Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/10/20 - Agenda Packet0 CrrY OF RANY7 i0 CU)CAMONGA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California October 20, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in Writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. • A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. B. Roll Call: Dahl % , Buquet_,�_, Frost Schlosser, v. , and Mikels v C. Approval of Minutes: August 18 and September I 1982. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Thursday, October 21, 7:00 p.m. - Etiwanda Specific Plan Hearing with Planning Commission, Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. b. Thursday, October 28, 7:00 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center. C. Monday, November 19, 7:00 p.m. - Foothill Fire District Board of Director's Meeting - Lions Park Community Center. d. Presentation of Proclamation. to Toastmasters. 3• CONSENT CALENDAR. a The fallowing Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. City Council Agenda -2- • a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -10 -20 in the total amount of $ 428,471.15. b. Alcoholic Beverage Application, for off -sale beer and wine by John R. Mix, John's Mobile Service, 8477 Archibald. C. Approval of Agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation Company and R. C. Land Company for construction of a storm drain beneath the railroad tracks within the Victoria Community Project. RESOLUTION NO. 82-177 October 20, 1982 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND R.C. LAND COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION TRACKS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. . RESOLUTION NO. 82-178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING All INDENTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS- PORTATION COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE RAILROAD TRACKS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. d. Approval of Improvement Extensions Agreement for Minor Development Review 82 -08. RESOLUTION N0. 82 -179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -08. e. Approval of agreement with City of Ontario for 21 construction of signals at Archibald and Fourth Street. To be funded with Federal Aid Urban Funds. d v E City Council Agenda -3- October 20, 1982 f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improve- ment Security for Director Review 82 -05 - Reiter Development Co. 27 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -180 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 82 -05• g. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for 10020 Almond Street sub- mitted by Allen and Mary Jones. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM ALLEN AND MARY JONES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAME. h. Revision of partial reimbursement to members of Planning Commission for expenses incurred. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION 79-55 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ESTABLISHING NEW PROVISIONS FOR PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE SERVING AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. It is recommended that the Council accept offers _ of dedication for streets and storm drains in a portion of Assessment DiSLrict 82 -1 and approve an easement agreement with R. C. Land Co. providing for payment of $178,439 for the acquisitions from the Assessment District right of way funds. 28 City Council Agenda -4- uctober 20, 1982 • RESOLUTION NO. 82- 183 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR STREETS AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -I. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES. An ordinance 42 establishing public noification procedures for projects requiring Planning Commission public hearing. Presented by Jack Lam. ORDINANCE NO. 184 (second reading) 49 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, • AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79-1, REESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -168 51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79 -I, REESTABLISH- ING CERTAIN FEES. PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE NO. 70. An _ ordinance to establish Historic Landmarks and Points of Interest designations by a Resolution. Presently such designations are made by Ordinance. 52 ORDINANCE NO. 70 -E (second reading) 54 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS D, E, AND F OF SECTION 2.24.100 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO LANDMARK is DESIGNATION PROCEDURE. u City Council Agenda -5- October 20, 1982 C. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM THE RANCHO 55 CUCAMONCA MOBILE HOME OWNERS COMMITTEE TO ADOPT A RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. A City Council Committee was appointed to review the coach owners request, examine alternatives and ultimately make some specific recommendations for Council consider- ation D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -OZ- BRO`dNE. A change of zone from A -1 Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family Residential) for .96 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Base Lin_ Road and Ivy Lane - APN 1077 - OV -01. Staff Rep..rt by Rick Gomez. ORDINANCE NO. 185 (first reading) 100 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 071-01, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND IVY • LANE FROM A -1 TO R -1. ORDERING ANNEXATION NO. 10 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ,- DISTRICT NO. I FOR TRACT N0. 9658. Adoption of resolution to order the work in connection with Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. I for Tract No. 9658 located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Madrone Avenue. Thomas McCutchan b Associates is the developer. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. RESOLUTION NO. 82-184 103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORD RING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 10 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9658. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. ALTA LOMA PARK RENOVATIONS. A presentation of 109 option, for improving and redeveloping the Alta Loma Park. Referred from October 6 meeting. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. City Council Agenda -6- October 20, 1982 8, FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION OF 116 SUPPORT FOR MEASURE Approval of Resolution Of the City Council giving its support to the passage of Measure "W" on the November ballot. Measure "W" will provide funds for construction of drainage and flood control facilities. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT'i OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE "W ". C. STORM DRAIN FEE MODIFICATIONS. Proposed revision to storm drain fee Ordinance to increase fees from $2500 per acre to $4600 per acre to reflect current cost estimates. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. . D. COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. This agrrement enables the Redevelopment Agency to document its indebtedness for the purposes of repaying such indebtedness out of tax increment funds. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 186 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. 118 E. RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATION. 136 Renuest from Red Hill Country Club to construct a retaining wall on Red Hill Country Club Drive just north of Foothill. Project would prevent sloughing onto street and erosion of golf course. Estimated cost $20,000 split SIO,000 each. I- L-1 City Council Agenda -7- October 20, 1482 F to designated positions. Staff report by Jack Lam. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -Y 11, f, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES BY POSITION TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS. ' A. Request from Louisa Meza to address the City Council. 8. ADJOURNMENT. 9 .. a•' -wr }.3. ,�;.., -r., .,i :.Y. .,(1:5 ], 1' lMr.'A'`� ".:r. ���1K[K�:!5a•.4 I. w4ANPANI Y n 0 V'w.l !I'/ tl ..f .l' 1••!r °,t:Cp P{Cf19f.Il lAT [11N l0/2U/02 CpGC 1 O w.. •i v '! F 1 ,I 1- .I ! A •' E ""R 11:1196A1 DISCOUNT of O.ITC HLi FP FO CE In ?11 1114 •11 NC SILIRI ", 9/11 91112 2LIfl. 13 23? a':. I: f.fbf L1 fAI II fill FS "F'(Y J /1'3/03 Ri CS_CO IrP 49 1:4 rill \I I1f'. 117'.411 i VI :.1111 1'SlY I12'11 IUC4 /u) Ih:1.UU IP.O•I; V.CU LO]}n I'rn '.111.1.1 ltn F AI••. Itn II: /cv /C) )7"141 _2s • 111151 SC +'1 I S Y "SI °ASJiI' IC /Oy /X; L355.f.i 10 }5! 10]5] 450 v c SA'1 1'11:.'' C.1' RIP 011 v 11((00. \Ir Vl 11111! S.tV Ir:G lC /nH /a.' ltl /11/9! 3.953.50 2:1,91.00 I/1 >54 ir' ^K 1 1'•1'1 5.1f]AH-:11 SYS 111 /II /R. 9rS /5.39 11V S'. "3 CI TV 41 IA4(IJ .IIC!aL 6G `.'n IIVII /F? 5O_CC 1 ve•.(��.' IUf I"n :•PI CY aNIP!IIrN II : /11 /H} 111/11/9: 30.60 SI.00 IY51 1,1 -:21 S])'•l if I:1 '.I nl SI VYICF IC /1[/P.' !•691 Q 1025, 19]M19 4'50 SiLif 11 +!65.11 I(. i Ili 1'I.:( IH F1 FE IC/II/8] 11:691.00 00 1:714.34 Uvi! 419111JII FY. 'n 111 lAtl 1C(I.00- 16,41 V'I'I InF N4 AI 111111 AI IC /20/82 1!.345 1 i!I I"111 1 1LN!'91 IC /]O /8? 1£`14' Vrll 111HMS .I !11 111/r,l/9^ if 111! m'll S fYM'! Y.'.1 FF't /P AI l I :+ r7 ^4 AIL, 11`.1 {. 10/211/81 1!1.00 0 11.1hr IL ISn f.IlS S AIILI T4!N L A9F4rY 411G PAr"I., ":I C'.( /"IYPn 10/20 /112 11:11: /PJ 344.00 TU4.UO 161SI !3.`4 5 "f/ VLAl.- 1'.G AI:':[ Ir. / %C /9.' 799.45 16141 9414 .P4 11A: d. -'S ^C_K $TCVF IC /2U /P.> 9.13 Q IM1 351 11114 191: 1175 9 C n - !ICI "11 I':P �AI I I': 4LL11 C 1 %,"IC ,11201 1:1 / }p /➢). 35.9E 11512 ac 16 15} 1501 C f ILC I'.. "F <1"' G/ 9:1.43.45 IM11 }• I9 F' (L CA -IA In /2C /al 16357 `r +> C'ILA',H 1'• C (.Illhr Ppy In / ]0 /E: 60.1E Q I1,v53 IIJd (1 `�IR1L CI III, SIC\ ... 10/10/82 441.68 I I 1 > ?75 C:'M1 { {IY I',"A 11 5PC 1£TY IC /?CIE? 31:789.35 1M1lc/I ]115 CITY P. 10 /:C /ft� 16.00 U IM1! ?i'S Cr•Lt CCI ] "n Rl l':C CC ifl / }C /H1 183.96 O 1616 E1`•1 FM :R Lr.!115 5 111/ }0 /9? 52.50 I1 1 i 4`9 IIL;C /.f lr i'NJ INC IC/20/21 59.00 16165 1111 FIJI G• ^6G\ C>` 1iAl n• MIST 10 / }n, /9> 823.37 IF >!S "e5 /'IC.A-AI.1CA YVINTV-; 1C /]0 /J: 63.65 O 765n Pt ^Ii /GI ;aI e? 916.12 16161 8T'ti v`.': ISY 41 3 N CP I 10/20/9_ 102.94 16169 •]i0 Os IP 1 10/20/82 884.04 1636.7 "in 01'!91 C IF Pr.•'I CO I01 ?0182 350.23 V 1 /17.: )a.,9 nafp r:. {•9v Ic /3r /a} 25J GO 163 r1 ll t: {:SIN AI. ILC 1.. /2C /y? 61.4E Ira:• 9' ^• F'PEY. I•.�FHY J 1:12(3/2? X0.00 m31s ifrl ulF F•PiFI c ^. IC /2oie 4 :1 -19.00 113111 IL 111 4114 4(CD FIJII ef:'I CI GFI,(I,AI lllllkNE To 111 /? Ir /20/82 s0'].no 22.E4 Ir.9 )6 11(19 LLIII /, YIf.H lf,/ ?8/92 209.00 Iein 'ari Gr: tnv: Ar I:UIIaFP CII IC /, I,7 I75.00 O 16t 1 ^. 470"1 f;rl ^9f NS 17; f. 10 /NI /9? ll. iP 161 /n 1715 r:r A•IT, Ji PMY N lC /20 /87 175.0( 16 111 1 4.30 IV.Y{S 411 01:3: :v;v 1(120/32 13:.50 NP11011: 0441Y LC1201H2 }2.110 0 IS 1tlt G95^ IIL Lily, Y: Fill IA4 1. 10/20182 2GO.00 16191 4915 FINE MAY PICK LC ILL IC/20/82 51.41 16394 4l75 S •I HoIYT LU:91FM CL 10/20/67 434. Be 16311} 51 in 1'11 In120/02 172 is.82 O 1639E 5.75 IiTL (IIY 4'IjT ASSC( 1C / ?O /87 31.25 16 °UI {If5 J Y (R.CI'; IF 1!.1120/0.2 3.0 85.00 I63F.1 (140 JI ki1Y I`: TI r'u GO IKC IC /10 /➢2 261.00 16319 617s J'9S AVAII?PIF 10/20/82 12.00 16390 61:15 J'IIN.11 flr'11L 13 4 I0120187 416.00 1!391 £}7G KFUV(L ! IS-1P CC 10/2./92 1111.06 16392 66CO KIN(, R...II:IFRSr t f. IN 70/82 334_50 16191 f£C4 KLFF7f LI•F CONI'CRATIM IO /2U /?? 43.62 16395 10/20/82 45.00 6('S KONN:, rJVAU IC /2r /e2 45.00 1639f 66'.0 LAIRS C[•.S Ti'ULiIRI Co IC12n /a2 7 :677.53 16397 GL44 lAl JAcc IC170182 32'1.25 0 16399 6690 L4" 11 PRINTING IC /'>0 /p2 31.4E 1 16399 61 ?5 ,ED IFALIII: C{ CAI IF CITIES iG /20 /J 14!1.9(1 16400 6) ^7 FFO CH (L IILOSF it /211/0? 43.9` p 164111 7313 MIINL: UARGN 10/20/PZ 64.00 A ( [e4[ Cftt rr 6ei;nm Cuu°m:Gp • M44 y, I [LN L V F N 0 C R N A N E 16411 T>iC. °'.11(111 op, fr4rlW O 1 4104 ir,o -1 .1 1 Ynnl rn rn AlS 11:1 1 : 1 0 11 u -r i s asst.[ 16406 ]..,, '. r 1 I64:6 [ +N '•',ll ^I:1 "1'••.1..; IIRTITU 1640IT 1I. 5 1 f ".f L.n0.t to I-C 11 ll 4,1`•114rP SIIYYIY 164f1< it's P'C III[ 1'411'01[12 16410 )]GS pal ::r•'Ift' i Ir.41t i]'1 PIYIa Ilrr RIC INC 1611 r.is p.'1 +IF CF1 l.a YeE55 I h'.I• 1 ^'l 1.1 : ia5 PIAI611'1 1[414 TY1 u4 :A6(pr• C1ICAP AIG 0 I[41t Y!411 R.1'RIYI - t':IIAI AL CLINIC 1 1 1 A 1 opi: c:.r L•1 4014 lYt. 1641.1 `r It R:rlts 1116 P(1V IN 11'.10 •1 .1 RI!IF': :I 11.62[1 16411 PI ". Rlllrl':S Itt 16 d1 _r. .Ill FA"Lep F.l::7 PP 11 1,?" u 1 f, Y'•l l'u ([k. JANI S N 0 164'1 4.11 TIRE t VIt 1x11 R5 164 °4 o14` r'lu'.Leul cc S It,, I6VL .59 SAb pff Ll) 10 ZiuRIF WA 12.17 ^` LTO WASTE J `16 BII).0 (f: T1RYF_Y11R 16411 .'3 I^. 1111:^ AUTANY RNCF.N 164TI '.l 5'1'1:: CAY -0116 PARTS 16431 V'IO V1•.al I "Il. SPI; 0 16331 a; EC SI CAI IF CA1 CT) Cr. teiil ^Sis :1 CALIF LAI CT) 16414 ^610 in CALIF LptwSC AVF MCMT 16414 p61`; S11 SPITE Cf TP('L f. PAl FINE 161.35 p55T 5P11L CFlT PSUPPLY Q 16436 15.91 SFLLIVAN¢R CORP CII •] 16411 "9741 5')11LIYOP YE PPCFRT 15419 F139 5'1'0TYPH'; SZRV ICE l 16419 1`35 TU1A9 S It.r. ' 16411 1! 1-1 TI-sy Fi IRC 16441 5)90 LIST CLU f:tirca WAY 16441 14g1 WILCFCK ':4TTFPY CO 16444 541^ YfPU CC. I.S 11 l Sr Q I6444 56'•O YI.F I 61;• SE VICIF E {y IM1445 $515 IF.1 111'614. it SC RY ICE 16446 •114 F°.lr IL "] 16441 91tl1 PI P.:�IIV. OPILJ: C. 1644.1 117CI LARSFIi. "AVV 16449 41 +1 91 VL 1•'. 0.11 FT TE 16456 91 -4 81 +;h:.. C NCIF 16451 4114 91'VC 1KY. CAROL Q /15 TV I FI E. J'V.F.4 11411 :796 VISCN. IIl;0Y 16454 X161 UI RIC IFa, J%IIF O 16455 1l.!1 Ilk! 'NA. PT VCF 16455 571'9 CRUZ MARIA 16451 17.9 V.LP N651A CAPMELLA 16459 '1195 SANG 11A, ViCYIE 0 116459 SYJ� RfPK M (;L(7PIA 646C 4INr z;.FIFGL.c,,,L 16M161 9[09 IF] V39I HEEJA " 16462 9194 J`P4M1`.LN. CINDY Q 16164 91 1 O¢] NF. ECIRT TRY 1646s 91!92 OVRSTFUt KAREN 16466 VUIFHAN. SI:UY 164.3 q!OS J(IIINS70N. JACKIE 16469 S°OL NFY4NSf.11•F. 1'NANCFS 16410 SF(If RICIIARrsur. FRS 15411 SPUR NANY VHS RS 1647) 91104 POF. JC11t1 16414 Y111 1)FINAL TOTALSNC e1 N1I npRp WARRANT PECCCH1C1I111LTTATION RM RFJIFhEACE 10/20/02 015COUNT FINAL TOTALS 91 a 30.110 341.10 PAGE 2 NET 71.38 1, Goo. oU 1.90 136.") 6;.150 259.50 " 249.31 5111.10 L 25.61 20.63 66.64 L 6.65 500. L0 10. SO 400.00 L 1,939.01 12. -it) 45.00 L 42.66 0.02 200.40 21.08 21.00 1901024.00 215.25 21.52 0.04 1444.41 91 a 30.110 341.10 3.00 300.00 5.00 211.00 11.00 11.00 11. In 5 1.50 " 7.50 7.50 L 15.OU 1.50 1.50 7.SU L 1.50 15.00 15.11 7.CC L 16.14 42b.411.J5 L B • 19, rem n y~�r�W N�mher and 5r�eer —__ - -_ Cnr ned I, cede - -_ .•. r — pn \'.d nYih ❑rlms IFir 1 irx; I'•n DrIxlNnrrrd fm Ord9 .rmdrd �' Rx <wdN noew. [' Y.dxwarY paorn' COIiE3 MMUD 9/29/87 r :Inu, ' ... OAM de ..:, ....InRIpR Ne. ..�.... ._.. ... e•v grl.lFlnCrM h xw hwX.n OR r OM< COPY w nr Frn. rr nMr FILE NO �NFR�OF OCFNSfISI 11. TYRE $I Of IICENSFIS1Aw •ttNC >TION FOR al<ONOIIC • WE", rv0. pegrmmr ° E AI<ohdrt Ee.eru9< C<mr<I yo77 i Te O'SE8 6 bI';E IRII lr«dM ❑Y7 i3.:r:3r' -Ina GfOGaww1GL y<rwmme.1d1. 938U — �r —e-'- CODE _ rrr, DoN 11. vndmgnN AerebY nppl.n Iw paved I - Ltemo drn <rAed a. /<ila�+. i <mp Per.,l }, ,AME I -, APPIICANII51 _ Avplied under Self wlu2 L) _ ERem.e Dere BI::+ +a �n it. EPeain DoN: lK. ], TYPE(3) Of iRANSACTION!L iTPE ' 3 50.00 20 ' kEN 2G. :0 z'goii: is ":!oeNEI service cr n _ sE «m•w <r smmn+- Nxmh<r wd sun 8 477 Atehihald Avc. U cm a ^d z.P CN <a ep TOE 3 75. AO 917]9 +dn Jer:3lyd 9D 8anca0 Cue9.nf, } An lrtm;M+lmlde Y$9 d. If Premnn LtmM. li /i< Clb L•mn +} SM1nn IYpe <I U-2f Ve rV e[9. r !. Madn9ddddrea lA drllerem I<em 31 ^N"mbn aM Shnl w 91 rF et de Akdela +fib 10. Nax Depxnm.nrEpa 9. No.r e.n hew <w.;a <d of a kIwYR y.nope <enr<I All n or r<9ula6am AT Y<x lanin9 a d< \nt • "Yf3" e.<wer 1< irem+ 9 w 10 <n nn nrl «Fmem wl•rtF .hell he dnmed po.l d IM1n opplianfien 1 L E.ploin n II<snud pem vrill M1a. <11 A. axnl;Reuam <1 P li<w n, aM ed in on.wb l ros anm el the AI<ehd'< N. ae C<mrol Atr. npPbtam ogee lol I6ar nrry m m9n emPioY aeleM anY a ... ...... m he 161 reel n. .:n ..m : dnN er m. r er p.r„xr 9r142:L 9 —9 -_2 an BerOAr5iE poN 13. STATE Of CALIFORNIA C.." nl _ w..rMTM. �.x... _ a mrN�•r .n .�y....r . x.. Inw.w.. w n m.r.n �I.wurjen m n.wm w ....n..w + .r ri. "r•rrr. wM.r..r .w. w ...r.<.... F ..xx Il APPLICANT SIGN NERE X ' me - APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR S. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cnxnry ..`.I;. 'n".hhl1T .:';w:.• - .:.w.» I. �FCb4N4 ='rnr; n..n..r -. ...;...n .r ... •a.... _.n .. ...w.r .r+.. ..... .. .Y _ .. A.rl �e Nxmbnl0 B • 19, rem n y~�r�W N�mher and 5r�eer —__ - -_ Cnr ned I, cede - -_ .•. r — pn \'.d nYih ❑rlms IFir 1 irx; I'•n DrIxlNnrrrd fm Ord9 .rmdrd �' Rx <wdN noew. [' Y.dxwarY paorn' COIiE3 MMUD 9/29/87 r :Inu, ' ... OAM de ..:, ....InRIpR Ne. ..�.... ._.. ... e•v grl.lFlnCrM 0 VAWUT LGr I � �I j Su[,Lt ��INICY <<r c: G i Boll A.¢Ctl� "dRll. NvC I J i AZ&w tourc- — - -- — -- — — — — � -'h. Fltus Alrca - i 2.e.�sne Al_ i JAc.,ur Lor Cc. %R,L ; $R(� %�GR • ij 50l ti MIL Ser-Jice Ie LO[FIU'I� ou -fire nIeKTN CAST C[QIJfe F{VIuue FAZ Ag(,l ow Kcure �4j3 FCT r1" w.OVfvi� 1;:i CGEIifA1 Iii. }' / AiEO o �f Ajnetl L. i"Lri nl °• ��POlIGYI A "P5/D[ - "u Tl /)f I t�.'r r're 7. (- � Liu /i /(Cut /re/ru(= I/ Nok rH / k'- u -I �cdilr /�oMlFdHC 0 0 lui V nTmv^c n.XTn nTTn.vnw.n. STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1962 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician 1917 • SUBJECT: Approval of Agreements with Southern Pacific Transporta- tion Company and R. C. Land Company for construction of a storm drain beneath the railroad tracks within the Victoria Community Project The Southern Pacific Transportation Company's indenture agreement is a standard railroad agreement giving the City the right to construct and maintain a concrete storm drain beneath the railroad tracks within the Victoria Community. In the agreement between the City and R. C. Land Company, R. C. Land Company assumes the responsibility to perform the obligations of the City under the above described indenture agreement and will hold the City harmless from all liabilities associated with it. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolu- tions approving the agreements and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. Respectfully submitted, LBH:BK:jaa Attachments I r � • RESOLUTION NO. i : i i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND R.C. LAND COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE SOUTHERN PACIFICTRANSPORTATION TRACKS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT WHEREAS, R.C. Land Company, developer of the Victoria Community in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, is required to install a storm drain beneath the Southern Pacific Railroad withn said project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has ,, "or its consideration an agreement with R.C. Land Company for the construction and maintnenace of sia storm drain; and WHEREAS, R.C. Land Company assumes responsibility for constructing and maintaining said storm drain and assums the obligations of the City under the Indenture Agreement between the City and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Agreement be and the same is hereby • approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign same on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • RESOLUTION NO. • I . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN INDENTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE RAILROAD TRACKS WITHN THE VICTORIA PROJECT WHEREAS, a storm drain structure is required to be installed beneath the Southern Pacific Transportation Company tracks at the Railroads Baldwin Park Branch at MP526.55 within the Victoria Community Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration and Indenture Agreement between the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the City for the right to install the storm drain structure at the above described location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Indenture Agreement be and the same is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign same on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Lauren M. 'Wasserman, City Clerk • Jon D. Mikels, Mayor C� "'0. / RG'OROING REQUESTED BV • gf'IO WHEN RELOR OEO MPIL TO NeTf St Nf+ q"mm+ r „ro J Stile (RAF - VI - 8/20/82 - 45063/3221 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECOROE R'S VSE r- RELMIS: BBO- 526.15 -X(N) THIS INDENTURE, made this day of 1982, by and between SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, a Delaware corpora- tion, herein termed "Railroad,” and CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, address: 9320 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701, herein termed "Grantee "; WITNESSETH: • 1. That Railroad hereby grants to Grantee, subject to the reserva- tions, covenants and conditions herein contained, the right to construct, reconstruct, maintain and operate two 12) ninety -six (96) inch reinforced concrete storm drains and appurtenances, hereinafter collectively referred to as "structure," in, upon, along, across and beneath the property and tracks of Railroad, at or near Etiwanda (Rancho Cucamonga), in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, in the location more particularly described on Exhibit "A," attached and made a part hereof. The location of the property described in the Exhibit "A" is shown on the print of Railroad's Drawing A- 13590, Sheet 1, dated June 1, 1982, attached and made a part hereof. -1- I Form C -1 (, March, 1960 • 2. Project markers in form and size satisfacto ry to Railroad, identifying the facility and its owner, will be installed and con- stantly maintained by and at the expense of Grantee at Railroad property lines or such locations as Railroad shall approve. Such mar:cers shall be relocated or removed upon request of Railroad with- out expense to Railroad. Absence of markers does not constitute a warranty by Railroad of no subsurface installations. 3. This grant is made subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right and obligation of Railroad, its successors and assigns, to use all the property described herein in the performance of its duty as a common carrier, and there is reserved unto Railroad., its successors and assigns, the right (consistent with the rights herein granted) to construct, reconstruct, i.•iaintain and use existing and future railroad tracks, facilities and appurtenances and existing and future transportation, communication and pipeline facilities and appurtenances in, upon, over, under, across and alone said property. 