 17, 1981 filing date with the State Baud of Equalization, due
to their receipt o; the revised legal description and project area maps, the pl n a?opt`nn
s�vduln of events will hove to ue slightly altered, we will still plan on having the joint
p%!)(ic 1•:earin7• on ?December 2, 1951. However, the public hearing will be contimred until
Decr.:nhei 1G, 19'0.1. This is to allow the Coun +.y the 90 day period which strnrts from filing
of the amp; :with the State Board o` Equalization to prepare the report required in 3ecticr,
.. 3".8 of the f lr.RRA and 554y Code Ode Code" ). The 99 By review period begins
September 17, 1031 end ends December 16, 1981. On that elate the joint public hearir„ on
An prcposod redevelopment plan will bn Owed and the Cily Council will have the first
reading of tiu) City ordlenee edopttng the proposed redevelopment plan. A second readin ;;
of the City ordinance is proposed to be held the following A'cdnesdsy on December 23, 1981,:
Tlri:; will a::ow recording and trarnmitting of the required documents Specified in Sections
33373 and 33375 of the "Code% thereby permitting allocation of tax revenues for the first
time to On Agency the following tax year in accordance with Section 331114 of thp, "Code". .
It will be a light aahedMo and will regnire your close ecardfnetion of and cooperation among
. the Agency, City Council and staff to insure that the filing in completed before December
If }on t vr, "ny questions regarding this ,Masse Contact me r � �
r --
r
. Abrahhrn -Or flips .
"1•cam Coordinator 1
Co: Manny De Dos .. j
• Dwight French .. r
Lauren iVe:;sermen • . i
7phn Brown.
...
Fivannzli'la,a, purr:. 19. 11 6IH,uo,•. K- 1.Gttnfln,lii.i�,.C>LLn,�f.91 ;A6 .'I'.IrpL,i,c ( "Ifi9i25: %21 i
i b1cm flapa Pon COMMOY
Mill
LIGENEEO, 90NOE0 . INSII REO
t' %CgvgTING • oAVING
GOADING
5055 wl[ l 5 • [ Srn[[i Imo;
P
OryTAflIO CALIFORNIA 91]62
TE�EnXOx[ ]II /9n].36d5
PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
To City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline. Rancho Cucamonga Calif, _
I /we herby .pee m fvrni,h 211 lab.,, nureriah ..d tynipmm, for the mmplerion, in good, and workmanlike meaner, of
,he work d «dbed bd.w on property known a. Clty._p_QCt1 o,D_pf Palo Altg Dr W. of
„meow.:
Do the necessary grading, Install .42 A.C. paving over
an area of approximately 6400.98 sq.ft. L 1.10/ sq.ft. 7,040.00
install approximately 425 ln.ft. 2" X 4" redwood header
@ 1.85/ ln.ft. 786.09
Grade out and install 2" A.C. driveways. Approximately
240E sq.ft. C 1.50/ sq.ft. 3,600.00
If aggregate base is required to bring area to subgrade
elevation add the sum of 8,25/ ton in place.
Exclusions: Testing, Staking of drives.
CITY OF VNCHO COCAb10NGA
COhihlliNIT'i EEVEIOP,VMT DEPT, ca r'40YFCM/L is r9BfRo"'r(0i
PRe/eL� t es h CCe-R? tOtE
PM 77i PNe
AM
71 S 19110111112111213141 v 16
.n 6,r he mm o1 s - __ as above __, my.bl< a, Wl.o ,o on completion
nor,.... perms,. nR�l m.in. nom he', m he an .ddiunn.tl roe m dl« 2hn.e ilgure
DATE__ _ __;bar —I$-. 19 $j__
AMERI AS ALT AVING
ACCEPTA NC
1 /we a (ay Gwnrr, Agent
or Gm 1 utor)
«<p, the within Prnlv,aal. Y.. are mihorhed to P,,farm the work <ompreh.nd <d hereunder and 1 /we agree ro py
the ,.ld a m In .unn6mc wr:h Ihr term, .n (nah.