4. This grant is made subject to all licenses, leases, ease- ments, restrictions, conditions, covenants, encumbrances, liens and claims of title which may affect said property and the word "grant," as used herein, shall not be construed as a covenant against the • existence o: any thereof. 5. The rights herein granted co Grantee sha_1 laose and become void is the construction of said structure upon said propert; is not commenced within one (1) year from the Hate first herein written. 6. Grantee shall bear the entire cost and expense of construct - inc, reconstructing and maintaining said structure upon said property. Grantee agrees that all work upon or in connection with said structure shall be done at such times and in such manner as not to interfere in any way whatsoever with the operations of Railroad. The plans for and the construction or reconstruction of said structure shall be subject to the approval of Railroad. Grantee agrees to reimburse Railroad for the cost and expense to Railrcad o: furnishing any materials or perfcrming any labor in connec- tion with the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and removal o: said structure, including, but not limited to, the installation and re- moval. of such falsework and other protection beneath or along Railroad's tracks, and the furnishing of such watchmen, flagmen and inspectors as Railroad deems necessar•i. 7. In the event Railroad shall at any time so recuire, Grantee, at Grantee's expen =_e, shall reconstruct, alter, :v3iSWC x7C7dA.xSocx 'mac }:vYaxzY==OxatxmYmm=aaxM or cthenvise improve said structure upcn • receipt of written notice . m fro Rai_rcad so to do. i Form C -1 March, 1980 • 8. In the event of leakage or spillage from said structure or any vehicle in the control or custody of Grantee or any contractor for Grantee, Grantee shall, at its own expense, promptly clean Rail- road's premises to the satisfaction of Railroad, the Environmental Protection agency and /or any public body having jurisdiction in the matter. Any expense of required compliance with federal, state or local environmental regulations incurred by Railroad or Grantee shall be borne by Grantee, including any fines and judgments levied against Railroad or its property. 9. As part consideration, Grantee agrees to pay Railroad an amount equal to any and all assessments which may be levied by order of any authorized lawful body against the property of Railroad (and which may have been paid by Railroad) to defray any part of the cost or expense incurred in connection with the construction of said structure upon said property commenced within one (1) year from the date first herein written. 10. Grantee, its agents and employees subject to provisions hereof, shall have the privilege of entry on said property for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and making necessary repairs to said structure. Grantee agrees to give Railroad five (5) days' writ- ten notice prior to commencement of any work on said structure, except emergency repairs, in which event Grantee shall notify Railroad's author- ized representative by phone. Grantee agrees to keep said property and said structure in coed and safe condition, free from waste, so far as affected by Grantee's operations, to the satisfaction of Railroad. If Grantee fails to keen said property and said structure in a good and safe condition, free from waste, then Railroad may perform the necessary work at the expense of Grantee, which expense Grantee agrees to pay to Railroad upon demand. 11. In the event any work upon or in connection with said structure or its appurtenances, to be done upon or adjacent to the tracks and prop- erty of Railroad, should be let to a contractor by Grantee, such work shall not be begun until such contractor shall have first entered into an acreement with Railroad, satisfactory to Railroad, and indemnifving Railroad from and against all claims, liability, cost and expense growing out of the performance of the work to be done by such contractor. Such contractor shall furnish, at the option of and without expense to Railroad, a reliable surety bond in an amount and in a form satis- factory to Railroad guaranteeing the faithful performance of all the terms, covenants and conditions contained in said agreement. 12. Grantee shall assume all risk of damage to said structure and appurtenances and to any other property of Grantee, or any property under the control or custody of Grantee while upon or near the property of Rail- road incident to the construction, reconstruction or maintenance of said structure, caused by or contributed to in any way by the construction, • operation, maintenance or presence of Railroad's line of railroad at the above-mentioned location. -3- d c Form C -1 March, 1980 Insofar as it lawfully may, Grantee agrees to release and indem- nify Railroad, its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns* from all claims, liability, cost and expense howsoever same may be caused, including reasonable attorney fees, for loss of or damage to property and for injuries to or death of persons arising out of the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, presence, use or removal of said structure, regardless of any negligence or alleged negligence on the part of Railroad employees. The word "Railroad," as used in this section, shall be construed to include, in addition to Railroad, the successors, assigns and affil- iated companies of Railroad and any other railroad company that may be lawfully operating upon and over the tracks crossing or adjacent to said structure, and the officers and employees thereof. 13. Should Grantee, its successors or assigns, at any time abandon the use of said property, or any part thereof, or fail at any time to use the same for the purpose contemplated herein for a continuous period of one (1) year, the right hereby given shall cease to the extent of the use so abandoned or discontinued, and Railroad shall at once have the right, in addition to, but not in qualification of, the rights hereia- above reserved, to resume exclusive possession of said property or the part thereof the use of which is so discontinued or abandoned. Upon termination of the rights and privileges hereby granted, Gran- tee, at its own cost and expense, agrees to remove said structure from,& said property and restore said property as nearly as practicable to th same state and condition in which it existed prior to the constructicn of said structure. Should Grantee in such event fail, neglect or refuse to remove said structure and restore said property, such removal and res- toration may be performed by Railroad, at the expense of Grantee, which expense Grantee agrees to pay to Railroad upon demand, or Railroad may, at its option, assume ownership of said structure. 14. This indenture shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed in duplicate the day and year first herein written. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, By (Title) Attest: Assistant Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, By By Clerk -4- • C � • EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the land (100 feet wide) of Southern Pacific Transportation Company as described in the deed to Pacific Electric Railway Company by Deed recorded in Book 523, Page 200 of Deeds, Records of San Bernardino Count in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the easterly line of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 32 Township 1 North, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Meridian with • the northerly line of the said Company's land; thence South 0 °08'44" West 100.00 feet along said easterly line to a poin in the southerly line of said Company's land; thence North 89 012'23" West 130.00 feet along said southerly line; thence North 0 °08'44" East 100.00 feet to a point in the said northerly line; thence South 89 °12123" East 130.00 feet alon said northerly line to the Point of Beginning. - Page 1 of 1 - 0 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of October, 1982, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter "City," and R C LAND COMPANY, a California general partnership, hereinafter "Developer ", provides as follows: R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, there is attached hereto (1) Exhibit "A ", a proposed Indenture, hereinafter "Indenture," between Southern • Pacific Transportation Company, hereinafter "Railroad," and the City for the construction and maintenance of Storm Drainage Structures, and referred to as Structure, hereinafter "Structure," across Railroad's Baldwin Park Branch at MP 526.15; WHEREAS, Developer desires that said Structure be built and maintained because the same will improve access to and enhance the value of certain of Developer's property in the City in the vicinity of the Structure; . WHEREAS, City is willing to enter into the Indenture only if Developer pays all costs of constructing and maintaining the -1- Structure and agrees to in all respects, assume and perform the • obligations of City under the Indenture; and WHEREAS, Developer is willing to do the same. NOW, THEREFORE,'City and Developer agree as follows: (1) City shall execute and deliver to Railroad the Indenture. (2) Within fifteen (15) days after written demand by City, Developer shall deposit with City the sum of $7,600.00, which is the estimated cost summary of work by Railroad forces. That sum shall be expended by the City in the manner contemplated by the Indenture. (3) Developer shall construct and maintain said Structure, and in so doing shall in all respects comply with all terms and conditions of the Indenture. Developer shall pay, without limita- tion, all costs of constructing and maintaining the Structure, (4) Developer shall require that each contractor of Developer engaged for the purpose of constructing or maintaining the Structure, or any part thereof, execute and comply with all 0 "contractor's agreements" which are required by the Railroad, as • well as comply with all terms and provisions of the Indenture. _2_ ti • (5) Developer shall insure that each contractor engaged by Developer for the construction or maintenance of the Structure, or any part thereof, has the City named as an additional insured on each policy of insurance that the contractor is required to furnish pursuant to the terms of the Indenture. (6) In order to insure that the work contemplated by the Indenture, and this Agreement, will be properly performed in a timely manner, Developer agrees that no progress payments shall be made to any of Developer's contractors without written consent • of the City first had and obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. (7) Developer agrees to indemnify City from and against all costs, expense, claims and liabilities for injury to or death of persons (including, but not limited to, passengers and employees of Railroad and employees of City), and damage to or loss of property (including, but not limited to, property owned, leased, occupied or used by or in the care, custody or control of Railroad • or the employees of Railroad or City or the employees of City), however same may be caused, resulting from, arising out of or in -3- any way connected with this Agreement or the construction or • maintenance of the aforesaid undersigned project, whether or not caused or contributed to by any negligent act or omission on the p:rt of any of City's agents or employees. (8) Should either party bring suit to compel performance of this Agreement or to recover for breach of any covenant or condition contained herein, the prevailing party shall pay reason- able attorneys fees in addition to the amount of judgment and costs. (9) Time is of the essence of this Agreement. (10) This Agreement may be modified or amended only by an • instrument in writing executed by both parties. (11) This Agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. R C LAND COMPANY, a California general partnership BY: THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY, as General Partner Ti l Title • ATTEST: By City Clerk • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By Mayor 0 0 • nlmv AT. To A TTOUn OT TO n INAXY O A STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 f" , TO: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Extension Agreement for Minor Development Review 82 -08 located at 8270 Foothill Boulevard Minor Development Review 82-08 is a Chinese Restaurant located at 8270 Foothill Boulevard on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of the Sycimore Restaurant. The developera, Gary and Margaret Bougher and Gerald Broyles are requesting a 12 month extension of time for the construction of street improvements adjacent to the site due to the current economic environment. An Improvements Extension Agreement requesting a 12 month extension has been submitted by the Developers. A Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of$26,000 and a tabor and Material Bond in the amount of $8,000 are on file with the City Clerk. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the extension agreements. &Res;t f ully subm tied, LLOYD B. HOBBS CITY ENGINEER LBH:BK:bc rr - - �. • RESOLUTION NO. + A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DSVELOPMENT ::EVIEW 82 -08 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Extension Agreement executed on October 20, 1982 by Gary and Margaret Bougher and Gerald Broyles as Developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 8270 Foothill Boulevard. WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Extension Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as Minor Development Review 82-08. WHEREAS, said Improvement Extension Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient immprovement 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 Extension Agreement and said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved for the period of 12 months, 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 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • Jon D. Mikels, Mayor h 0 0 • CITY OF RANCI10 CUCA,MONGA Minor Director w A Review 82 -08 .v e cof x ENGINEERING DIVISION I1� \v7I y ;2 y 1 v VICINITY \1 ; \P a c P F C 17238 "Walnut Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 August 27, 1982 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 Baseline Road - Unit "C" Rancho Jucamonga. CA 91730 Re: Improvement Agreement 8270 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Hubbs: As per Article 3 of said Agreement, we hereby request an additional twelve months to complete the provisions of the agreement. The circumstances which make this request necessary are as follows: 1. In the current economic environment, It is not possible to arrange satisfactory financing on the subject property In order to complete the required street improvements. 2. The current abundance of available commercial space, coupled with a recessionary economy, have increased vacancy factors and placed downward pressure on rental rates resulting in a reduc- tion of projected Income for the property. 3. The delay In the opening of China Alley Restaurant (our mayor tenant) has resulted in financial hardship for both tenant and landlord. Cash reserves for both parties have been exhausted and time is needed to regain these losses. It 1s our every good intention to uphold the Improvement Agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and we thank you for your consider- ation. In this matter. ,D?: ob n sincerely c1 Gary D. Bougher :-1 • • • L] r TMV nV D A MO W n rT Tr A Mf1TJr A This agreement represents a major achievement which we've worked toward for the past four years. It will allow the construction of signals at Archibald and Fourth Street with Federal Aid Urban funds. The project Will be funded 50 -50 between the two agencies. Rancho Cucamonga will act as lead agency for project development and administration. With approval of this agreement the plans which were completed two years ago will be revised to meet CALTRANS standards and Minding requested. Staff will advise Council of a construction schedule when further information is available. Estimated cost of the project is $80,000. RECO;MIENDATION: It is recommended that Council approved the agreement. Respectfully submitted, V LLOk B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER Attachment LBH:bc ;- i STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 L TO: City Counciland City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: JOINT AGREEMENT -- ARCHIBALD AVE. AND FOURTH STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL This agreement represents a major achievement which we've worked toward for the past four years. It will allow the construction of signals at Archibald and Fourth Street with Federal Aid Urban funds. The project Will be funded 50 -50 between the two agencies. Rancho Cucamonga will act as lead agency for project development and administration. With approval of this agreement the plans which were completed two years ago will be revised to meet CALTRANS standards and Minding requested. Staff will advise Council of a construction schedule when further information is available. Estimated cost of the project is $80,000. RECO;MIENDATION: It is recommended that Council approved the agreement. Respectfully submitted, V LLOk B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER Attachment LBH:bc ;- i Y O3P ITY HALL ONIA R10. CALIFORNIA 41761 R. E. BOB ELUNOWOOD M•Y4• ROBERT K. ABEL HOMER F. BRIGGS FAYE MYFRS OASTIIUF BEECHER MEDLIN C.H MmLTH 7 October 1982 4C) 1*4 TA7=1 11 © AREA CODE )IK 446.1151 e1r. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Lloyd: SUBJECT: JOINT AGREEMENT -- ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND FOURTH STREET TRAFFIC SIGNALS • Enclosed are two copies of subject Agreement which have been approved and executed by the City Council of the City of Ontario. Please have your City Council execute these agreements, then return one to our City Clerk and retain one for your files. Thank you. Sincerely yours, 1" 4-51 ROiERT JACKSON Assistant City Manager /Development /Vlt Enclosures (2) • G ROGER 0. HUGMBAHRS ON ALBn DHgIS E. ARTERBMN CRY ckK KENNETH M. VERNEY Cry T,..,- r Y.c- r t�tf AGREEMENT for Construction of J ! rr TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT ARCf ?I BALD AVENUE & FOURTH STREET � ��.vri+i =iv :NI5 AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 67"- day of � (c -6.d' -, _ 1982, between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCA9U :,UA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Rancho Cucamonga ", and the CITY OF ONTARIO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Ontario ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario equally share re- sponsibility for the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street; and '17HEREAS, said intersection currently meets commonly recog- nized warrants for the installation of traffic signals; and miEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit for one agency to act as lead for processing the design and construction of said traffic signals to be funded with Federal Aid Urban funds; and WHEREAS, Rancho Cucamonga indicates its willingness to perform the role of lead agency. • NOW, THEREFORE, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, for the con- siderations hereinafter named, agree as follows: ARTICLE I: Rancho Cucamonga agrees to act as lead agent in the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates project processing through CALTRAN8 and the Federal Highway Administration, and contract adminis- tration through the construction of traffic signals at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street located equally within Rancho Cucamonaa and Ontario. These services and obligations are further, detailed as Environmental Approval - Rancho Cucamonaa Shall pronare environmental documentation in con - formance od th the California Environmental quali t!• Act and the Yational Environmental Protection .Act. Preliminnrt• 9nsic,n Prc Iiminar^ desi,;n drawinr,s shall be prepared in crordination with the Citv of Ontario for their rc •.•icw end approval prior to crmalc r.ion of final • plans. The preii^�i nary design shall consider current traffic volumes and turn nnv2ments and anal'-s13 of future tra_`fi_, desl,;n parameter to determine required traffic control equipment. • • • Final Design After preliminary approval by Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga shall cause final plans, specifications and estimates to be prepared for advertisement by Rancho Cucamonga, upon approval of plans by the City Engineer of Ontario and the City Council of Ontario. Contract Award Upon authorization by Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and CALTRANS shall advertise and receive bids for the construction of said signals and make recommenda- tion for award of the contract to the City Councils of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. Upon award of the contract by each Council, Rancho Cucamonga shall enter into contracts for construction. Contract Administration Rancho Cucamonga shall provide all inspection, testing and other contract administration leading to acceptance of the signals for maintenance by Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. Rancho Cucamonga shall submit all change orders prepared during construction for approval of the City Engineer of Ontario. Pavment Rancho Cucamonga shall contribute fifty percent (50 %) of the cost of design of the project, provided, how- ever, that if the cost of design exceeds $4,000.00, Rancho Cucamonga shall pay one hundred percent (1001) of the excess. Rancho Cucamonga shall contribute fifty percent (50 %) of the cost of construction of the project. ARTICLE II: Cooperation Ontario agrees to insure the timely review of all plans and reports and take actions toward the award of contracts for the project construction without undue delay. Payment • Ontario shall contribute fifty percent (508) of the cost of the design of the project, but not to exceed $2,000.00. Ontario shall deposit the sum of $2,000.00 with Rancho Cucamonga upon the execution of this con- tract. If Ontario's share of the cost of design, as finally determined, is less than $2,000.00, Ontario shall be entitled to a refund of the difference between $2,000.00 and its share of the actual costs of design. Ontario shall contribute fifty percent (508) of the cost of construction of the project. Through allocation of a portion of its current share of Federal Aid Urban fund as funds are allocated and obligated by the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). This agreement upon execution shall authorize allocation by the appropriate agency of said funds to this project. ARTICLE III: Maintenance Rancho Cucamonga shall provide all maintenance and en- ergy required for the operation of the traffic signal and safety lighting system to be constructed at Archi- • bald Avenue and Fourth Street. Rancho Cucamonga agrees to bear fifty percent (508) of the cost of the required maintenance and energy for this signal system and fur- ther agrees to submit to Ontario twice annually an in- voice for Ontario's share of the costs of maintenance and energy. Ontario agrees to bear fifty percent (508) of the cost of the maintenance and energy required for the operation of the traffic signal and safety light- ing system at Fourth Street and Archibald Avenue. Upon submittal of an invoice by Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario agrees to pay its share within thirty (30) days. The billing invoice shall be sufficiently detailed so that Ontario can review the manner in which the invoice billing amount was determined by Rancho Cucamonga. ARTICLE IV: Liabilitv. Rancho Cucamonga shall indemnify Ontario, its officers, aqents and employees against and hold them free and harmless from all claims and liabilities of any kind arising out of, in connection with, or resulting from acts or omissions on the part of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, agents and employees against and hold them • �y • free and harmless of and from all claims and liabili- ties of any kind arising out of, in connection with, or resultin -, from acts or omissions on the part of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, agents, contractors and employees in the construction and maintenance of the signals at Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street. ARTICLE V: Termination Prior to the award of a construction contract, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of intention to terminate to the other party. In the event th"s Agreement is terminated by mutual agreement, Rancho Cucamonga will bear fifty percent (509) and nntLrio will bear fifty percent (50:;) of all costs incurred prior to termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF ONTARIO, a municipal CITY OF RANCHO CDCAITONGA, a corporation ^ municipal corporation BY: I 1 BY: Mayor Mayor Attest: Attest: City Clerk City Clerk • APPROVED AS TO FORhi:�\ APPROVED AS TO FORM; City Attorney ity'7- tt4rney CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT • DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant City Engineer �MON r C;" T Clj Q I^ i SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 82 -05 - Reiter Development Company The subject Director Review, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue is submitted by Reiter Development Company. The Director Review was approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 1982. The Improvement Agreement and Security have been submitted by Reiter Development Company to guarantee the installation of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance: ;19,000.00 Labor and Material: $ 91500.00 E RECOMMENDATION: 197 It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Improvement Agreement and Security for Director Review 82-05 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. Reap etfully sub itted, LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER LBH:JS;bc • L I RESOLUTION NO. + - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 82 -05 f" - G WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Californa, has for its consideraton an Improvement Agreement executed on September 1, 1982, by A.H. Reiter Development 00. as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subjeot 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. 82 -05; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Immprovement 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 Improvmeent Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. APPROVED, PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk `s Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • • STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer .� ry > Cl 1977 SUBJECT: t._^eptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for 10020 Almond Street submitted by Allen and Mary Jones Mr. and Mrs. Jones, property owners, have applied for a building permit to construct a 2aelling unit on the property at 10020 Almond Street. The property does not front upon any public street. The acces to the lot is provided from Hermosa Avenue by Almond Street, an unpaved access through private easements among the adjacent property owners. As a prerequisite to issuance of building permit for landlocked parcels as established by City Council Resolution No. 80 -38, an irrevocable offer of dedication on the portion of the access for street purposes and a lien agreement for future improvements of the street are required. The document for the offer of dedication for that portion of Almond Street has been previously executed and Mr, and Mrs. Jones have entered into a lien agreement to provide the required street improvements at some future date to be determined by the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution and authorize the mayor and City Clerk to accept and sign the lien agreement on behalf of the City. Respectfully submi ted, �LOYD�A�H�Bs CITY ENGINEER LBH: JS: be • RESOLUTION NO. * � % A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM ALLEN AND MARY JONES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAME. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 80 -38 on May 7, 1980, to establish requirements for landlocked parcels where no subdivision is occurring, and; WHEREAS, 10020 Almond Street, located north of Wilson Avenue between .Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, is a landlocked parcel within the meaning of said Resolution No. 80 -38; and WHEREAS, Allen and Mary Jones have executed a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, 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 20th day of October, 1932. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren :A,,. :;asserman. Oity Clerk • l Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 w; °a,2� 3) xeJ u. PROJECT SITE a �xb)1 title; CITY of ii,vNCI10 cL'cx��IO.NG,� y, ENGINEERING DIVISION � T ylv VICINITY MAP page_ . i +o.a 1 O N •ze rz h ¢ � rynyh �xb)1 title; CITY of ii,vNCI10 cL'cx��IO.NG,� y, ENGINEERING DIVISION � T ylv VICINITY MAP page_ . i • AFSOI.UMN ND. i -- nE `L' "7" n' c A SF_SICA, C I 1fH 17Y IL OF 7HE Ci7Y OF R�� C(1ChYLNAq, CALIR7(aV P%N ING PARrIAL RE1hBUR EMU 7o V"� NFIVHFRS OF RE A� iSSIGN PCH EXPENSES INaRRD WHILE SERVING AS ERS 7NE CLIMUSSIGN. hHERFAS, the General law of the State of California provides that a city planning conmission my be appointed for the purpose of administering both City and State laws relating to planning, zoning, and land use, and WIFREAS, members of the Rancho Cucarmnga Planning Commission devote substantial time and effort on behalf of the City of Rancho Cacanonga, and WHEREAS, Planning Cannissioners are required as a part of their responsibilities to peke on -site inspections of properties which will be discussed at further Planning Commission meetings, and WOMAS, as a result of these inspections, ma:bers of the Planning Co fission routinely incur certain expenses related to the use of their personal vehicles and to the perfornence of their official duties for the City, and •40 AS, it is appropriate that Planning Cmmissioners receive sum reirrburserrent for expenses related to the discharge of their official duties, NC1V, THEREPME, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cueanonga does hereby resolve that nu, ers of the Planning Cannission shall receive the sun of thirty -five dollars ($35.00) per neeting, not to exceed seventy dollars ($70.00) per rmnth to offset a portion of the expenses incurred while serving as rrerrbers of the Planning Comiission. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of AYES: SAES: ABSENl: srrEST: luuren M. t%t%ssernen, City Clerk Jon D. bhkels, %yor n s RESULUTION NO. 79 -55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOPUNIA, PROVIDING PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT • TO MEMRERS OF THE PLANNING COXMISSION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE SERVING AS MEMBERS OF THE COMISSION. WHEREAS, the General Law of the State of California provides thnt n r.ity planning commission may be appointed for the purpose of adnini.vrering both City and State laws relating to planning, zoning, and !.ind use, and WHEREAS, members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission devote substantial time and effort on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and WHEREAS, Planning Commissioners are required as a part of their responsibilities cc make on -site inspections of properties which will be. discussed at further Planning Commission meetings, and WHEREAS, as a result of these inspections, members of the Pl.mning Commission routinely incur certain expenses related to the use of their personal vehicles and to the performance of their official duties for the City, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that Planning Commissioners receive some reimbursement for expenses related to the discharge of • their official duties, NOWT. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cuc:unougo dues hereby resolve that members of the Planning Commission shall rvccive the sum of [won Ly -five dollars ($25.00) per meeting, not w oxcced fifty dollars ($50.00) per month to offset a portion u: the expenses incurred while serving as members of the Planning Com:ni::sion. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this Sth day of July, 1979. AYES: Mikels, Palumbo, Schlosser. Frost NOES: Nono ABSENT: Bridgo �la vu A rrs'IT: City CIvrk J �. 0 RESOLUTION NO. V ' - / { A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR STREETS AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -1 The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the City Engineer of said City did acknowledge those certain Offers of Dedication, executed by R. C. Land Company for Assessment District 82 -1. WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that the said Offers of Dedication be accepted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, that pursuant to provisions of Chapter 12.7 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of • California, the above - referenced Offers of Dedication are hereby accepted on this 6th day of October, 1982. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk ,0 J � Jon D. :Mikels, Mayor PROJECT: Rancho Cucamonga " A.D. 82 -1 EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into thi )-�u day of % -�,1 , P.A 198'1. by and between the CITY OF 14CHO CUCAMONGA (hereinafter referred to as the "CITY ") and R.C. LAND.COMPANY, a California General Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER ".) RECITALS WHEREAS, the Council of the CITY is considering the fornation of an assessment district under the terms and provisions of the "Municipal Improvements Act of 1913 ", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction of certain public works of improvements, together with acquisition, which the public interest and necessity requires. Said special assessment district is known and designated as the RANCHO CUCAMONGA 40 "DISTRICT"); DISTRICT 82 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "DISTRICT "); and • WHEREAS, said public improvements are planned and located in a manner which is compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and WHEREAS, the OWNER and CITY are desirous at this time to agree as to the terms of acquisition of the hereinafter described property interests; and WHEREAS, City is prepared to institute condemnation proceedings in regard to the Easement Area, and to this end, has obtained a litigation guarantee from Title Insurance and Trust Company; and WHEREAS, in view of the threat or imminence of Condemnation, and the costs to both parties attendant thereto, the parties deem it advisable to reach an agreement by which City will acquire the Casement Area. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED BY -11E PARTIES HERETO, AS FOLLOWS: r` J AGREEMENT 1. The OWNER hereby agrees to convey to the CITY and the • CITY agrees and needs to acquire, that certain parcel of property and right - of-way situated in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, as set forth and described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto, referenced and so incorporated. 2. That the purchase price for said easement is hereby agreed to be the sum of $178,439.00, said amount payable upon receipt of money from sale of bonds and the Easement Area is clear of all adverse encumbrances. It is hereby further acknowledged and approved that all costs of acquisition of said easement under this Agreement are to be spread over benefited properties in the ASSESSMENT DISTRICT pursuant to the provisions of law. herein areect to a successful confirmation of the assessment and awar the construction contrat and the sale of bonds for the DISTRICT. Agreement shall be null and �. void if the assessment proceedings of confirmed within• one (1) year period of time after execution is Agreement, and at that time, all Agreements previously deliver all be returned to the property owner as said OWNER is shown on - -4r<-- T' �e�r�ultfY-ugen- exeeaeion -of and the CITY -fv r agree that Owner will deposit with Title Insurance and Trust n Escrow No. 814323TN:sb (the "Escrow ") such irrevocable o o dedicate, deed or deeds and any other instrument necessary a;-RZFso provided to belll` J 5. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the obligation of CITY hereunder includes consideration to OWNER for all compensible items for the property, including the value of the part taken, improvements, if any, costs and any damages to which OWNER may be entitled by law or otherwise. 6. $250.00 is included in the total amount shown in Item 2 hereinabove which amount is estimated to be one -half the(n /�L4 escrow charges on the parcel of land being purchased by OWNEIIL'^ 'h from Conrock Company in the Escrow No. 814323TN:sb. -- }._fr - affecting sement Area demands, in writing, that {/ compensation being paic lied to the existing loan, the/,-1+. City of Rancho Cucamonga shall forty t compensation to the beneficiary for application to the loan, with w`rrtt-vYnotice to • -2- 1940C/2159/01 e. 8. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall run • to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, legal representatives and all other interested persons. Offer to De i e Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate shally be !!! ' deposited in the Escrow. firmation of the DISTRICT and //4KL the sale of bonds, the Irrevocable Dedicate shall be-)(a delivered to the CITY and the CITY shall accept s er by 10. This Agreement and the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate shall become null and void and be of no further force and effect if the property or rights -of -way to be acquired, as described in this Agreement, are shown upon any final map, filed with or submitted to the legislative body for acceptance and approval under the terns and provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and offered for dedication for public use by said Nap or by any separate offer of dedication theretofore or thereafter made. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto execute this Agreement on the day and in the year first hereinabove written. OWNERS: • R.C. LAND COMPANY, a California General P tnership By: Richard/�E [ .,Fran James McNamara CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • By: -3- 1940C/2159/01 % EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the Southwest one - quarter of Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 6 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as shown on the official plat thereof, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, described in parcels as follows: Parcel A Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southwest one - quarter as shown on Parcel Map No. 6085, filed in Book 70, Pages 74 through 77 of Parcel Maps, in the office of said County Recorder; thence North 890 54' 13" West 361.33 feet along the Northerly line of said Southwest one - quarter to Point A, said point being the -TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also being the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave Northwesterly having a radius of 580.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears South 180 24' 44" East; thence Southwesterly 187.36 feet along said curve through a central angle of 18° 30' 31" to a line parallel with and Southerly 30.00 feet from said Northerly line; thence North 890 54' 13" West 579.99 feet along said parallel line; thence North 00 30' 21" East 30.00 feet to said Northerly line; thence South 890 54' 13" East 763.90 feet along said Northerly line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel B Beginning at Point A described above, said point being the beginning of a curve, concave Northwesterly having a radius of 580.00 feet, a radial line to said point bears South 18° 24' 44" East; thence Southwesterly 187.36 feet along said curve through a central angle of 18° 30' 31" to a line parallel with and Southerly 30.00 feet from said Northerly line; thence North 890 54' 13" West 579.99 feet along said parallel line; thence South 00 30' 21" Nest 30.00 feet to a line parallel with and Southerly 60.00 feet from said Northerly line; thence South 89° 54' 13" East 580.21 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly having a radius of 610.00 feet, said curve being concentric with and Southeasterly 30.00 feet from that certain curve described above as being concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 580.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 272.82 feet along said curve through a central angle of 25° 37' 32" to said Northerly line; thence North 89" 54' 13" West 79.70 feet along said Northerly line to the point of beginning. Parcel C Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest one - quarter; thence North 0° 34' 45" East 60.00 feet along the Easterly line of said Southwest one - quarter to a line parallel with and Northerly 60.00 feet from the Southerly line of said Southwest one - quarter; thence North 890 35' 01" West 30.00 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on a line parallel with and Westerly 30.00 feet from said Easterly line; thence North 00 34' 45" East 2492.76 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Southwesterly having a radius of 270.00 feet; thence Northwesterly 112.71 feet along said curve through a central angle of 230 55' 02" to said Northerly line; thence South 890 54' 13" East 53.19 feet along said Northerly line to said Northeast corner; thence South 00 34' 45" West 2602.58 feet along said Easterly line to said line parallel with and Northerly 60.00 feet from said Southerly line; thence North 89° 35' 01" West 30.00 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 1 of 2 • • • EXHIBIT "A" - CONTINUED • Parcel D Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest one - quarter; thence North 0" 34' 45" East 60,00 feet along said Easterly line to said line parallel with and Northerly 60.00 feet from said Southerly line; thence North 89" 35' 01" West 30.00 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on said line parallel with and Westerly 30.00 feet from said Easterly line; thence North 0° 34' 45" East 85.08 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line; thence North 89" 25' 15" West 20.00 feet to a line parallel with and Westerly 50.00 feet from said Easterly line; thence South On 34' 45" West.63.20 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave Northwesterly having a radius of 22.00 feet; thence Southwesterly 34.50 feet along said curve through a central angle of 896 50' 14" to a point of cusp with said line parallel with and Northerly 60.00 feet from said Southerly line; thence South 89" 35' 01" East 41.94 feet along said last above mentioned parallel line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. • • Page 2 of 2 L+ D PoWt A. i°lt MIXt Ci � ALGXMnc, n Ic" A oa t 67N STREET A ,�, Z H'Lr LLXE SW M•, Yc lc �177 HT• !I}'N � T10' I'Ifl) Mil' 5 !t j 5 :&3 ,io'• r.' PARCEL C z S p, Darn "1) IT vnmce' V VI IT 7•mn Q a•ie•sror b210W L ngV i•fln' (� ST•s9'°•E 5],14' Set SMt.T2 f(�� l REV 3MK S.s•.i °.1 SKE7CH .,I;- 2.O • "° • EJS �WILL1AMSON,I,SCHMD i° ACCDMPANY •�• � •! ITmmi{w viemL LEGAL DESCRIPTION PFell MAD EASEMENT , '• 1110162 JOE no aozs� L+ D 0 I s afl � b" a z <, <. r t bT" ` 10 A I W Q`o v W i :Eo PARCEL C a 2 II DATA rzuL. .• -+m' A•Irmor nsmm L•III M' T�.so A, M, Ir 1,AIA00' V 1111T .."I' NEr15'0r. m , O &�ms0Y SMm 7 ©'W"I'E 51.19' 5v[5"E.,2 I- I REV 3!102 SKETCH auLl i=2C WVILLIAMSON°�SCHMID m ACCDMPRNY °Mio+p+inl••° LEGAL DESCRIPTION •" " -�rJ 01.1 slsma you ROAD EASEMENT 2noJ L G A 4 Q�. SEE +NG61 I PARCEL C �E. sa•��s "M . -. 1 2 0 _ _l•;1 Sa_ f_L.11' _ ' SF1'l[01 "[ 11 M' apLp• ts'LV �wE.sw �x, uc is lo�Nr p[ eecm E QTN STREET Nixc, aaacu Cbo SE COT -, s A. SEC. IC REV. 1/ If HZ PUtCL CCaf, DLNCEHt, SHE Z a WILUAMSONa SCHM ® SKETCH «.�EJ llvRVLENSa lvu ilvm[ w�[ua1«,un' M ACCOMPANY LECAL DESCRIPTION « 'J MR ROAD EASEMENT Cam.' L( � J • IE \J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �A0 c�^a+ajy MEMORANDUM , LLB' C�: 0 F, O Z ,;II U i C7 • • CITY OF RAiNCHO CL4a1%lO \GA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 15, 1982 Ft n'�3 TO: Members of the City Council 1977 FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES - An Ordinance of the City Council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California establishing public notification procedures for Planning Commission public hearings. SUMMARY: Per Planning Commission direction, staff has prepared an Ordinance for Council consideration that would adopt notification procedures for Planning Commission public hearing items. These procedures would require the posting of notices on the project site at the time of filing and prior to the public hearing, and direct mailing of notices to property owners within 300' of the subject project site prior to the public hearing. A copy of the proposed Ordinance, the Commission Staff Report of 6/23/82, and minutes are attached for your review. The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the ordinance. Council adoption will require two actions: (1) a motion to adopt the attached Ordinance; and, (2) a motion to approve the attached Resolution to adjust the fee schedule. BACKGROUND: The proposed notification procedures are intended to expand our current procedures in order to encourage greater public participation in the review process. Posting notices on the project site will notify residents affected by the project beyond the 300 foot direct mailing radius. Further, posting at the time of filing encourages public input during the early stages of the review process when it can have the greatest impact. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended adjusting the fee schedule to compensate fo, the additional costs for notification. The figures in the attached Resolution to amend the fee schedule represent an increase of $21 per item. A breakdown of this increase is as follows: Printed Notices (3 @ 5.6f ea.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .168 24" Stakes (3 @ 30t ea.) .90 Typing (Clerk Typist @ $5.48 hr. - 10 Min.) .90 Assembling (Asst. Planner @ $9.70 hr. - 15 min) . . . . . 2.42 Posting (Asst. Planner @ $9.70 hr. - 30 Min) . . . . . . 4.80 Mileage (Average 4 Mi. @ 30C ea.) . . . . . . . . . . . 1.20 370.388 X 2 T2-0.-77-6 k13 RECD °ons7d EN�gT! Res �7si 7p° re m0 .te 7a i7s !`e °° PeotfUiiY spbm nds u Pt�np t de9athat th /I tted r °f t rd7no e fit ljgc iy rye C, t,5 S ite-ounoi) J(. repton of ��P L'�:':.•�.:' ' • ' ed �Td �an�rb Pja7e, at Dc. jr �un1 f °� , a and ^mint AttaChonts y deveiopnt Res07` ✓une dune 23 7g Minot 3p' 198.? 8p St esd7na� °p f e e ora Report °iution 23 �g um 82 P7annin9 commission Meeting >1 0 • 0 • -- CITY OF RANCHO CUC(,ONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 23, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ABSTRACT: The City Planning staff has prepared a report, per the Planning Commission's direction, on alternatives for expanding our Public notification procedures. This report presents a discussion of the various issues and options concerning notification of sur- rounding residents. ANALYSIS: The California Government Code requires notification of public hearings involving approval of tentative maps, zone changes, CUPS, or variances. Said notice, in conjunction with newspaper ad- vertisement, must be given by direct mailing, posting or any other appropriate means. There are several issues regarding notification procedures. 1. When should residents be given notice of pending projects? There are two logical times for notification: (1) at the time the project is accepted as complete for filing, and (2) prior to the public hearing. An advantage of notifying residents at the time of filing is that it provides an opportunity for public input early in the review process. 2. What projects should be noticed? All public hearing item; are currently given notice prior to the public hearing. The issue is what orojects should be noticed at the tj,-_e of filino• Potentially any public hearing item could have an impact on the surrounding area. It would seem appropriate to notify residents concerning all public hearing items. I TE'l E C C Public Noticing Procedures Planning Commission Agenda June 23, 1982 Page 2 How should projects be notified in addition to legal advertise- ment in the newspaper? Notice may be given by direct mailing, posting the subject property or any other means deemed appropriate. Currently, all public hear- ing items are advertised in the newspaper and notices are mailed to property owners witin 30 to0useeotherr,methods rofrnotification.. Posting the subject property at the time an application is filed, in addition to the current policy, would provide notice to homeowners at two dif- ferent times during the review process. 9 The Commission, as an alternative, can expand the notification procedure by Posting and /or mailing notices at the time of filing in conjunction with our current procedure of direct mailing and legal advertising prior to public hearings. RECO't'lENDATiON: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider all material and input regarding this item. Further, it is reco7. mended that the Planning Commission make a motion to continue the existing procedure as described above, or expand the notification procedures. to ReF&ct f,yl1ynsubmi tted, ICK /O:IEZ ity Planner P.G:DC: jr 11 f0 OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PROJECT FILING CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT An aoplication has been filed on with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department for the following project(s): • Anyone having concerns or questions on the nroject(s) is welcome to contact the City Planninq Division at (714) 989 -1851, in writinq, or by visiting • the offices located at 9340 9aseline, Suite 8, on or before 'loticas will be mailed to all prooerty owners of legal record within 309 feet of the Project s.ite at least ten days crier to any public nearinq. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE R.C. ORDINANCE NO. t,� 0 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. PCIII.IC NOTIFICATION' PROCEDERES Ric" Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report for the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt a time limit should be placed on the notification signs for public input and that a statement should-on included that there was a penalty for removal of signs from the site. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that by law the only Ching required is that a city publish the notification of public hearing in the newspaper. Mr. Comez explained to the Commission that our current notification process for public hearing is that of advertising in the legal ad section of the newspaper and direct mailing of notices to property owners within 300 feet of he subjoct property. • Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that additional rotification requirements would require an adjustment to the fee sebed.1e because of the additional cost to the processing. Commissioner Stout suggested that the word welcome on the proposed signs he replaced with the word encouraged as he would like to see the public encouraged to participate in the processing of projects. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance for the City Council adopting the notification procedure of posting signs at the time of project filing and public hearing, to continue the process of direct mailing notices at the time of public hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and to adjust the fee schedule to compensate for the additional cost of processing. This draft Ordinance is to be brought buck to the Commission for recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 23, 1982 4 `fi r1 L_I ORDINANCE NO. 184 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.20 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2.20.090 THERETO REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROJECTS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEAPING The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 2.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 2.20.090 to read as follows: "Sec. 2.20.090. Public Notification Procedures. "A. Notice of filing. At such time as an application for a project, which requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission, is deemed complete for processing, the Community Development Director shall cause notices to be posted conspicuously on the project site not more than 300 feet apart along project perimeter fronting on improved public streets. Each notice shall contain a general description of the project and a copy of any proposed subdivision map or site plan. Such notices shall have the . following title in lettering not less than one inch in height: "NOTICE OF FILING" "B. Notice of hearing. At least ten (10) days before the public hearing of a project requiring public hearing before the Planning Commission the Community Development Director shall cause notice of the time and place of the public hearing on the project to be given in the following manner: "(1) By publication once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. "(2) By mail or delivery to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property which is the subject or the project. "(3) By posting notices conspicuously on the project site not more than 300 feet apart along project perimeter fronting on improved public streets. Each posted notice shall contain a general description of the project and a copy of any proposed subdivision map or site plan. Said posted notices shall have the following title and lettering not less than one inch in height: "NOT199 OF / PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING" "C. Other Notice Requirements. Notices required by this section shall be in addition to any other or different notice • required by other provisions of this code or by state law, provided, however, that nothing therein shall require separate notices to be given if the same notice will satisfy the requirements of this section and any other applicable section of this code or state law. "D. Effpot of Failure to give Notice. No action, inaction or recommendation regarding any project by the Planning Commission shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any Court by reason of any error or omission pertaining to the notices, including the failure to give any notice required by this section, unless the Court after an examination of the entire case shall be of the opinion that the error or omission complained of was prejudicial, and that by reason of such error or omission the party complaining or appealing sustained and suffered substantial injury, and that a different result would have been probable if such error or omission had not occurred or existed. There shall be no presumption that error or omission is prejudicial or that injury was done if error or omission is shown. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The 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 • 1982. • AYES: NOES: ASSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor J � • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79 -1, REESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES WHEREAS, the City Council desires to encourage public participation through providing additional public notification of projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to increase application fees to cover the cost of said noticing. NOW, THEREFOR -, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that certain portions of Section 2, Planning Review Fees, of Council Resolution No. 79 -1 be amended as follows: 2.3 Conditional Use Permit ..........................$398 2.5 Planned Unit Development .......................$1272 2.7 Variance ............. ...........................$272 • 2.8 Zone Change ..... ........................$649 +32 /acre 2.9 General Plan Amendment .........................$1272 HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that certain portions of Section 3, Subdivision and Parcel Map Fees, of Council Resolution No. 79 -1 be amended as follows: 3.1.1 Tentative Tract Filing Fee ............ $649 +32 /acre 3.1.2 Tentative Parcel Map ..........................$207 PASSES, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: is r • 111l1! nA1V1.V MI STAFF REPORT Date: September 30, 1982 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department By: Mary Whitney, Administrative Secretary Subject: Proposed Changes in Ordinance No. 70 -L4" -1i Q. At the September 14 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Commission discussed the attached proposed changes in Ordinance 70. It was explained to the Commission that Historic Landmark /Point of Interest designation by way of resolution rather than ordinance would be more timely and 'carry the same weight' as an ordinance. (See attached 8/27/82 memo.) The Commission unanimously elected to recommend to Council the attached changes in Ordinance 70. Mw 5 �- 9 • • V111 VP RnllV nu VUui alV1V UH MEMORANDUM August 27, 1982 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Mary Whitney, Administrative Secretary Community services Department Subject: Pro :osed changes in Ordinance 70 The attached Ordinance is for your review. These are the modifications necessary to ordinance 70 should the Commission elect to designate Landmarks and Points of Interest by Resolution rather than Ordinance. As was explained during the July meeting, any properties designated as Landmarks or Points of Interest by Resolution would be suhject to the policies, rules and regulations adopted in Ordinance 70. The properties would remain protected under Ordinance 70, just as they have been in the past. A Resolution designating a property as a Historic Landmark would be a formal decree enabling implementation of the policies set forth and adopted in Ordinance 70. Directing policy by way of Resolution rather than Ordinance is a common practice within our City and most others. Resolutions are effective immediately, require no second reading and thereby offer substantial cost and time savings. Attached for your information is a sample resolution regarding Historic Landmark designation. NOTE: You may notice the wording in the titles of the sample resolution and ordinance refers to Chapter 2.26 rather than Ordinance 70. This is because all City ordinances have been codified to become the City Municipal Code and must be referred to as such. MW • ORDINANCE NO. 70 -E AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS D, E, AND F OF SECTION 2.24.100 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS PROCEDURE. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Sub - Sections D, E, and F of Section 2.24.100 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 0. The City Council may approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed designation. Approval, or modification and approval, of the designation shall be upon adoption of a Resolution. E. The property included in any such designation shall be subject to the regulations set forth in this Ordinance and any further controls specified in the designating Resolution. F. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the designating Resolution to be forwarded to any department or agency to whom the • Secretary considers it appropriate to have it sent. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (IS) days after its passage, at least once in the Daily RUE! , 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 `, 19* . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor C , Ci • 0 nTmv nc. n A WTnvn nrrn A unw.n A STAFF REPORT 2 � c October 15, 1982 D TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council ig;; FRObI: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Council Committee Recommendation for Adoption of an Ordinance Creating a Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Board. The attached represents the final draft of a proposed ordinance from the Council Committee of Dick Dahl and Chuck Buquet which would create a Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Board. The proposed ordinance represents a culmination of a month long review of existing ordinances, meetings with coach owners and park owners, and a considerable amount of staff time preparing a final draft. The following is a highlight of key sections within the proposed ordinance. 1. The ordinance provides a purpose and intent outlining the dilema that coach owners face with unchecked rent increases and the need to recognize the park owner's right to receive a just and reasonable return on their property. 2. A rent schedule is created each fiscal year commencing July 1, 1982 establishing maximum rents based on 100% of the C.P.I. 3. Petitions may be filed by park owners if they contend the maximum allowble rent does not provide a just and reasonable return to management. Petitions may also be filed by coach owners to reduce maximum allowable rents if services within the park have been reduced or limited. Opposition to petitions may be filed by park owners or coach owners. 4. Costs associated with petitions filed will be paid by the petitioner. 5. The Rent Stabilization Board will either hear the petition or defer to a hearing officer for an evidentiary hearing where the petition will be considered and acted upon. 6. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Stabilization Board has the option to accept the findings, amend the findings or send the matter back to the hearing officer. In all cases, the Stabilization Board has the authority to adjust rents or impose conditions if services have been reduced. 7. Composition of the Stabilization Board is at the discretion of the City Council. There appears to be consensus among the coach owners, Council Committee, and staff that the stabilization board should be comprised of "trained negotiators ". City Manager /City Council Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization October 15, 1982 Page 2 8. Although the operating costs for the Rent Stabilization Board are borne by the petitioner, the ordinance does not address the issue of whether the hearing officer or stabilization board would receive compensation. If the Council elects to utilize a professional hearing officer or professional stabilization board it may be necessary to establish rules of compensation by contract or resolution. 9. The Council Committee expressed concern about granting maximum rents at the 100% level should the C.P.I. reach double digit figures. The Council Committee has recommended that a resolution be adopted incorporating language that would require reconsideration of maximum allowable rents, (100% of C.P.I.), if the C.P.I. reaches 10% or more. ICI V CJ • • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MOBILEHOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 8.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Chapter 8.10 MOBILEHOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION Sections: 8.10.010 Purpose and Intent. 8.10.020 Definitions. 8.10.030 Exemptions. 8.10.040 Rent Stabilization board. 8.10.050 Maximum rent. 8.10.060 Adjustments • 8.10.070 Notice of filing petition. 8.10.080 Opposition. 8.10.090 Non - contested determination. 8.10.100 Contested hearings. 8.10.110 Guidelines 8.10.120 Administrative Costs 8.10.130 Agreements. 8.10.140 Maximum rent. 8.10.150 Enforceability. 8.10.160 Limitation of action. 8.10.170 Termination 8.10.130 Retaliation I* r C I I, 1, 8.10.010 Purpose and Intent .There exists in the City of Rancho Cucamonga a serious shortage of mobilehome sites available for rent. Because of this shortage there is a low vacancy rate. Because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative home sites for mobilehome residences, and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes, there exists a virtual monopoly in the rental of mobilehome park .spaces. This creates a situation where mobilehome park owners have the ability to exploit mobilehome park tenants by imposing unreasonable rent increases. Therefore, the City Council finds and declares it necessary to protect mobilehome p k tenants from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizin a just and rcasopable return on their property and rental income sufficient to cover, the cost of repairs, maintenance, insurance, employee services, additional amenities, and operation. 8.10.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall govern the construction • of this chapter: A. "Management" is the owner of a mobilehome park or an agent or representative authorized to act on the owner's behalf in connection with matters relating to a tenancy in the park. R. "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable in one or more sections, designed and equipped to contain not more than two dwelling units to be used with or without ❑ foundation system. Mobilehome does not include a recreational vehicle, commercial coach, or factory -built housing, as defined in Section 19971 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. "Mobilehome park" is an area of land where two or more sites are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. D. "Park" is a mobilehome park. E. "Rent" is any consideration demanded or received by management in connection with the tenancy of a mobilehome site. F. "Rental agreement" is an agreement between the management and a tenant establishing the terms and conditions of a tenancy. A lease is a rental agreement. G. "Rent schedule" is a statement of the rent charged for each mobilehome site in a mobilehome park. • H. An "Effective rent schedule" or an "approved rent schedule" is a schedule that has been filed by the city manager pursuant to Section 8.10.050 or approved by the rent stabilizatin board pursuant to Section 8.10.060 and that approval has become final. 1. "Services" means those facilities which enhance the use of the mobilehome site, including, but not limited to, repairs, replacements, maintenance, water, utilities, security devices, security patrols, storage, bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitorial services, refuse removal and recreational and other facilities in common areas of the mobilehome park. "Services" does not include charges for interest, depreciation, amortization, financing or refinancing of the mobilehome park. J. "Tenancy" is the right of a tenant to the use of a site within the mobilehome park on which to locate, maintain and occupy a mobilehome, site improvements and accessory structures, including the use of the services and facilties of the park. K. "tenant" is an occupant of a mobilehome in a mobilehome park, who is responsible for paying rent to management. L. "Representative ". In the event that a petition is filed by more than one tenant, they shall designate one (1) of them to be their representative. M. The "hearing officer" shall be appointed by the city council. The hearing officer shall be knowledgeable in the rules of evidence. The hearing officer shall be impartial and it shall be his duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to obtain evidence from the parties that he deems necessary to make his recommendations, and to make recommendations for findings and determinations to the rent stabilization board. • N. 'The rent stabilization board" shall be that board appointed pursuant to Section 8.10.040(A). 