All of the term, erred on revere ride ere ipmrpon,ed herein end In.& a Pert hermf.
T
)a71�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Day - Etiwanda -San Sevaine Creek Drainage Study
,2Q GVCAA10 C
G
F
19;' I
This memo is an addendum to my previous Council memo of October 21,
1981. In that memo, it was Staff's recommendation that Council
authorize up to $15,000 as a City contribution to the study of the
Day - Etiwanda -San Sevaine Creek. After further review, I feel
it appropriate that the Council make the funding authority subject
to the following stipulations:
° That San Bernardino County Flood Control District take a strong
role as lead agent for the design of the channel.
° That the funds not be expended until all agencies and development
interests involved have posted their proportionate share. If
full funding is not obtained, the City will receive a full refund.
° That the City receive full credit for funds expended towards any
future funding obligations related to the channel construction
or receives future reimbursements if available.
° That the County seek proposal from consultants and establish a
review committee to make consultant selection.
Engineering will transmit these provisions to the County as the basis
for a funding agreement. This agreement would be subject to future
approval by the Council prior to funds being posted.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the Council approve the appropriation of
$15,000 for the Phase 2 Study of Day - Etiwanda -san Sevaine Creek
subject to the previous stipulations.
Respectfully submitted,
1
LBl1: jla
9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 29, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Construction of Palo Alto Street
CA:1fON
IC
a� z
.. 9
1977
At the October 21, 1981 meeting, the Council entertained a Staff
recommendation to fund the northerly portion of Palo Alto Street
in conjunction with the Dona Merced School. The Council appointed
a committee composed of Councilman Frost and Mikels to meet with
the School Board to determine joint funding options.
The committee has met with the School Board and have been unable
to reach a compromise solution. The District based on the attached
findings of the State maintain that they are statutorily restricted
front participation. These statutes presume that the City by re-
quiring 26 foot of paving and drive connections are making a re-
quest that can be construed as a gift of funds. It is Staff's
opinion that these two requirements are minimal to provide for
traffic safety to serve the school and that drive connection to
disrupted neighboring property is a consequence of the street de-
sign..
The Council would appear to have two options:
1. Assume responsibility as a gesture of concern for community
safety and service to the children.
2. Deny funding and allow the substandard street to be constructed,
refuse dedication and maintenance and in essence make the
street a private drive to the school.
Staff as previously indicated,feels that consideration of public
safety makes the second option unviable, however, shares the Council's
feeling of frustration at being forced to cover costs that accrue
only because of error and lack of coordination on school projects.
If it is decided to fund the improvements, it would be recommended
that the Mayor notify the District of the reasons for this decision
and of the normal budgetary process for scheduling these expenditures
for future projects.
STAFF REPORT
October 29, 1981
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution
declaring the emergency need to complete this project and authorize
the Mayor to execute contracts to complete work. Funds should be
authorized in the amount of $11,426.00 plus 108 contingency to be
drawn from SD 325 funds.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:jaa
Attachments
O
C
STAFF REPORT
o;
FN
L-
1977
DATE: October 21, 1981
TO: Members of City Council, and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET
Attached for Council review is a previous memo dealing with problems re-
lating to construction of Palo Alto Street fronting the Dona Merced
School.
In order to complete this construction, Staff has been negotiating a con-
tract with the School District Contractor. We are in the process of final-
izing a proposal in the area of $12,000. This amount being nearly $2,000
lower than the initial bid submitted to the District. The final proposal
will be made available to Council as soon as the details have been com-
pleted.
Because of the unusual nature of this project, and the need to complete
construction to alleviate public safety hazards, it is recommended that
the Council declare the urgency of the situation and order the emergency
completion of the work.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached
esolu
l2 Lion declaring the emergency need to complete this project and
authorize the Mayor to execute contracts to complete the work.