0. The "July 1, 1982 rent" for a mobilehome site is the rent in fact charged for such site on July 1, 1982 if such site was occupied on that date. For any mobilehome site which was not occupied on July 1, 1982 rent shall be the average of the July 1, 1982 rents of all mobilehome sites within the affected mobilehome park which were occupied on that date. P. Consumer Price Index ( "C.P.L ") is the Los Angeles -Long Beach- Anaheim Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Q. "Ratio of change in the Consumer Price Index", as used in this ordinance for a fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) shall equal the Consumer Price Index issued in the immediately preceding May divided by the Consumer Price Index as of July 1, 1982 (which was 289.3), less I, or: Ratio, etc= C.P.I. for the immediately preceding May -I 289.3 R. A "contested hearing" is a hearing which results from a petition for adjustment which is filed pursuant to Section 8.10.060 to which an opposition has been filed pursuant to Section 8.10.080. . 8.10.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobilehome parks located in the City: A. Mobilehome sites rented out for non - residential uses; B. Mobilehome sites which are first occupied after July 1, 1982; C. Mobilehome sites which a government agency owns, manages or operates; D. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of three months and do not contemplate an occupancy of more than three months; E. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation. 8.10.040 Rent stabilizationitoard A. Members. There shall be in the city a rent stabilization board, hereinafter called "Rent Stabilization Board ". Such board shall consist of three (3) regular members and two (2) alternate members, all of whom shall be appointed by the city council. An alternate shall sit when a regular member is absent or disqualified. B. Com ensation. No member will be compensated for his or her services, but the city s a reimburse members for their reasonable expenses of attending meetings. • C. Powers. The rent stabilization board is empowered to approve, set and adjust the rent schedule and maximum rents for mobilehome tenancies in the city in accordance with this chapter. D. Terms. Each member shall be appointed for a term of two years, provided, however, that a member may be removed at any time by a four - fifths (4/5) vote of the city council. E. Rules and Regulations. The City Council may by resolution approve rules and regulations for proceedings before the rent stabilization board. F. Quorum. Two members shall constitute a quorum of the rent stabilization board and two affirmative votes shall be required for any order, decision or ruling. 8.10.050 Maximum Rent. A. Initial Effective Rent Schedule. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this ordinance, management of each mobilehome park in the City shall file with the City Manager a schedule setting forth the July 1, 1982 rent for each mobilehome site in such mobilehome park. Said schedule shall be verified. The City Manager may make any investigation he deems necessary of appropriate to satisfy himself of the accuracy of the information shown on such schedule. If the City Manger accepts such schedule as accurate, he shall endorse the same as accepted and such schedule shall become the "effective rent schedule" for the subject mobilehome park for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1982. If the City Manger determines that the schedule • filed by management is not accurate, or if management does not file the schedule referred to hereinabove within the time period above stated, the City Manager may determine the effective rent schedule of the July 1, 1982 rents for the affected mobilehome park based upon all information received by the City Manager including information provided by the tenants. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the maximum rent for each mobilehome site that management of a mobilehome park shall be permited to charge for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982 shall be as set forth in an effective rent schedule determined in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. B. Calculation of Maximum Rent. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the maximum rent for each mobilehome site that management of a mobilehome park shall be permitted to charge during subsequent fiscal years shall be as set forth in an effective rent schedule determined as follows: The maximum rent shall be calculated annually and shall be the sum of the following: 1. The July 1982 rent; and 2. The July I, 1982 rent times the ratio of change in the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) C. Effective Rent Schedule. Annually and as soon as practical after the release of the .P.. or iJay o each year and using the July 1, 1982 rent schedule referred to in Paragraph A of this section for each mobilehome park, the City Manager shall make the calculations for each mobilehome park, as provided by Paragraph B of this section, and shall file the same in the city clerk's office as a rent schedule and mail a copy of the applicable rent schedule to the management of each mobilehome park, specifying the maximum rent for each mobilehome site. The rent schedule, if filed • before July 1 of that year shall become effective as of July I of that year or, of not filed until after July 1, shall become effective as of filing. 8.10.060 Adjustments. A. Management Adjustment. The maximum rents provided by Section 8.10.050 are intended to provide for a just and reasonable return to management in all foreseeable cases. In the event that management of any mobilehome park contends that the total of maximum rents as provided by Section 8.10.050 will not provide a just and reasonable return, management shall file with the rent stabilization board a verified petition showing that the strict application of Section 8.10.050 prevents a just and reasonable return to management and request for an adjustment of the rent schedule up to a just and reasonable return for that mobilehome park. Int he event that the rent stabilization [ward finds the strict application of Section 8.10.050 does not allow for a just and reasonable return, then notwithstanding Section 8.10.050, it may adopt an adjustment to the effective rent schedule up to that required for a just and reasonable return, pursuant to procedures set forth in this chapter. B. Tenant Adjustment. Any tenant may petition the rent stabilization board to reduce the maximum rents in the event that management has reduced or limited any service to a tenant (including any change in policy with respect to children or pets), or the tenants of the mobilehome park as a whole, that were in effect July 1, 1982. Such petition shall be verified. The amount of the reduction shall be the cost savings to management resulting from such reduction or elimination of services. In the event that the rent stabilization board finds that there has been a reduction or • elimination of service to the tenant or tenants from and after July 1, 1982, then notwithstanding Section 8.10.050, it may adopt an adjustment to the effective rent schedule to decrease the amount of the maximum rent allowable in an amount equal to management's savings by the reduction of or elimination of such service. C. Cross Ad'uatmt t. In the event that a petition for an adjustment is filed pursuant to th7s SectT ion 8.10.060, the rent stabilization board may make adjustments in accordance with both Paragraphs A and B of this Section 8.10.060 that are brought out in the hearing and in consideration of the petition. In the event that any adjustment shall be made pursuant to this Paragraph C to this Section 8.10.060, such adjustment shall not reduce the maximum allowable rent below a just and reasonable return under all the facts. D. Conditions of Adjustment. In the event that the rent stabilization board shall determine that any adjustment shall be made pursuant to this Section 8.10.060 then, in that event, the rent stabilization board may impose conditions to the adjustment and, where appropriate, may limit the period of time of such adjustment. Should an adjustment be made pursuant to this Section 8.10.060, the rent stabilization board shall adopt a new effective rent schedule for the mobilehome park giving effect to such adjustment. 8.10.070 Notice of filing petition. A. In the event that a petition is filed pursuant to Paragraph A of Section 8.10.060, management shall serve a notice of the filing of the same, and a copy of • the petition on each tenant within the mobilehome park, Such notice and petition may either be personally served or mailed to the last known address of each tenant. B. In the event that a petition is filed pursuant to Paragraph B of • Section 8.10.060, the City Manger shall promptly mail notice thereof, and a copy of the petition, to the owners of said mobilehome park at their last known address. If the last known address of the owners of the mobilehome park are not known, he may mail the same to the address of the owners(s) of the mobilehome park as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. C. Proof of service of said notices and of copies of said petitions shall be filed with the city clerk. No petition shall be considered as filed until such proof of service is filed with the city clerk. 8.10.080 Opposition. Any tenant of an affected mobilehome park may oppose a petition of management under Paragraph A of Section 8.10.060 and management of an affected mobilehome park may oppose any petition of a tenant under Paragraph B of Section 8.10.060. Such opposition shall be in writing and shall be filed with the city clerk and served upon the petitioner not more than thirty (30) days after the date of filing the proof of service referred to in Paragraph C of Section 8.10.070. Proof of service of the opposition shall also be filed with the city clerk. 8.10.090 Non - Contested determination. In the event that no opposition is filed pursuant to Section 8.10.080, the rent stabilization board may hear and consider the matter based solely upon the facts set forth in the verified petition, or may refer thje matter to a hearing officer for a recommendation and report as hereinafter provided for contested hearings. 8.10.100 Contested hearings. • A. In the event that any petition is filed pursuant to Section 8.10.060 proposing an adjustment which shall be contested by the filing of an opposition, the rent stabilization board shall direct that a hearing be held on the contested matter. The rent stabilization board may hold an evidentiary hearing itself on contested petitions, if the chairperson determines that there are few disputed factual issues and that the matter is capable of being decided after a brief hearing. Otherwise, the rent stabilization board shall order the matter referred to a hearing officer, as hereinafter provided, to hear the evidence and prepare proposed fndings of fact and a recommended decision. B. The rent stabilization board shall deny the petition unless the petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that either; 1. The maximum rent will not provide for a just and reasonable return; or 2.That services to tenants have been reduced from that of July 1, 1982 C. The rent stablization board and its hearing officer shall promptly consider and decide all petitions filed pursuant to Section 8.10.060. The the extent possible matters shall be considered and decided in the order filed. D. The party filing any petition requiring affirmative action by the board shall deposit with the city clerk all estimated costs to the city (as estimated by the city clerk), including without limitation, the cost of the meeting of the rent stabilization board, the full cost of conducting the hearings as herein provided, the cost of the hearing officer and the cost of the preparation of any record. Should the funds so deposited exceed the city's costs, any excess shall be refunded to the person so depositing the same. The city clerk may require, at any time during the proceeding, an additional . deposit to cover costs not covered by the initial deposit as a condition of continuing with the proceeding. Should such deposits not be made within five (5) days after demand, the petition shall be deemed withdrawn and the proceeding terminated. E. The hearing officer shall consider all relevant evidence presented at such hearing and may require additional evidence to be presented by the petitioner or the opposing party(s) in order to determine what adjustments, if any, should be made. F. For any contested hearing, if there is more than one party on a side, the hearing officer may require the parties on one side to designate a representative to receive service of notices, papers and documents with respect to the same, and after such designation, the service on the representative so designated shall be deemed to be service on all parties on that side. G. In the event of any contested hearing, the City 6lanager shall mail each tenant in the affected mobilehome park a notice of the time and place of the commencement of the hearing and of the possible effect upon his or her rent. Said tenants shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the contested hearing. No further notice shall be required to be given under this chapter for any continuances of the hearing. H. All meetings and hearings of the rent stabilization board shall be open to the public and notice thereof given as required by law. Meetings shall be held as necessary to hear and decide peititions. Hearings before the hearing officer shall be open to the public upon the request of a party, but no notice thereof need be given. • 1. The City Manger shall notify the petitioning party of the filing of an opposition on receipt thereof and as soon as possible thereafter shall notify both parties of the time, date and place of hearing. J. Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to this chapter, the rent stabilization board, unless it conducts the hearing itself under Paragraph A of this section, shall refer the opposition and the petition to a hearing officer who shall conduct an evidentiary hearing upon the petition. At the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer shall take all evidence and may require any party to the proceedings to provide him with pertinent books, records, papers, etc. In furtherance of this power, the hearing officer may request the city council to issue a subpoena for the same if they are not voluntarily produced, or he may take a refusal to produce the same as evidence that such evidence, if produced, would be adverse to the party refusing to produce the same. K. The management may substitute for any books, records and papers, a certified audit by an independent certified public accountant using generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied or a verified statement under oath by an independent certified public accountant of what the information sought from such books, records and papers consist of. Notwithstanding this Paragraph K, the hearing officer may require production of the books, records and papers. L. The hearing officer shall rule upon the admissibility of all evidence at the evidentiary hearing and shall have the power and authority to conduct the evidentiary hearing in all respects. iM. The hearing officer shall keep detailed notes of the evidence produced and an electronic recording of all of the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing. • N. The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing shall constitute the exclusive record for the decision on the issues involved. O. Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer shall prepare a summary of all testimony and evidence admitted at the evidentiary hearing, a statement of all materials officially noticed and prepare proposed findings of fact and a recommended decision to the rent stabilization board, and shall submit the same to the rent stabilization board, along with copies of all documentary evidence received. Copies of the hearing officer's summary, matters officially noticed and proposed findings and recommendation for decison shall be mailed to all parties participating in the hearing. The hearing officer's proposed findings and recommended decision shall become the final findings and decision of the rent stabilization board within fifteen days after the filing of the same with the clerk for the rent stabilization board (i.e., the city clerk) without further action of the board unless any party participating in the hearing shall file a petition to review the hearing officer's proposed findings and determination with the clerk of the rent stabilization board. P. Upon receipt of the hearing officer's summary, proposed findings, official noticed material and recommendations, and the documentary evidence admitted in the proceedings and a petition to review filed pursuant to Paragraph O of this section, the rent stabilization board shall hear arguments by the parties based upon the material submitted to it by the hearing officer. Any party at a proceeding may also have prepared, at the party's expense, a transcript of the hearing to be presented to the rent stabilization board. No further evidence shall be permitted at the hearing before the rent stabilization board. Q. 1. After the conclusion of the hearing on the proposed findings and recommended decision of its hearing officer before the rent stabilization board pursuant to Paragraph P of this section, the board shall within thirty days after the date of hearing: a. Accept and confirm the recommendations of the hearing officer and adopt his findings and recommendations ; or b. Amend the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer; or C, Send the matter back to the hearing officer for further hearings on the issue pursuant to any instructions provided by the rent stabilization board. 2. Upon issuing the findings of fact, pursuant to Subparagraphs I(a) or IM of this Paragraph Q, the rent stabilization board shall render its final decision. R. Any order of the rent stabilization board shall, unless otherwise specified in its final decision, be effective as of the date thirty days after the filing of the petition for adjustment. S. Any party to a hearing may be assisted by attorneys of the • party's choice. T. No member of the rent stablization board may participate in the hearing or decision concerning a mobilehome park in which he resides or has a financial or mangement interest. U. The rent stabilization board shall keep minutes of its meetings and make an official record of a hearing. V. Decisions of the rent stabilization board shall be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. W. The evidentiary hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. X. The rent stabilization board or its hearing officer may spread any retroactive rent adjustment under Paragraph R of this section over several months of future rent. 8.10.110 Guidelines. The rent stabilization board may recommend to the city council the adoption of guidelines for determining a just and reasonable return. • 8.10.120 Administrative costs. The City Manager shall, from time to time, calculate the total cost of conducting a meeting of the rent stabilization board and file such figures in his office. Such figures shall be used in determining the deposits and the costs for holding a meeting of the rent stabilization board. 8.10.130 Agreements. Nothing in this chapter shall operate to restrict the right of a tenant and management to enter into agreements providing for a fixed term and /or fixed rent for mobilehome tenancies. 8.10.140 Maximum Trent. Management shall not request, demand or receive from a tenant more than the maximum rent set forth in an effective rent schedule including any adjustment thereof fixed by the rent stabilization board 8.10.150 Enforceability. In the event of any violation by the management of a mobilehome park of any maximum rents, an effective rent schedule, or a final decision and order of the rent stablization board, relief for such a violation shall be enforceable by the individual tenants of that park in a court of the appropriate jurisdiction in which injunctive relief may be granted and damages shall be allowed for any rent paid in excess of the effective rent schedule or any final determination of the rent stabilization board. In any such court proceeding, the prevailing party shall be awarded his reasonable attorneys' fees and the court, where applicable, shall be empowered to order treble damages for any rents charged in excess of any effective rent schedule, maximum rent, or in violation of the final decision of the board (i.e., three times any excessive rent or overcharge). 8.IO.I60 Limitation of getion [o •attach a binal jtidcision —Order of the,-tent stabilization board. Any action or proceedine to attach. review, set aside, annul oid • a final decison and order of the rent stabilization board, of the reasonableness, legality or validity of any provision or condition attached thereto, shall not be maintained by any person unless such action or proceeding is commenced and service of the summons or petition is effected within ninety days of the filing with the city clerk of thr final determination and order, and notice of the same has been given by the city clerk. 8.10.170 Termination. This chapter shall remain in effect until June 30, 1985, unless extended by the city council. 8.10.180 Retaliation. It is unlawful for the management or any owner of any mobilehome park to harass, evict, retaliate against or otherwise discriminate against any person in the rental of any mobilehome park site when the dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed any practice believed unlawful under this chapter has informed law enforcement agencies of practice believed unlawful under this chapter, has asserted any rights under this chapter, or has petitioned, testifed or assisted in any proceeding under this chapte-11. SECTION 2: The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all other provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall • attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The �DailyRReportt a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, Cali of rnia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1982, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 9 0 • 9 RESOLUTION NO. 82- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR ADJUSTING THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM RENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION $.10.050 OF THE CITY'S MOBILEHOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. In the event the annual rate of change in the consumer price index increases in the future at a rate equal to or in excess of 10% per annum, the City Council shall review the formula for determining maximum rents so set forth in Section 8.10.050 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this • day of • 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 • 10 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 5, 1982 TO: Bob Dougherty, City Attorney FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager �� RE: Rent Stabilization Ordinance /Rough Draft /Suggested Modifications GV,CAM1f(�1. A F Z VII �.