Respectfull submitted,
Lloyd B. Hubbs
City Engineer
LBH:kp
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 1981
T0: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Dana Merced School _�7L v
With school opening this week the Council may hear some complaints about the
lack of a street in front of the Dona Merced School. This unfortunate
problem was due to negligence on the part of the Central School District and
its architect to properly coordinate the construction.
Palo Alto Street fronting the school currently exists as a unimproved priva*^
easement accessing several homes. Because of grade differences the City Staff
spent a great deal of time with the schools engineer and property owners
obtaining dedication to allow construction of a standard street that would
access the homes and the school. Prior to completion of the final plans the
architect bid the project with an unapproved set of plans. When the final
plans were complete changes in the contract were required. When these changes
were submitted to the State they refused to participate in anything north of
the street centerline. This would leave a 18 foot street unsuitable for two
way traffic and did not make provisions to connect drives to existing houses.
The School District appealed to the State to fund the improvements and were
denied. The District further refused to fund the improvements. The City faced
with a no win position with local homeowners and parents reluctantly consented
to present a recommendation to Council to fund the remaining street improve-
ments. The District rebid the project splitting the improvements. The City
portion came in at $13,875.
This entire process, which was fully coordinated by the District has yet to
be concluded and it will likely be another month before construction on the
District's portion will begin.
Engineering feels the bid received by the District is inflated and will try
to negotiate a better price for our portion if possible. This contract will
be presented to Council after the District has awarded its contract.
Construction of the two portions will be coordinated as best as possible
under poor conditions.
It should be noted that the Alta Loma District has constructed a similar street
to City Standards without these problems.
If you have any questions please call.
LBH:bc
011A4tMENt Of GE.WL SEWUS
OFFICE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE %- -"-�
10x3 I SifER. ROOM I13
SLCR ENIO, Q111ORNIA 05014 JVtCF tlA{,;CIiC CUta'•'C�'Cf1
(915)445 -2704 Cl;' "
: 10mEni 9EP {' October 31, 1980
COY ^:,UNIT•I DEV
(3,
4tol�t'��L {�i1�2�314f�t�
Mr. Norman C. Guith, Ed. D.
Superintendent
Central School District
9457 Foothill Mvd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Dr. Guith:
State School Building Aid
Central School District
Application No. 1921514
County of San Bernardino
On October 23, 1950, Leo Jette of Frick, Frick and Jette, Architects
submitted a revised plan for off -site development at the Central School
site to our office for review.
This plan appears to cover work which is part of the present construction
contract, but also incorporates additional street developments required
by the City of ?Ancho Cucamonga. Our review indicates that all of the
additional .cork, with the exception of the street lighting, is ineligible
for financiig under the State School Building Aid Program.
TYe State Allocation Board's policy on street improvements prohibits
development of adjacent properties without equitable participation by the
owners of such property. Board policy also limits street paving to a width
o° 20 feet along the school frontage. (See applicant handbook Section A -1103)
Also it should be brought to citys' attention that in situations such as
this that the Streete and Highway Code requires the local entity to bear
the costs of i.'norevements different from those reccmmended by the State
AIlocation Board. (See extract from Streets and Highways Code)
If our office can be of addition assistance on this matter, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Oldham
Area Supervisor
7�� 1,d4
Harr ',leaver
Field Representative
cc: City
Architect
County Counsel
South Area
7
EXTRACTS FROM THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CCG_
18tu<t.>ne If'.a6wer. CA, . 100 51 Sims. ISM, Ch. -n'
t
DIVISION 1. STATE FIICDWASS
Ctu1-�t 1. .tOU::: rr _sr:ov
Artie!a 5. Funds far fligSmsP PurPosea
2117. lC lo:nc err a sctroo; divtrict ro::strt,a is a school In:il for
thr nm'truot inn of "Iti,!: unv up p•irlh,nnlant is uoole vurl:k,,,a to
('Iu,VLr Y (n oy,rin�
J v1;" $PCLnn Ni:lll nud f ^•1, t'4'" =l .
•r. rc�ho�+eith Pion f ^]I1 of Itivainn 14 of th., 1':JUrntl+^ Cori ^.
and t1n• rite• r,,,': u l rncnip. Or tm: ..... m xiocil vica 5cnnol buiLiin,
is q"ontid r -gmrrr tl:r cn nst: nc lion of nny start Or road cnr.nrcttd
III iti: :.Lr W11r,'! p-arlisr; on •:rh:c is .sud:.schcol bmld'mg !a cmistn:cted.
tha S Ail :ratio:: 1L•.rrd rinV rcvv ^.v the rcq u:rr ^,rr.i nnrl :reoP:-
mrml In ^ - ovrrnrlq Ywl,- of the city, Pity and em:P.ly nr MIrt_: n
Phln ni !: ::rt'mn:'A"',': r:b: to mm•' ti:1 rerds of the school ri r,l Pct
r•w
and I ,I!. tv of O:c public. if - • .,I• of : ^•s'
:1L, mi r )i,'r '. ,v n... hn,r „t
- -r "fv .vni rmnn° .. ,"
xry o r prow smn of thlc co 4c nr any 01,:,
Ime u';lilirg :Im P::rpons fur W ic!t mrnrP r.pp"tionni to nitico• cri•p'.t
and from rlo, Cr rs Tax Fim,] ry L¢ =x.
prrdrd, y f tm mnny rc mray be gxpcerirIl for
the
con ::fn non of If, starts or ro,lds rof•rr ^II In In lllin slr,tion
1dnOrir¢ in ti:i,i s'rrtinn aha➢ ow cesslrtoad to require each rOSt itc:n
ll inrlun, ^i in r _ ulLVgc r.:m!e P:vSUV:t t0 this section to Le s
nmtAy.vntrd.
rllnnln rinp 9r,n,on 7117 h1' Stnl, ;%-.. f;b. 16,2 ,1
DIVIMON 7. IJTCO'7 r'YF.NT ACT OF 1011
CfiAl'rrr1 15. Orvcan. PROM -,tons I1tLATt \O To .is;r.;av rr:'rs
5702.5. If Ibp 1, gi.letivc Lady, In thr resnintion of intcmim,, dr.
cl,vrc Il•nl nn Tot or pa 1111 nI land nv: nrd and n:rd as provide:! in
Seed... f.ril ah::ii he illrinrb•,1 le 11r 1111",11114`117, nr if no dVei9ra(1nll
is nmdP r11 !,,, nn >rm,h h,l. ,.r pnrrri of land thro any 111"4` +un :rt
up,m ,o 11 i,4 nr Par. ri of laud, rSmyLL .ur: lot Or Pureet "I""' l,y ;i:,•
Ulfllyd AtM, n or L";., ,J, p•ui uo ut ;Iwrruf 1111 Slay Of C,:11 fi r:ra
, b1
or auy ^µ.0 711.:•rIln o,d, .hall br all ,a ri.r cubic old l_nhon 1, ruat
Llu• mvu "r „I' >w 4 p , J•: and �i,.111 L,• p: "i, r, vr,n f', ii.lyv oflor 1111
71::1,. ..f r1c,n Lr; �'h�• s.u:ru 1, 11 y'
1;. o f •,,'Grr r, nR:: ,':'v, nr lom rd
luu ro•� ,irIr;; of k1, dI. :, rk, r r II: �., of the 0, 1. r r sort,
I,ur :, f:r
lot nr pa ,'•.I n Ll oil .ue!, if a „I p.ud kIILm Nall :111 day •., sLa1' Io I-
t_IJII
A-1103
(Cont. 4)
If the charges are special assessments of an improvement district which are
outstanding against property being purchased by the school district, all
of such charges ray be included, provided the assessments are outstanding `
at the tine the application is filed (assessments of improvement districts
fo:r..ed after the filing date of the application and before completion of
construction are limited to 7) percent of the amount of the assessment).