> 1977 As you are already aware the Mobile Home City Council Comm ittee would like to have a rough draft ordinance prepared prior to our next meeting with the park owners' and tenants' committee. The City Council Committee will be meeting with the park owners and tenants the latter part of next week. After a review of the ordinance by staff and subsequent meetings with both Councilmen Dahl and Buquet, the following amendments should be included in a rough draft ordinance. This preliminary draft will be presented to the park owners and tenants prior to consideration by the total City Council at its October 20, 1982 meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. (1) Introductory language should be incorporated into the preliminary draft regarding intent of ordinance to address concerns of park owners, coach owners and possibly Birkenfield. The purpose and intent section of the Redlands ordinance closely parallels the Council Committee's proposed language. (See attached.) (2) Exclusion of new mobile home parks from effects of adopted ordinance and rent stabilization. Again similar language is found in other ordinances already submitted to your office. (3) Section 5.69.160 of Carpinteria's ordinance provides a termination /sunset clause, however, I'm not sure it was the Committee's intent to tie the sunset clause into vacancy factor. An "arbitrary" date may be more appropriate. Continued.... • Bob Dougherty Rent Stabilization etc. October 5, 1982 Page Two (4) Section 5.69.040 Maximum Rent, of Carpinteria's ordinance provides for 758 of C.P.I. The Committee has suggested "100% of L.P.I. o, 10%, whichever is lesser" language be inserted because of its "defensibility" and to address the issue of park :. wners receiving a "fair and equitable return." (5) Section 5.69.040(B) Effective Rent Schedule. Is it necessary for the City Manager's office to specify the maximum rent for each mobile home space or can this be done simply on each mobile home park? (6) Section 5.69.050 Adjustments. Section (B) provides that any tenant may petition the rent staLi lization board to reduce the maximum permitted rent. I don't think it was the Committee's intent to allow individual tenants to initiate a petition without a "broad base" of support from other tenants, A simple majority or 518 may be • more appropriate. Similar language also appears in Section 5.69.080. (7) Section 5.69.090 Contested Hearings. Should language be inserted to clarify role of hearing officer and stabili- zation board. In other words, what prompts the hearing officer or rent stabilization board to handle the evidentiary hearing process? (8) Section 5.69 090 (F). In the event of a contested hearing each affected tenant is sent notice of hearing and possible effect upon their rent. The cost of sending notices to all affected tenants could be expensive either for the City or the petitioners. An alternative may be to notify tenant committee or post in a conspicuous place. (9) Section 5.69.090 P.Z. This section gives the stabilization board the authority to equalize rents among all the tenants based upon location, size and improvements. Generally speaking, increases expressed as a percent are equal but actual rents vary based on date of move-in. Does this preclude owners from adjusting rents prior to new occupants moving into mobile home park? JHR /mk • cc: City Manager City Council Ordinance No. 1783 Page one - i 12/15/81 • HEALTH HOUSING ARTICLE 374 CHAPTER 37 HOUSING ARTICLE 374 Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization § 37400. PURPOSE AND INTENT. There is in the City of Redlands and its environs a serious shortage of available mobilehome rental space. Because of this shortage, there is a low vacancy rate and rents have been rising rapidly, thereby causing concern among a substantial number of Redlands residents. Because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile- homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack, of alternative homesites for mobilehome residents, and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes, a virtual monopoly exists in the rental of mobilehome park spaces. This creates a situation where park owners have broad discretion and even the ability to exploit park tenants. For these reasons, among others, • the City Council finds and declares it necessary to pro- tect the owners and occupiers of mobilehomes from unrea- sonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizes the need of mobilehome park owners to receive a just and reasonable return on their property and rental income sufficient to cover increases in the cost of repairs, maintenance, insurance, employee services, additional amenities, and operation. § 37401. DEFINITIONS. (a) " Mobilehome Park Rent Review Board," The Mobi ehome Park Rent Review Boar estab- lished by this Article (sometimes herein called "Board). (b) "Capital Imorovements." Those improvements that materia y add to the value of the property and appreciably prolong its use- ful life or adapt it to new uses, and which may be amortized over useful life in accordance with federal tax law. (c) "Housinc Services." Services provided by the owner necessary for the use, occupancy • or enjoyment of a mobilehome space, Ordinance No. 1783 Page one - i 12/15/81 • 16 //1" L-- n1 1111 n nnnx,n n MEMORANDUM September 29, 1982 LL! T} I97i � TO: Jim Robinson Assistant City Manager FROM: Robert A. Rizzo Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Mobilehome Park Survey Attached is a survey of sixteen (:6) mobilehome parks; the first eight (8) are those located in Rancho Cucamonga, and the other eight (8) are in other West End area cities. All mobilehome parks had at le:•st ninety (90) spaces and similar amenities such as pool, spa, R.V. parking, and laundry facilities (see listings). Below is listed a few correlations which resulted from the survey: AVERAGE RENT: %Q"i'e- 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga ..........................5191 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (north of Base Line) ..... $207 4 parks in Rancho.Cucamonga (south of Base Line) .....$175 8 parks in West End ....... ...........................5195 16 Total Parks Average ..... ...........................5193 AVERAGE LOW RENT: '; ++ -w- 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga ..........................$176 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (north of Base Line) ..... $192 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (south of Base Line) ..... $160 8 parks in West End .................................. $18() 16 Total Parks Average ..... ...........................$178 AVERAGE HIGH RENT: �,�tw/',y,f- I.. ala..GCt /76-.,.4 , 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga .........................$206 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (north of Base Line) ..... $222 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (south of Base Line) ..... $190 8 parks to West End ....... ...........................$210 16 Total Parks Average ..... ...........................$208 Jim Robinson Re: `n.bilehome Park Survey September 29, 1982 Page 2 VACANCY RATE: 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga ........................... 27 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (north of Base Line) ...... k% 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (south of Base Line) ...... 27 8 parks in West End .... ............................... 32 16 Total Parks Average .. ............................... 27* *(11 of the 16 parks surveyed had no vacancies) AVERAGE INCREASE LAST YEAR: 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga .. .........................$16 /97 4 parks in Rancho ^ucamonga (north of Base Line) ...... $16 /87. 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (south of Base Line) ...... $17 /107. 8 parks in West End .... ............................... 17/9: 16 Total Parks Average ... ..............................$ /97 AVERAGE INCREASE PENDING: 8 parks in Rancho Cucamonga ... ........................$19 /10,7 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (north of Base Line) ...... $19 /lOS: 4 parks in Rancho Cucamonga (south of Base Line)......? 8 parks in West End .......... .........................$11 /77. 16 Total Parks Average ........ .........................$15 /97 BAR:baa attach. I- 1 2, • 7 • / 8 R.C. Mobilee,, Parks Surveyed y C 10-92 N � C 4 20 20 / Park Name /Location H t N �ro h h ro m y ro C J � � O tiS C Z a H 4 4 Vo 4 L^ 4 J Alta Laguna 10210 Base Line. 91701 294 2 1% 215%263 12% 12% x x x - x. x x x x x Alta Vista 10350 Base Line 91;01 196 0 0 160/208 $10 ±7% x x x x x x x Casa Volante 8651 Foothill Blvd., 91730 202 13 6% 185/225 $20 ? x x x - - - x x x x Chaparrel Heights 6880 Ar,hibald- 91701 152 0 0 185/195 $15 $15 x x x x x _ x x x s Foothill Mobile Manor 9340 Foothill 91730 91 0 0 1351155 $10 ? x The Pines 9999 Foothill Blvd., 91730 165 0 0 180/225 ? ? x Y. x — x Ramona Vill a 9800 Base Line 91701 149 0 0 206/221 $10 ? >: x x Sycamore Ville 8199 Baker Accnu o. 91730 96 0 0 140/155 $20 ? x x — x — x x x x • I West F.nd Area Parks }lnbilchome Surveyed 10 -82 Park Namw /i.nra H nn 44 4 C 4 y A h C y i 4 � ti my y`i v m J v 0 Jb �J N y V 2 � \` tip *. 1, ti O 4 C a " 4� J t Country Meadows 428 0 0 234 $19 ? x x x - x x x - x x Lake Los Serranos Park 15111 Pipeline, Chino 304 1 1/3 1.85/237 10% ? x x x - x - x x x x Lamplighter 244 0 0 180 /195 $20 ? x x x - x - x - x x Oasis Mobile Home Estate 1320 W. Arrow. Upland 91 0 0 154 $15 x - x - x - Y. - x x Villa Montclair 96 0 0 168 $15 ? x - x - x - x - x x Upland Eldorado 1400 W. 1301 Upland 210 0 0 160/220 $10 ? x x x - x - x - x x Rialto Mobile Villa 250 W. Linder Rialtn 330 40 13 120 /200 7. Y/. x x x x Y. Upland Meadows 929 E. Foothill U Land 223 10 5 240 {270 9% ? x x x - x - s x x s Analysis of 8 R.C. 4TH T4+ m 6 8 West End Mobilehome Parks Surveyed y� ,d y y .may 4a c 10 -82 y3 i T � 4 � � � 4 c a � V m GT 3m� V Rancho Cucamonga - 8 parks 1335 167 15 1.9 2% 176 2061191 $16 19 8/8 818 8/8 2/8 7/8 1/8 7/8 5/8 8/8 8/8 9% LOY. R.C. Parks 100 -200 spaces 839 0 0 168 193 /181 $ 13 $14 6/6 6/6 6/6 2/6 616 0/6 5/6 316 6/6 6/6 140 9X 97 R.C. Parks 200+ spaces 496 15 c 3% /222 244 200/222 $29 2/2 2/2 212 0/2 1/2 112 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 12X 27. R.C. Parks - North Base Line 781 2 1cX 192 2/207 $16 $19 4/4 4/4 4/4 2/4 4/4 1/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 195 8X lOX R.C. Parks - South Base Line 554 139 13 3 2X 160 190/175 $l7 10X 4/4 4/4 414 0(4 314 0/4 3!4 1/4 4 {4 414 8 West End Area Parks 1926 51 6 3% 180/195 2in $17 $11 8/8 6/8 818 7/8 8/8 3 {8 8/8 218 9!8 S/8 241 97 77 8 R.C. plus 8 West End Parks 1261 __ 66 — X29 178/197 TIfl $17 $15 16 — 14 IIA 16 — 11 3 - 15 16 4 16 _ 15 7 - 16 1 16 16 �L1 of 16 parks surveyed rd —no nc ius c .r J OROINAHCE NO. 032 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CARPINTERIA CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 5.69 OF THE CARPINTERIA IRIAICIPAL CODE RELATING TO 1408ILE HOME PARK RE14T STABILIZATION The Carpinteria City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Cheat., 5.69 of the Carpinteria Municipal Code is hereby annded to read as follows: 'Chapter 5.69 MOBILE HOME PARKS sections 5.69.010 Definitions. 5.69.020 EktnPtions. 5.69.090 Rent stabilization board. S.69.040 Maximum rent. 5.69.050 Ad)ustwnts• 5.69.060 Notice of filing petition. 5.69,070 Opposition, 5.69 080 Non- contested determination. 5.69.090 Contested hearings. 5.69.100 Guidelines. • 5.69.110 Administrative Costs. 5.69.120 Agretrdnts. 5.69,170, Masirraml rent, 5.69.140 Enforceability. 5,69.150 Limitation of action. 5.69,160 Termination. 5.69.170 Retaliation. 5.69.010 Definitions. The following definitions shall govern the construction a -- this cnapter: A. "fhnagtnnt' is the owner of a mobile have park or an agent or representative authorized to act an his behalf in connection with matters reletinq to a tenancy in the park. R. "'xrbile hard" is a strntturn gesignec for human habitation and for being moved on a street or hiahuay. whether coesknly referred to as a "nubile name" or as a "trailer," C. "Mobile how park" is ae area of land where two or more rmbile how sites are rented, nr held out far rent. to 4cceromeate erobile horses used far huran habitation. "Part" is A mobile flare dark, "9en t" rs any considrrotion demandtd or roreived in rnnnaCtion with th =. 'ise ir aanrnanty of any reihil� hen Site ar transfer of a lease therefor, • ., "ut not united to, denunlS donaeAed or paid far parkirn, pets, ..ble4Sl nn or nepnSlis. Petal agreenren•" i; an am ^evint between the mnalm at and the ailillol, the runt env Snn9 it inns of n tenancy. A Lase is A rental orr. , u,nt "Mule" 'S a S•a,erent of 9w rear ;horned ry aeh tenAaCy in I •r.Jl i�' main P! "k, tornthPr m VI Iny '. i."artina data th,ror, 0 0R0ii1ApCE :A. 332 PACE 2 I!. An "effective rent schedule" or an "approved reet schedule" is a schedule that has been filed by the city manager pursuant to Paragraph 6 of Section 5.69.040 or approved by the r !It stabilization board pursuant to Paragraphs A or R of Section 5.69.050 ana that approval has become finni. 1. "Services" means those facilities which enhance the use of the raoile home site, including, but no[ limited to, repairs, replacements, maintenance. water, Utilities. Security devices, security patrols, Storaae, bath and lau,orJ faciifiles and privileges, janitorial services• refuse removal and recreatienai and ether facilities in common areas of the mobile home park. 'Services" C ^es not Include charges for interest• depreciation, amortization, financing or refinancing of the mobile Lame park. J. 'Tenancy" is the right of a tenant to the use of a site within the mobile home park on which to locate, maintain and occupy a mobile home, site impravements and accessory structures for human habitation• including the use of the sery ices and facilities of the park. K. 'Tenant" is an owner of a mobile home in a mobile home park, resocesible far paying rent to management. "Representative." In the event that a petition is filed by hire than one tenant, they shall designate one (1) of them to be their representative. M. The 'hearing officer" shall be Ipleninted by the city council. The hearing officer shall be knowledgeable in the rules of evidence. The hex rind officer shall be Impartial and it shall be his duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to obtain evidence from the partsps that Ile deems necessary to make his recolmendatiuns, and to make reco,endatfons for findings and Eeterminations to the rent stabilization board. • R. "ins rent stabilization board" shall be that board appointed pursuant to 5 -ctinn 5.69.030(A). 0. the "July 1, 1979 rent" is the rent charged for each space as shown on the verI ii ed schedule of monthly rents previously filed with the rent Stabilization board pursuant to this chapter. P. Consumer Price Index ("C.P.I. ") Is the Los Angeles -Long Beach- Anaheim Metr000lftan Area Consumer Price Index One the urban nape earners and clerical workers as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Q. "Ratio of chance in the Consumer Price Index," as used in this ordic +nee for a fiscal yen, (July I to lane 30) shall epual the Consumer Price inde •, issued In the immediately preceding May divided by the Consumer Price lode,. as of 1. 1979 (which wit 215.8), II'is 1, or:, July Ic.P.t. for the mnCdla tr,ly orattdin0 1!dY 1' V.. A "Contested bearing" s e hearing which results frnr t petition rnr '.s :runt which film •. ..' of scorn S.5e.050 tl. r:h:S ., moPosirgn n. .r. •i t,,d our,,,dt to .•p tine 5.0.070, .4).'720 11nv:5i,n, 'his cr,ncg, Ir.11l 'It apply 'n :cna,r:et I,, "...nh1f �, home :li l•l.. rated in 'he ti:'1'. I !Irbil., I•;@ uart Snaco, reeled Lot for mon•I'• +sldedt Ul asesi �'ohli.. I,n.ne earl., the CGIn I,'Iti tl,, If , lifh lu:nan 'a'r •nC ^r•. .•, of n or t r `,141 -Ince rndiried 'n Ihls endpu+r: prov,!1d, •cwe'z n., • •ndt 9.:1 a %nl'mtl;'n :I•Imb+t In ..I Irr1 t ffpn '.el ri tf'n.• 'qC I1SV„nf,C 1. p f , r •.,I ju..nice\ t"! i., f, t'rn• :Inn cans ;hR •, ., I. If it'ur-0ar 5: • iw � - C • ORglo:pNCE W. 332 NICE t 'Chile hncie parks ankh a government agency owns, manages or ..r .1: 5. Tenancies which do not exceed ao occupanty of three -poops and Co not contemplate an occupancy of rare than three months; E. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulations speci•etcaliy prohibit such rent regulation. S.69.030. Rent stabilization board. A. Nerbers. There shall be in the city a rent stabilization board, herutnatter ceT %d "Rent Stabflitatmr 90ard." Such board %hail consist of threw regular integers and two (2) alternate members, all of whom shall be appe r -led by the city council. An aitere.te shall sit when e. regular Own, er is absent or disqualified. R. Co nsa [ion, No Cooper w111 be compensated for his servi tts, but the Citv %ha re rtiurSe naanberi for their reasonable eapense% of attendirg meetindi. C. powers. The rent stabilization board is empowered to approve, set and adjust F5e rent schedule and nax`nmm rents for mobile hwae tenancies in :he City in accordance with this chapter. D. Terms. Each member shall serve a term of two years or at the discretion qi ththe city council. • Rules and Regulations. The city council may by resol2icn approve rul-s ' -d repo atfe•R or p1.1e[dirms before the rent stabilltat•on board. Oobron. Two men'.hers shall constitute a outrun of th, rent sta -!ll „tine tart. .no two affil -,ti,e votes Shall be required for any order. den;ion or ruling. 3.69.040 Ilaxinum Rent, A- Forms la. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, he ^ax :•rum ren TOr �acn nobil,hnme space that management of a nobilenbme park shat! bn pe matted to charge shall be. as set forth in an effective rent ichedul+ detnrntred a% follows: The •naxlczm allnr :apse •rot .hall be calculated ann;,al A' I'd in4” be the cum of inn ,n;inwinn: 1, The ;uly 1, 1979 root; and 2. Th. duly 1, 1979 rent 'meet 75% of the ratio of cn,nge in the Consurer ur,rn :nde• (C.p.;.). u.nitl, _ Pent ichedul l, finnnally and Is soun at practical after : ^< r9r • :,rnvi .0 %i .• fi lrn •, •1 "I" 'ear and Park, -h• 'Ity 1: :,9 e, rent ?'Ir•htnn park, hn ;sty - onaer of th rate etha 'ulehen•• i, n., a% provided le par lgraph A of chit ' .�Y, u••. ;cal "^ :!q :Pr �, n.nr in to, city clerk's nfr`cg as a rrn •. ^ +� .,I!: holy r• •rr .1111 ''M, rent schedule to the -•anaoement of r . %pCetlei•ID •nun rent for bath nlhilehore Space. 'il..• rnrnhe ,vt n/ tent ynar thali Dew ^e effective ni ..•.r n,', nn:,r rni after .lu ly 1, -frail become • I c6 "'yfn w E OW-WICE 110. 332 Ps9E • C. Transition Rules. Until a new rent schedule for the 198263 fiscal year becomes a ec-7? Live pursuant to Paragraphs A and 8 of this Section 5.69.040, the maxirum rents, as previously allowed by this Chapter 5.69 shall remain in full farce and effect. Any maximin rent as permitted in this Section 5.69.040 shall not require a reduction in the lawful Maximum permitted rent for any robilebmme park for the period of July I, 1982 to July 1, 1983. Section 5.69.050 Adjustments. A. Management Adjustment. The rents provided by Section 5.69.040 are intended to provide for a just and reasonable return t0 management in all foreseeable cases. In the event that management of any mobilehome mark contends that the maximum rent as provided by Section 5.69.040 shall not provide a "just and reasonable" return, management shall file with the rent stabilization board a verified petition showing that the strict application of the formula specified in Paragraph A of Section 5.69.040 prevents a just and reasonable return to managertel. and request foe an adjustrent of the rent schedule up to a just and reasonable" return for the, mobile home park. In the event that the rent stabilization board finds the strict application of the formula specified in Section 5.69.040 does not allow for a "just and reasonable" return, then notwithstanding Paragraph A of Section 5.69.040, it may adopt an adjustment to the effective rent schedule up to that required for a just and reasonable return pursuant to procedures set forth in this chapter, 1. Tenant Adjustment. Any tenant may petition the rent stabilization board to reduce the maximum permitted rent in the event that management has reduced or limited any service to a tenant (including any change in policy with • respect to children or pets„ or the tenants of the mobiiehome park as a whole, that r. ere in effect on July 1, 1979. Such petition shall be verified. The anaunt of the reduction shall be the cost savings to management resulting from Such reduction or elimination of Services. In the event that the rent Stabilization board finds that there has been a reduction or elimination of service to the tenant or tenants from and after July 1, 1979, then notwithstanding Paragraph A of Section 5.69.040, it may adapt an adjustment to the effective rent schedule to decrease the amount of the maximum rent allowable in An amount aqual to management's savings by the reduction of or elimination of such service. C. Cross Adibstnent. In the event that a petition for an adjustment is filyd pd,sdWnt to thilion 5.67.:;SC, the rent Stabilization board may make adlustments in accordance with both Paragraohs A and 6 of this Section 5.69.050 the- ar• brought out In the hearing and in consideration of the petition. In the nvnnt that any adjustor-,[ shall by made oursuant to to S Paragraph C t0 this Section 5.69,050, such adjustment shall not reduce the maainum Al 10.Able rent below i 'just and reasonable" return wader all the facts. D. Cp,dilt +nos of %01mstr4nt, n the maq nr •hat -he rent stabilization hoi,o ',nl,' u0to'nlne that any ;. i45:' ^n. ;b'li hn made ours Vant t0 this Section ..,o K^ —, ,D tf,r +wont, ',h.. nn' aihill,atlnn ,,arm *Av impose Conditions 'A a allmstment and, where .pp r- +r,. Ln, nay limit mericm of time Of such ad pr ^rrn•t, Shetld an adjustment he radio oursuant to this Section 5,69,050, the rot itll+lizatien board ohall are" n ew effective rent Schedule for the roof l!rncme nark giving offnct to such aQp.strrnt. 