Eligible u,ViLity assessments or similar charges must be shown in the detail
sheets of the cost estimate as a separate item within the utilities cate-
gory. Such costs may not be included in the plans and specifications as they
are paid directly by the district from project funds.
ilncnever a school district includes construction in an application which
benefits other properties, the dist riot most submit a reimbursement agree-
ment, acceptable to the Executive Officer, which will return all cost of
construction not directly benefitting the district. F
2. Of' -situ. i'eveloement. Include here the cost of constructing roads,
st=eels, sto= drainage lines, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street light -
dng along the perimeter of the site. tto cost for any item of off -cite
development is allowable if such cost can be construed as a gift of public
funds, by vr_rtue of benefitting adjacent prpperties without such properties
equitably sharin.; the cost of such development.
Gcnerallj•, these costs are for improvements on prupc —y to be dedicated
for public use, and the imprcvements are required by local ordinance or
by reason of being included in an improvement dicLricL. In order that a
schccl district pay its fair share of off -site development end still conserve
state funds for needed classrooms, reoneut.s for funds for off -site development
mov not exceed the following: ,.
a. Strect paving (including existing paving). One -half of the width
of a standard residential street, up to a maximum or 20 feet from
. "ace or curb to center line, on not, morn than two sides immediately
ad,Jncent to the site. Roadways of a width or standard greater
than those of a normal subd.ivirdon may be provided by the city or
cosnty under Section 2117 of the Street and highway Code or from
other than State aid funds.
b. Curbs, knitter:;, and walks on not more than two sides immediately
adjacent to Lh., site. To be includod in an application when the
t
6/77
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Enginee
J
SUBJECT: Palo Alto Street
Attached for Council information is a resolution from the School
District which somewhat opens a door to future negotiations of
participation in Palo Alto Street. Staff feels, however, that if
the City funds the project, there will be very little incentive
for resolution.
The options are still the same as presented in my Staff Report
of October 29, 1981.
LBH: jaa
Attachment
W.
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Rancho Cucamonga, California
RESOLUTION NO. 15_(81_82_
Paving of Palo Alto Street
22a5nn
Cm OMINISp�MOw
AM OCT 28 I9
7i81�1Dp111211�y�S B
WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Street: on the north side of Dona Merced School remains
unpaved, and
WHEREAS, the paving needs to be completed for emergency vehicle access, and
WHEREAS, the Central School District may only pay for the cost of paving to the
center line,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in the event it becomes possible for the Central
School District to share in the City's expenses for paving of the north
side of Palo Alto Street, the Central School District will, at that time,
negotiate the cost with the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Adopted this —47— day of 1981.
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Norm n C. Guith, Superintendent
Secretary to Board of Trustees
RESOLUTION �-, / - M.V
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET AND DE-
CLARING THE EMERGENCY NATURE OF THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, Palo Alto Street is a significant missing street
improvement serving the newly constructed Dona Merced Elementary School;
and
WHEREAS, Without City participation in completion of this
project a substandard hazardous project will be constructed that will
endanger the lives of residents and children utilizing said street; and
WHEREAS, School contracts to complete the substandard con-
struction are eminent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California that construction of the northerly
half of Palo Alto Street is an emergency project requiring immediate
attention and hereby authorizes execution of contracts with American
Asphalt to complete said construction.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Phillip p 0. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
I
3922
required to provide such utility services by other agencies, reimburse- (Cont. 3)
ment of all costs directly attributable to those utility services, including
planning, test and inspection, must be covered by an acceptable reimburse -T
Lncnt 'agrccment.,
OFF -SITE DEVELOPMENT 3923
The cost of constructing roads, streets, storm drainage lines, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting along, the perimeter of the site
may be included in the project application. No costs for any item of
off -site development is allowable if such costs can be construed as a gift
of public funds, by virtue of benefitting adjacent properties without such
properties enuitably sharing the cost of such development.
Conerally, these costs are for improvements on property to be dedicated for
public use, and the improvements are required by local ordinance or by reason
of beine included in an improvement district. In order that a school district
par its fair share of off -site development and still conserve State funds for
J neede,l clnssrooms, requosts for funds for off -situ development may not exceed
the following:
(a) Street pavin!! (including existing paving), nne -half of the width of
a standard residential street, un to a maximum of 20 feet from face
of curb to center line, on not more than two sides immediately adjacent
to the site. Roadways of a width or standard greater than those
of a normal subdivision may be provided by the city or county under
Section 2117 of the Street and Ilighway Code or from other than State
aid funds.
(h) Curbs, nutters, and walks on not more than two sides immediately
adiacont to the site. TO be included in an application whon the
property in the immediate area is so developed and only to such mu
extent as will make the facilities on the site readily usable. the
reouirements of a standard subdivision also apply to these items. Any
portion of sidewalks in excess of five feet in width are chargeable to
general site development.
(c) Funds for street trees, street name signs, and street lights. Such
costs will not be financed unless:
6/81
3923
(Cont. 1)
(1) Existing and proposed streets in the neighborhood
are either so improved or are required by local ordinance
or assessment district to be so improved within a reasonable
period of time; and
(2) Such financing is limited to the development of not more than two
sides of the school site, including, any sides already so improved.
Rough grading required for off -site development may be classified under
service site development if the balancing of cut and fill involves both
categories of work. If rough grading costs are combined in this manner,
so state in the supporting detail of the cost estimate and in instructions
to bidders.
A school district may not include off -site development costs in an appli-
cation which benefits other properties; however, if the district should be /
required to provide such off -site development by other agencies, all
costs directly attributable to that off -site development, including
planning, test and inspection, most be borne by the district. \✓
f
.SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT 3924
This category is essentially the site preparation work usually
required before proceeding with building construction and installation
of general site development items. Service site development is limited
to work which is necessary, represents good practice, and conforms to
efficient principles of engineering. The chief items of service site
development are:
(a) Site clearance, including demolition.
(b) Pough grading of the site to required contours, including cut and
fill, leveling and terracing operations. May include off -site cut
and fill operations under certain circumstances. See instructions
for off -site development.
(c) Soil compaction.
(d) nn -site drainage facilities (except drainage of football fields and
running tracks).
(e) Erasion control work on banks having a slope of at least two to one �(
and a vertical height of more than six feet. includes sprinkling
systems and retaining walls and stairways more than six feet in
vertical height in connection with such facilities.
d.
Cl 1,\ I - I F It 1:1. GE N1 ACA 1. 1 '11( A IYIONS 141, 1 A I IN(, I II
. 'ISSESSIMEN 1'S
scc. 1IaNITIC-111 of oIsscssolvill: (Mliga
lion; Iola•rest: Coilowlion
----------- It tilt, jcl!ISI;Ill,,'c lood\. ill fill, ru.sollill"ll k1•,
if ic it any 1, it I or I )ilrk d of hill I ( M 11VT MITI I csr(f as 1l \,it 1v( I III
it( )it r,:;( I I Shull Ill I IT ' I I IT it 1, IT '( I In Ih( or it no .:
duclaralion 1s made resp(w1jog, Mn\ o( 11 Otor p;ircvlofl;1nd
in ain, q rsw.'l it, -111 ill rin Ski, Iflotorlim, I
IR M I
2.