5.59, -60 tl,tr ql fill,, Dntltloh. In the event that a bctitlon IS 'ape rs ua r.t to 'a raa h r n, on 5.69.050, management shall a -,-ice of ih^ film, of the ;one on ,Ann tenant within the mobilehome aark an , :nrm Provided by the city manager. Such entice nay el th or he in r II •.f. the I it krnwn Iddrhls er mach Wart in the event that a i 11 ed Purswmt. 'i, p ear, rn I, if Sect on 5.69.n51, the n:y canape, • �x C1 0 OP O MAKE q0. 332 PAGE 5 Shall promptly give notice At the last known address of the owners of said mobil ehorm park. Proof of service of said notice shall be filed with the city clerk• if the last known address of the .wirers of the mobilehome park are to know, he nay mail the same to the address of the uwner(s) of the mubi lehAle park as sham on the last equalized asse• .ment roll of the County of Santa Barbara. The petition shall be considered as filed until proof of service of such notice is filed 41th the city clerk, Section 5.69.070 Odoosition. Within thirty (30) days after the Ming of tee p,00t of service or the douse for Petition under Paragraph A of Section. 5.69.041, any tenant may file an opposition to the Petition of Management. Within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the notice by the city manager of a tenant's petition, management may file an opposition to such petition. Section 5.69.080 Won - Contested deteminat12n. In the event that no oPPOSit on s purses nt to ecn on , t e rent Stabilization board may hear and consider the next[.. based solely upon the subject matter set forth in the petition, or it my refer the xstter to a hearing officer for a recommendation and report as hereinafter provided. Section E.69.090 Contested hearings. A, In the event that any petition is filed pursuant to Section 5.69,050 pro,esing sr. adjustment which shall be contested by the filing of an opposition, the rent stabilization board Shill direct that a hearing be held an the contester ..utter. In the event that the root stabilization board orders a hearing to be held, it shall refer the sane to a hearing officer, as hereinafter • provided, to hear the evidence and prepare proposed findings of feet and a recommended decision. The rent stabilization board may hold an evidentiary hnaNng itself on contested issues that can be summarily decided without extensive hearing, otherwise the board should refer the matter to a hearing officer for the evidentiary hearing. B. The rent stabilization board shall deny the petition unless the petition prowes by a preponderance of the evidence that either: (1) The maintain rent will not provide for a "just and reasonable" return; or (2) That services to tenants have been reduced tried that of July I, 1979. C. A rent stabilization board and its hearing officer shall promptly consider and decide all petitions filed pursuant to Section 5.69.050. Matters shal• be con>ideree. and decided in the order filed. The party filing any petition reouinnq affirmative action by the board shall deposit with the city clbrx the estiru too costs (as estimated by the city clerk) to the city of all cns•. tit the city, Inr.luding without linitation, the cost of the meeting of the rent stabil i s atinn Indeed, the full cost of conducting the hearings a$ herein a•e0cnd, th^ spit bf the hearing Officer .end the cost of the Preparation of any ^�nnle. •he 'ends so 4-,,Sited exce it the city's costs, any excess shall ^ unded to the Perini fie depositing the same and any deticiency must h,e -X ' „aid by runty. Thr tit, sin rk may require, at any time during h^ ucn -r. Ar• -n, in Add" r•.al 4 ^r,ii: •r cnvnr costs not covered by the initiil ;,t• a chnditrn+ nnunuin,, with the hearing. Y,ould urth depns•ts not timely ra r•,r. Mu noW,n• ,hail he deemed withdrawn and the t,rmta L,q.v . 're rya ri•rn a .... 11 •nsid" oil restnvant facts Prnfenvd at .,,... ••, +. nn! ^,iv r,Nn., ",I•r...,l 11 nomad" 'n nn nre,sn tan ,I •Inn ..vaned• :gre•.t ,, n ' in rrrri nn ,mat ad .,ustroni.s, if mv. ;nnultl be • ppplgANCE nU. 732 PAGE c cc, any contested hca ri n.g, If then is more than one, party on a srCe, H•e ': i. ^.5 officer may regpi,, the oA,t,as an one side to designate a reoresentative to receive service of notices, papers and documents with rescect to the same, and after such des,gnatian, the service on the representative so desi;nated shall be deemed to be giving service to all such parties an that side. 0 In the event of any contested hearing, each tenant in the affected mobilehoma park shall be mailed a notice of the time and place of the commencement of the hearing and the possible effect upon his or her rent. Said mobilehome park tenants shall be given a chance and an opportunity to be heard at the contested hearing. No further notice shalt he required to be given under this chapter for any continuances of the hearing. G. All meetings and hearings shall be open to the public and malice thereof given as required by law. Meetings shall be held as necessary to hoar and decide petitions. M. The city manager shall notify the petitioning party of the filing cf an opposition on receipt thereof and as soon as possible thereafter shall nctifli both parties of the time, date and place of hearing. Upon receipt of a valid petition pursuant to this chapter, the rent stabilization board, unless it conducts the hearing itself under Paragraph A of this section, shall refer the opposition and the petition to a hearing Officer who shad conduct an evidentiary hearing upon the petition. At the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer shall take all evidence and may require any party to the proceedings to provide him with pertinent books, records, papers, etc. In furtherance of this power, the nearing officer may request the city council to issue a subpoena for the same if they are not voluntarily produced, or he -ay • take a refusal to produce the same as evidence that such gvidence, if produces, wooll be adverse to the party refu5irg to -reduce the same. J. The management may substitute for any books, records and papers, a certified audit by an independent certified public accountant using generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied or a verified statement under Oath by an independent certified public accountant of what the informaiian sought from such books, records and papers consists of Notwithstanding this Paragraph J, the hearing officer may requl re production of the books, records and papers. K. The hearing officer shall rule upon the admissibility of all evidence at the evidentiary hearing and shall have the power and authority to conduct the evidentiary hearing in all resprct5. L. The hearing Officer shall "ev detailed notes of the evidence producce and an electronic racording of 111 of the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing. n 7ogrCC present -r I. idenriary h,,ri,a shall constitute thN tivsive•emrd far the 11,11111, If ^lit issues involved. the ce ^clusitn of 711: avlcentlary nearinq, the nearing officer ,hall cri,pArc A Summary of all testimony and evidpnce admitted at the . III •.nrilr: rronr'ng, a s!a!n ^lint of all ^ater,.115 offic'nliy noticed and preperst ^' •dett �„ Sian to the rent stabllitatin 4• :pal' orc ^'ntly uomi! tnrmT !he rent stabilization board, alrng ^ales of ,11 dreumenrarf a renrrr reeciv -0. Conies of the hear'i ^n . rm •'.tars v,l'. •. i^. ^'4 Ind prnnmsrr, findlrgs and •.• - isl rr •.pal' ^ •.,i +11 p,rr,l nnrticlnatinn 1 e :r Itu,.^I 'r +qs antl i'Cr rrRingr,l doclfina Ilia!; • • ORDINANCE 110. 332 PAGE y �� PRO v become the final 'inclines and decision of the rent stabilization board within fifteen days after the filing of the same with the clerk 'or the rent stabilization. board (i.e., the city clerk) without further action of the board unless any party participating in the hearing shall file a petition to review the hearing officer's proposed findings and determination with the clerk of the rent stabilization board. 0. Upon receipt of the hearing Officer's summary, proposed findings, official noticed material and recommendations, and the documentary evidence ao:r':led in the proceedings and a Petition to review filed pursuant to Paragrapn H of this section, the rent stac,lization board shall hear argucents by the parties based upon the material summitted to it by its hearing officer. Any party at a proceeding may also have prepared, at his expense a transcript of the hearine to be presented to the rent stabilization board. ho further evidence shall Oe permitted nor allowed at the hearing before the rent stabilization board, Put it shall be based solely upon the materials presented to the hearinc officer at the evidentiary hearsrg. P. 1. At the conclusion of the hearing on the proposed findings and recommended decision of its hearing officer before the rent - stabilization board Pursuant to Paragraph 0 of this section, the board shall within thirty days after the date of hearing: a. Accept and confirm the recommendations of the hearing officer and adopt his findings and recommendations; or b. Amend the findings and recommendation Of the hearing office-'; or '- • c. Send thr matter back to the hearing officer for further hearings of the issue uurs'iant to any instructions provmpe - by the rent stabilization board. 2. Upon issuing the findings of fact, pursuant to Subparagraphs 1(a) or 1(b) of this Paragraph P, the rent stabilization board shall render Its final decision. This final decision shall be final and conclusive upon all parties. The final decision by the board may Include a provision equalizing the rents among all of the tenants of the mobile home park based upon the location, size, '. and improvements supplied by management of each mobile home site, notwithstanding any proviouc disparity bebneen rents charged on equivalent mobile heron sites. Any tenant ahose rent will be so equalized uc'ea Hs shah be given special notice of the same and a chance to to heard. 0. ropy order of the rent ftahlllzation beard shall, unless otherwise spa, c-n•: in its final do'Isinn, h" r r /rv^ as of the date thirty' days after the •ri,.,,g of tha Potitic, for •d!'r _ .. day na rt.. rn .1 leer vp ^'n nn ns ratrd ^r nttr,r res of ", Party; ' 'I, -n•1,er or 'hl. •Irt 't111'1:itlen boar, r, a'I fJl'r lei. ^l to in CIC tit, 1'.I - ConCgr'nln, 1 nb11C 1,,, park In wlllf.h 0C I,SI S or has a r i r, .r "!l nlnnr'nnt ;nty rnN "' - root stab ii la:, r. n-n h nm ^.hill krr.n mne tNS pf i�. ;'.earl agt, ... ^�.. in fli.lcl rmcorn n( I hrorrnn, 'n n ml; hl t , null': p.limn hCarD ghall pr loiai"•Cd cv s �� PRO v 0g01'b410E '00. gjt • 14GE 8 P. e evidentiary hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules re la [Thing to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any canon law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. X. The rent stabilization board may in its final decision direct that the prevailing parties' costs in these proceedings, including any funds paid to the City pursuant to Paragraph C of this section, shall be reimbursed by the losing party. Such an order for costs may be enforced by a court of law of appropriate jurisdiction. In the event that the rent stabilization board determines that any petition or opposition is frivolous, it nay award reasonable attorneys' fees to the other party or parties. X. The rent stabilization board or its hearing officer nay Spread any retroactive rent +djus exempt under Paragraph 0 of this section over several months of future rent. Section S.69.100 Guidelines. The rent stabilization board may recommend to the city ccuncli the adoption ar guidelines for determining a gust and reasonable" return. Section 5.69.110 Administrative tests. The city manager shall, from time to tae, ca curate the tote Cot—o conducting a meeting of the rent stabilization board and file such figures in his office. Such figures shall be used in detemining the deposits and the costs for holding a meeting of the rent stabilization board. irCN On 5.fi9.1p,0 6ereenents. Nothing to tM• chapter Shall operate to . restrl ct the egret o e tenant aM management to enter into agreements providing fora fixed tam and /or a /i wed rent Ior mobile home tenancies. Section 5.69.170 Maximum rent. Management shill not request, demand or receive tom a tenant more than the maximum rent set forth in an effective rent schedule including any adjustment thereof fixed by the rent stabilization board. Section 5.69.140 Enforceability. In the event of any violation by the rMnageraent at a mobl ! 0111! naY or any mdx illnlm rents, an effective rent schedule, or a final decision and order of the rent itablllistion board relief for such m violation shall be enforceable by the individual tenants of that park in a court of the appropriate jurisdiction in which injunctive relief may be granted and damages shall be allowed far any rent paid in excess of the effective rent schedule or any final determination of the rent Stabilization board. in any Such court proceeding, the prevailing party shall be awarded his reasonable attorneys' fees and the court, where applicable, shall be empowered to order treble damages for any rents charged in excess of any effective rent SChed0e, maximm rent, or in violation of the final decision of the board (i.n., throe times any excessive rent or overcharge). Su ?non 5.69.150 Limitation 0 action to attack a final decision. -Order r1 +•'rt• ^n 'mar �i. —nn+' ern on or pmcuccvig eo ottae, rTV eT ,CVIirne.ra emir or "Ofd a 'anal derision nor. orhr of the not stabilization pg,• •edsa•ah lennss, 'roality nr !idimy df any prry,rign nr :rendition rend therrtn, shall not bn ev iota nr• n mr any nersdn unless such action C Jr'S ➢..., ti <c-- rrnrrC an': r'v,cr u• •he sunmcn5 i5 eff 'ted within ninetyr toy' of rn friing v,ih 11re rtry c nr 11h, final emtr- m,,at,on no order n n 'hl sane 1•+S brem r;ivrr -1� '!, :1 !y clerk. rynn S _.'610 Alrl t•tm,. "::it �.11.1Y[er 111.,11 ' :' ^a,^ ,r• r•rfect unto — rceN' — maP,.•f_ - -- ;nr Jty ri"M tc full:- rent. ^ n 1. r, /oar, ..r intil vnr . P'u:S, rinss extc -,! 0 ny 4ne rrty rounr,il, • • 0R01bANCE N0. 382 PAGE a ::ion 5.69.1`0 Retai:atibn. it is unlawful for ;M ranaderent pr am Owner !t Y toy mmbf,e hgne par Y, to Na lass, ivlCt, retaliate against it otherwise discriminate against Day person in Ne rental of any mobile, hone perk S08 CA wren the dom1rant Purpose is metal iation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful under this Chapter, informed law enforcement agencies of practice believed unlawful under this chapter, has asserted any rights under this chapter, or has petitioned, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter," SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force On July 1, 1982, and before ,. 4j espiratien of fifteen (15) days of its passage it shall be published once with the names of she renters of the City Council voting for ano against the same in Carpinteria Herald, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Carp interta. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 1982, by the following called vote: AYES: COUNC I LMEMBER: BRELAND, LEWIS. LAWRENCE, 11ULLBRANDT, FUMSA'i4 NOES: COUNCILMENBER: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMENBER: NONE i7 d�p, v layer, Ity at are ter' • - ATTEST: Lt tY L k, 1CYo arptn enF I hereby certify that the foregoing nrdinance was duly and regularly Introduced and sdoo^.ed at a regular meeting of the City .rpuoeil of the City of Carpinteria held the 24th day of May, 1962. �2 �O E LI ^rk, lr tr e ,. ar'f`. me rta APFO^VEC AS TO FORM: 1 : 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -02 - BR WNE - A change of zone from A -1 Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family Residential) for .96 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane - APN 1077- 071 -01. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, after reviewing the proposal and conducting a public hearing on September 8, 1982, adopted Resolution 82 -85 recommending approval of the above described zone change and issuance of a Negative Declaration. The one acre parcel is currently zoned A -1 and has a single family home located on the south end of the property. A zone change to R -1 would be consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). In conjunction with this zone change is Parcel Map 7511, a residential subdivision of three (3) lots. Commission action on the parcel map was delayed, at the applicant's request, to study the possibility of creat- ing a fourth lot on the subject property. However, approval of any parcel map on the site is contingent upon adoption of this zone change by the City Council. Attached is a copy of the September 8, 1982 Planning Commission Staff Report, which fully describes the zone change request. If the City Council concurs with the zone change, two actions are required: (1) adoption of a Negative Declaration by Minute action, and (2) approval of the zone change through adoption of the attached Ordinance. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice has been placed in The Daily Report newspaper advertising this as a public hearing and public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. To date, no correspondence regarding this zone change has been received. �i. J Zone Change 82 -02 City Council Agenda October 20, 1982 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance approving Zone Change 82 -02, and issuance of a Nega- tive Declaration. Resdectfully submitted, Planner :CJ:jr Attachments Planning Commission Resolution 82 -85 Planning Commission Staff Report September 8, 1982 Minutes of September 8, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting • 0 W PUBLIC HEARINGS • C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -02 - BROWNE - A change of zone from A -1 (Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family Residential) for .96 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane - APN 1077- 071 -01. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7511 - BROWNE - A residential subdivision of .96 acres into 3 lots located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane in the A -1 zone (R -1 pending) - APN 1077 -071- 01. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that these two items would be handled concurrently. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports. Paul Rougeau, Senior Planner, requested that the Planning Commission consider a change to Condition S8 of the Engineer's Report relative to the parcel crap. He indicated that bonding is required in the condition although the curb and gutter improvements can be deferred until the time of development of these parcels. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Browne, 265 E. 7th Street, Upland, the applicant, indicated that when he • spoke with Mr. Rougeau regarding these parcels they had spoken of a division of this property into 4 lots rather than the 3 lots being considered tonight. He asked the Commission if it would be possible to change this lot split to 4 at this time. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be possible to obtain four legal size lots if the proposed carport were removed from the property. He indicated that a lot could be dropped between lots 2 -3 and it might make a more marketable piece of property. Commissioner darker asked if the engineering Division had stated that this could be done. Mr. Rougeau replied that he advised the applicant that if he is thinking of further splitting the lots, he should let the Commission know tonight or it would have to come back to the Commission. • Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that under the circumstances and given the fact that there is a publication requirement, if it was being consolidated into two lots, there would be no problem. However, 'because the applicant is now requesting that something more be done which would increase the density of the parcel there is a requirement to republish this. >^r. Hopson indicated that the Commission could grant the applicant's request for Item C, by Item D could not be taken up tonight. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September B, 1982 (' -1 Chairman King asked, if the applicant desired to, would it be possible for him to continue item D until it is readvertised for a four lot parcel map. • Mr. Hopson, stated that in theory everyone had been told that this would be a three parcel split and those people might have said that they have no objection to a three parcel split but they might have objections to a four parcel split. Simply by continuing the item tonight, only those people would be notified of this change who are present at this meeting. Mr. Hopson indicated that this would have to be readvertised. Commissioner Hempel stated that the applicant, should reduce the lots to 2 of 7200 square feet and come back to the Commission. Mr. Hougeau stated that it would be cheaper for him to readvertise than it would be for him to come back. Mr. Hopson stated that the Commission could take action on item C and no additional filing fee would be required when the applicant comes back with Item D. Commissioner Barker asked Commissioner Hempel if there were advantages and disadvantages to doing it this way. Commissioner Hempel replied that there are none. Chairman King stated that assuming Items C and D were approved as is and then it is the intention of the applicant to get 4 lots instead of 3, would a new application have to be filed. • Mr. Gomez replied that the applicant would have to show the Commission that he did not wish to have action taken on Item D and that the item would then have to be readvertised. Chairman King asked the applicant if he wished the Commission to take action on this or readvertise. Mr. Browne replied that he would like to have Item C approved and that Item D should be readvertised. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel stated that he felt this area eventually would be rezoned H -7200, like the surrounding area. He indicated that this would just be bringing the area into compliance with that surrounding it. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconed by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -85, approving Zone Change 82 -02 and to issue a negative declaration. • Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 8, 1982 Chairman King stated that relative to Item D, the applicant wished no action • taken tonight. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to continue this item for readvertising and return it to the Commission for action. • • -1 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -85 • A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 82 -02 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM A -1 TO R -1 FOR .96 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND IVY LANE - APN 1071- 071 -01 WHEREAS, on the 21st day of July, 1982, an application was filed and accepted on the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of September, 1982, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following in i gs: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. That the proposed zone change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the • surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the existing and proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this pro3 ect wi not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 25, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 25th day of August, 1982, Zone Change No. 82 -02. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 82- 02. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1982. W Resolution No. 82 -85 Page 2 -1 PLANNING /C SSION Or JHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ng I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamo..ga, 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 8th day of September, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, McNiel, Barker, Stout, King None None �1 • n U • • • L STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 1982 a .S 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 82 -02 - BRONNE- A change of zone from A -1 Limited Agricultural to R -1 Single Family Residential) for .96 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane - APN 1077 -071- 01. Related File: Parcel Map 7511 SITE DESCRIPTION: This request for the change of zone is in conjunction with a subdivision of 3 single family lots on approximately 1 acre of land located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane (Exhibits "A" and "B "). The development proposal consists of Parcel Map 7511, which is also on the agenda for your review and consideration. A description of the project is provided in the Parcel Map Staff Report. Zoning on the subject property is currently A -1 (Limited Agricultural). Exhibit "C" illustrates that the surrounding property to the east and west is zoned R -1, to the north R -3, and to the south, A -1. The General Plan designates all surrounding property on the south side of Base Line, Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). Surrounding property on the north side of Base Line Road is designated Low Medium Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) and Low Density Resi- dential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre). The proposed density of Parcel Map 7511 is approximately 3 units per acre. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the A -1 district is to protect and encourage agricultural uses in areas which are not appropriate for urban development. The minimum parcel size for A -1 property is 1 acre. Parcel Map 7511 proposes 3 residential lots less than 1 acre and ranging in size from 8846 square feet to 15,463 square feet. The change of zone to R -1 will allow lot sizes as proposed on the Parcel Map. The residential sub- divisions to the east and west have been developed with a minimum lot size of approximately 7200 square feet. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant is provided for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and has found no adverse impacts on the environment as the result of this zone change. If the ITEM C / -y Environmental Assessment and Planning Commission Agenda August 25, 1982 Page 2 Zone Change No. 82 -02 - Browne • Commission concurs with such findings, recommendation for issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. FACTS FOR FINDING: The subject site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed lot size. The change of zone is consistent with the General Plan and the corresponding Parcel Map has a density within the range allowed. Approval of this zone change will not create adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper, and 38 property owners within 300 feet of the subject site have been notified. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this zone change. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements relative to this project. If, after such con- sideration the Commission can support the findings, then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. RespAtfully submitted, �1 %��- f ' ._ �. , RICK GOMEZ City Plhnner RG: C3 : ka p • Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Parcel Map 7511 Exhibit "C" - Zoning and General Plan Designations Additional Study, Part I, Resolution of Approval • L,' ,/ 300 Mac ius Lane p 61) Mr IQ nMrr / • �� / 1 ll ..� � Y Vol 12� 11077) 03 O6 S Cpl ! l l -- 20 pw m■ O„ Ow �1R „�, �t ' 10� 8+ d� h)1 d,. ,.�r ,D l �— • '�'— � �L � —��- - ..._.- ter - _ u Of {� § .. n w dw Mr ♦� i 1 � : � i w o 1 .e � d\ Ml�a _ 1 � i l .•. ra r' 0 r Fj 4 ! . N Z O p qVN 1 L)�1i �10 11 *, � 11 .r l l ! a] \ , I►lN I r t A i (a. Y a NORTH C I1 , ()I' ITT: \I: z c az -oz RANCI IO CUG\NK) \G.1 _ TITI, LQ;An MAP PLANNNG DIVISION' IXInIAT:- �_sc.u.i: �.r. <. Z( G 3 £ R 3 -5000 T. j��• � ' �Rrlf-7 J r r�� R -► srrc t . n ..L 1 GENERAL PLAN _ r _ •I - fi..e - th .. _ 1. '1YtifAL: f. T—E :» _ UR CI ry OF ITEM: RANCHO CL'G1JI(� \G,1 nTl.i M6 �EMFV . 'R-ArI PI,ANNING DIVISION 1:m 111111' +C' 5C. \LG NTS. • j I— s, NORTH CITY OF • RANCI X) CUCAMONGA I , ITI.F;fAwW MAP 7'511 PLANNING Dl\'ISK)%N' EXIIIB'IT:-�__?�SC.\Ill hLT CITY OF RX CI10 CUCA: :Oi:(;A INITIP.L STUDY • PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SH-PT - To be com_leted by a_n_nlicant Enviro =ental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development leview Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Anzlysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee .:ill meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative D= claration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. r I U PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Map 7511 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Delores Broome 265 E. 7th Street Upland, CA 91786 BLAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: _Same as Abnve LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS A \\D ASSESSOR PARCEL NO -) 7344 Ivy Lane - APB 1077- 071 -01 LIST OTHER PER.'SITS NBCESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIL'S AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None I -1 C PROJECT DESCRIPTION • DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: parcels into 3 SFR lots A -1 4„ ,P / • C _ Divide approximately 2 one acre ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Acreage 0.96 Acres No buildings proposed DESCRIBE THE ENVIRO: ^.TNTAL SE=NG OF THE PROJECT SITE INCUMING INFOR:iATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PL:,YrS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, ARID THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): e Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? �� 5 WILL THTS PROD` ?CT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground • contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? K3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? K 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? , X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: #4) a zone change from A -1 to R -1 will be required. #5) Three trees ranging rom 12" to 24" diameter must ha ramnvoA nr .mnr�"emo..�. ... ..._ .__ ntua IMPOP.TANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I herebv certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of Pry ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be reouired to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the nevelooment Review Committee. Date 5 -7 -82 Signature W.,: -cb,c,... Title Trustee ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077 - 071 -01, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND IVY LANE FROM A -1 TO R -1 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. .96 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Ivy Lane, from A -1 (Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family Residential). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: • Lauren M. Wasserman, City ClerK ir, n a E • C, J T A T11TTA 1 Attached is a resolution ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract No. 9658. This tract is located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Madrone Avenue. Resolution No. 166, the Intent to Order Annexation No. 10, was approved at the City Council meeting of September 15, 1982, along with Resolution No. 166 tentatively approving the attached Engineers Report. Me Cutchan and Associates, developers of Tract No. 9658 have been notified by mail of the date of the Public Hearing. The site has also been posted. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution ordering the subject annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, approving the Engineer's Report, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. Respectfully submitted, LLOYD B. HOBBS CITY ENGINEER LBH:BK:bc - 1n� STAFF REPORT�'�. GV V. v,U f DATE: October 20, 1982 C1'I TO: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Hrall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Ordering Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract 9658 Attached is a resolution ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract No. 9658. This tract is located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Madrone Avenue. Resolution No. 166, the Intent to Order Annexation No. 10, was approved at the City Council meeting of September 15, 1982, along with Resolution No. 166 tentatively approving the attached Engineers Report. Me Cutchan and Associates, developers of Tract No. 9658 have been notified by mail of the date of the Public Hearing. The site has also been posted. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution ordering the subject annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, approving the Engineer's Report, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. Respectfully submitted, LLOYD B. HOBBS CITY ENGINEER LBH:BK:bc - 1n� • 0 • ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ANNEXATION NO, 10 F-� 7. CITY 0FRAN(A 10 CUCAMONGA A ENGINEERING I)IVIS10N 977 VICINITY NIAP 1 1 N I , i u' RESOLUTION NO. • C - � • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 10 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9658 WHEREAS, the Gity Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 15th day of September, 1982, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 166 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation Number 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 166 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption othereof, notice of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvements ", was duly and legally posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by law, as appears from the affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 166, according to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City of • Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in the office of the City Clerk; and J WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation to the district and the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 166, be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it further resolved that the assessments and methos of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. SECTION 4: Be it finally resolved that said assessments shall not begin until after 60 percent of said tracts have been occupied. J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for ANNEXATION NO. 10 to the Landscape Maintenance District Number 1 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). 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 9658 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 9658. The plans and specifications for the landscaping 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 deveoped work standards, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (5.30) per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (including Annexation No. 10) comprised of -0- square feet of landscaped area) is shown below: Total Annual Maintenance Cost S.30 X 261,346 square feet = $78,403.80 Per Lot Annual Assessment 78,403.80 _ 1492 = 52.55 Per Lot Monthly Assessment 52.55 _ 12 = 4.38 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 dun to said homeowner maintenance. SECTION 5. 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 incor- porated within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment Improvement for Annexation No. 10 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, 1983, to determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the 1982/33 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 public hearing date. 4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings. S. 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. -2- 0O • • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) Ss. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT I, Lloyd B. Hubbs, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly appointed, qualified Superintendent of Streets for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and that pur- suant to Resolution No. 82 -166 of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, he on the 8th day of October, 1982, posted the "Notice of Improvement" of the City Council's intent of consideration of Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 which notice is hereby attached hereto and made a part hereof; that Notices were posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart in a conspicuous place along each parcel of property affected by Annexation • No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. DATE: Sworn and subscribed to me this day of l J ,t inten eat of Streets 0 City of Rancho Cucamonga AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING: • I, Judy Acosta, Engineering Secretary for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do nereby swear that I deposited in the City's out -going mail located in the administration building at approximately 4:00 pm on October 1, 1982 the attached letter to Thomas McCutchan & Associates regarding Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract 9658. Date: �',z..• 7 f�� Judy/A,costa, pgineering Secretary A • October 7, 1982 i T OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rn. Phillip D. Schlosser Arthur H. Bridge Jon D. ,)Iikeis Jam.' C. Frost Miabad A. Pdombo Thomas McCutchan 8 Associates 265 North San Gabriel Blvd. Pasade ^a, California 91107 RE: Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. i Tract 9658 Gentlemen: The City Council will be having a public hearing to discuss the annexation of your development to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. The public hearing will be held on October 20, 1982, at 7:30 pm at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road in Rancho Cucamonga. . Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Cordially, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGGI�INNEEERING DIVISION BARBARA KRALL Engineering Technician BK:jaa • f POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANC IIOCUCA.NIONGA,CAI,IFORNIA91780 • (714)989.1851 P Pi i--iew 5r3 nrmv nv� n w �rnrrn n -- — v" a yr uaura.aav vu vturavavvn STAFF REPORT `�� �, 2 1 � a r ui: F; DATE: October 6, 1982 Ui 19777 TO: City Council and City Manager �. ',. FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer - SUBJECT: Alta Loma Park Renovation Purpose: In recent weeks with the beginning of soccer season, several concerns have been raised about the condition of the playing fields at Alta Loma Park. Based on this input, the Staff has prepared this report to explore options for improving the park to meet the expressed concerns. Background: The Alta Loma Park was constructed prior to incorporation with funds provided by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) as a part of President Carter's Public Works Employment Act. These funds came with extremely tight time constraints and forced many agencies to hastily develop plans for facilities to take advantage of the funds. Because the park was hastily conceived and designed, certain mainte- nance problems were developed into the park which have manifested themselves in recent years. These problems fall into two broad categories: • Grading and Drainage • Turf Gradina The park was designed with an engineered look that incorporates flat pads sharp (2:1) slope bank and rock filled drainage swales. The slope bank and rock swale is not amenable to mowing and requires significant manpower commitments to keep weeded and dressed. The park should be regraded to remove steep slopes,to fill rock drainage swales and to collect drainage in more gentle turf swales on the southern perimeter of the park. These actions will remove the rock nuisance, eliminate much of the hand maintenance demand and make the park more usable. Turf The park turf is a fescue mixture, a tough, commonly used park turf 0 I CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Alta Loma Park Renovation October 6, 1982 Page 2 0 but has the characteristic of being very clumpy and as a result, cannot be mowed very low and kept in the kind of fine consistent surface for sports activities such as soccer. Furthermore, when areas are eroded from use, greater time is necessary for recovery of the turf between uses. The existence of very little top soil beneath the turf further exacerbates the problem. When the native soil, which is rocky by nature, is exposed, any activity brings rocks to the surface which in turn are scattered about the field. The fields were reseeded about two years ago. While it did not create the ideal solution, the surface was improved considerably for the following year. Unfortunately, the fields suffered a major set- back this summer due to a new water main installation which increased pressure at the park and caused frequent failure of the systems back - flow prevention valve. This occurred during one of the hottest periods of the summer and portions of the field where heavy use takes place went into permanent wilt due to lack of water. Although this problem has been corrected, there was insufficient time between this occurrence and the beginning of this soccer season for the field to recover. The more desirable turf for a finer playing field is the Hybrid Bermuda. This turf can be mowed at a lower height and has a quicker recovery period. Alternatives . While the present condition of the fields can be enhanced through reseeding, the fine consistent surface required by certain sports activities cannot be achieved without some modification of the field characteristics. The renovation alternatives range from complete field reconstruction to minimal renovation. These options range in cost from $8,000 to $55,000. Five options have been identified and are detailed in the attached charts and summarized below: OPTION 1: Fescue Mixture Overseed - This is the minimal treatment which would be similar to previous actions and would im- prove the surface for a year but would require frequent recurrence. This treatment would not likely result in an improved playing surface. No Grading changes. Estimated cost: $8,611. OPTION 2: Common Bermuda Overseed - This process would begin to change the par tui ut would take many years to fully transition. The results would eventually be a more acceptable playing surface. No Grading changes. Estimated cost: $8,061. • 11 o CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Alta Loma Park Renovation October 6, 1982 Page 3 A I40 OPTION 3: Common Bermuda By Seed - Regrading - This option would accelerate the conversion to a superior playing surface but would require six months closure of the park and additional expense. Regrading is proposed concurrently. Cost Estimate: $40,943. OPTION 4: Hybrid Bermuda By Stolons - Regrading - This option would make use of hybrid stolen, (seed stalks) in place of seeds. The stolons will establish more quickly with a stronger mat. Regrading is proposed. Cost Estimate: $46,095. OPTION 5: Hybrid Bermuda By Sod - Regrading - This option would replace turf througnsoding. It would be the quickest establishment with the minimal down time (two months) for the park. Regrading is proposed. Cost Estimate: $54,390. Implementation The proposed project should be redesigned by a park consultant and reconstruction contracted in early January. The park field would be closed for use from January to August to allow for turf establishment. Future Park Maintenance and Operation The proposed project would result in a superior park athletic field, however, would still require additional maintenance commitments to insure the continued health of the field. The Hybrid Bermuda grass requires closer mowing than the fescue mix and the city will be required to purchase a reel type gang mower to properly groom the field. This mower would cost from $12,000 to $30,000 but would have the side benefit of increasing maintenance productivity. It is recommended that the mower acquisition be studied further and included in next year's budget considerations. Any playing field that receives intensive use must be given periodic relief from activity to allow time for recovery. This relief has not been provided in the past and must be more carefully considered in the future. This factor will result in periodic field closure and rotation schedule. These recovery periods can likely be scheduled around the major activities such as soccer and "T" ball but will pull the field out of use in the off peak periods. • CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Alta Loma Park Renovation October 6, 1982 oil Page 4 Future Park Needs Two additional facts should be pointed out to the Council. First, funds expended on extensive renovation could be used to develop additional parks to provide relief anal, second, Staff will likely be looking at addtional park improvements in the coming year such as tree planting, play equipment installation and curbing of sand pit areas. These additional items fall outside the immediate con- cerns, but do relate to overall long term park improvement and development. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council: 1. Approve Alta Loma Park renovation Option 4 at a budget of $50,000 to be drawn from the park development funds. 2. Direct Staff to study lawn mower acquisition options for presenta- tion with the 1983 -84 Fiscal Budget. 3. That the plan be implemented during a park closure between January and August of 1983. 4. Direct Staff