Ex*rRACTS FROM I'l Ir STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 3. APPORTIONMENT AND 1: XPENDITURF OF
IIIIGIAVA;Y 17UNDS
CIIAP Est 3. HIGIMAY t'SERSTAX 17t*.NI1
C. 211:. Street or lioad Constro(fion in Connec.
777
YY
lion Wilb stale-aideill Sol Con.
s1ruclion
Whenevcra s(,Ii(x)l district Coostrk" 14;' s(IIIN)i loollding for
111c con."Iruciloll oI willch aliv is
pursuant lochaptor m icoillown, ing %'1111'w(tioll 11 moll and
Chapicr 10 (contill•m im! NN-1111 S('( Will 1! 1151)1111 )1% i.111 IT) 14 of
tilt- Ethicality) Colic and flit' city. I Iry Tind ('I x1111 \'. or moniv Ili
which sit( 11 sk 114 Ill holl, ling Is Gilllawll rc(I'llo Ill('
consIrLAC1101) (if am sirevI or roact ( ('fill( .( led will, ille hool
prcrilim..'; ( 11 1 whit'll so S( hoof hoil, ling, IS I on'lrl IT 1", 1. lilt,
Still(• ooltocaflon Board shall rookw%% Ow •clum-orcrif and
WCOI I I I Ill.[) I I It, I I Ic go 'v I mIT If,, I MIT N I 'I I 111 . I It\. I I I.N i ld(otsolv
or rnnnly (pion of consin iction ; l(le(It [;If(' 1" mc•l ti lit vd.qof
111
Tilt, si hool I lisim I and Iho solt-lv, A ill(, I )111)li, Ifo, filk I I I I 1.11111
q
of I I To I ro )e T, I I ic 111 I of in I 11 nove I I re 11: of I119111, r st i it 1, 1. 1 r, Is I 11; 111111; 11
W', 011lolctldcd by thc Board iA reclum-H 1w My
governing liodv of I)(- ("I\" I Troll N or (ounI)-, tlic
is(lditiomil virsi Illercof shall IT(• loortic Iry �hc (1t\'. city mid
Couniv. or coontv Ili \% NOT stich so hool Imilffirij.! Is silocit•(l.
Nolwj I I Isa t I of I 11 g all)' 4 it I Ic r 1 w w jslol I of I I Its ('or It' Too art v o I I I er
hw limiting Illc porposcs for which mom• oloporlionud 11)
OtIcs. Cities ;111( 1 (*or moor S. or col ollivo; Iron I Ih( - I hglm av I sCr
'I
ON Forld Moot') n1oIwvso;il porfiorw-1
111M, I W (-xl wlu f(-( I for [I it - I )list To I( it. on I If it w si To 1 1., 1 or tilt I( I(s
To •1vrrc( I to I in Ih is sc, (nil,
I
I)1 VISION 7. 3 111 . IXI I 'ItOVE \1 I : N I M : I of
1'A I il 3. 1'1' I if:( HIM IN(; I Ill: %VOlt K
Cl 1,\ I - I F It 1:1. GE N1 ACA 1. 1 '11( A IYIONS 141, 1 A I IN(, I II
. 'ISSESSIMEN 1'S
scc. 1IaNITIC-111 of oIsscssolvill: (Mliga
lion; Iola•rest: Coilowlion
----------- It tilt, jcl!ISI;Ill,,'c lood\. ill fill, ru.sollill"ll k1•,
if ic it any 1, it I or I )ilrk d of hill I ( M 11VT MITI I csr(f as 1l \,it 1v( I III
it( )it r,:;( I I Shull Ill I IT ' I I IT it 1, IT '( I In Ih( or it no .:
duclaralion 1s made resp(w1jog, Mn\ o( 11 Otor p;ircvlofl;1nd
in ain, q rsw.'l it, -111 ill rin Ski, Iflotorlim, I
IR M I
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in
the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on October 29, 1981. The meet-
ing was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser.
Present were: Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor
Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present were: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager; Robert Dougherty, Assistant
City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; and Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer.
Absent: Councilman Michael A. Palombo.
2. PALO ALTO STREET.
At the October 21 city council meeting, Council appointed Councilman Frost and
Councilman Mikels to a subcommittee to meet with representatives of the Central School
District's Board of Trustees to work out a possible joint funding of the northerly
portion of Palo Alto Street which runs along the front of Dona Merced School.
The subcommittee met with school board members was was unable to reach a compromise
solution. The issue before Council was whether to assume full responsibility and
complete the street as a gesture of concern for community safety and as a service to
the children; or, deny funding and allow a substandard street to be constructed, refuse
dedication, and maintenance. In essence, the street would become a orivate drive to
the school.
Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the problem was that the State Allocation Board would
only approve paving 20 feet from the centerline.
Mayor Schlosser asked Council what they wished to do.
Councilman Frost read Section 3923, paragraph 2 on page 2 (excerpts from the State
Allocation Board's Policy Handbook) which stated "a school district may not include
off -site development costs in an application which benefits other properties; however,
if the district should be required to provide such off -site development by other
agencies, all costs directly attri butable to that off -site development, including
planning, test, and inspection must be borne by the district." Mr. Frost continued
by reading Section 2117, Extracts from the Streets and Highways Code, "...if a different
plan of improvement of higher standards than that recommended by the State Allocation
Board is required by the governing body of the city, city and county, or county the
additional cost thereof shall be borned by the city, city and county, or county in
which such school building is situated." Mr. Frost stated that these are contradictory
statements.
Councilman Frost stated that the road needed to be completed. He asked the city
attorney if we were legally required to complete the street, and if so, would this
set a precedent?
Mr. Dougherty replied that in his opinion we were not legally required to complete
the street.
Councilman Bridge stated that we have to be concerned with the liability issue.
Discussion followed between Council and the City Attorney regarding whether we would
be setting a precedent if the city completed the street.
Councilman Frost commented that regardless of what else needed to be done, the city
f needed to first complete the street.
Councilman Bridge asked that if we could get the idea of protest across, would this
help to show we are not setting a precedent?
Mr. Dougherty stated that any action we took, it would not require as to take a
similar action in the future.
Councilman Mikels inquired that if we pass the resolution, would it be nossible
to include in the resolution that we were doing so under protest and for emergency
reasons and to cite Section 3923.
Mr. Wasserman stated that we should have the city attorney draft some appropriate
language for us.
Mr. Dougherty stated that we are not in a position to compet anyone to prc ide
improvements. These sections are difficult to resolve. An interpretation is
needed, and the one to give such an interpretation would be the State Attorney
General's Office, and that would require one of our state legislators to -ake such
a request for the city.
Both Councilmen Frost and Mikels concurred that the resolution should be approved
in order to get the street completed.
Mr. Wasserman expressed concern that we could have a similar problem with Chaffey
High School District with the access road the city is requesting.
Mayor Schlosser asked if we could include in our protest to the School District
that the money be repaid if we found a loop hole in these two sections.
Mr. Dougherty stated that it did not appear that we could require the school district
to put in the other half of the street at their expense. He stated that these two
sections needed to be tested. To test this in court would cost the city more
than the $11,000 to complete the street. It is really a situation of whether a
school district or a city can compel the other to fund that half of the street.
Councilman Mikels stated that he felt we had grounds to compel the State Allocation
Board to amend the contract to complete the northern side of the street.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he doubted we could get very far. He felt it would not
be the best use of the tax dollar to have a court aciton.
Councilman Frost suggested that the resolution include a dollar amount. Mr. Hubba
stated the amount would be $11,4000 with a 10% contingency. Councilman Frost
suggested that the word, "policy," be changed to "opinion."
Councilman Mikels stated the words, "an emergency," should also be included.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -166 and
waive the entire reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels,
Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. City Clerk Wasserman read the
title of Resolution No. 81 -166,
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -166
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET.
Councilman Mikels requested that staff get a complete version of the State
Allocation Board's Policy Manual and see how it compares with the Street and High-
ways Code,
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Il1.e:L�L� �Lt:t��c -EL�
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk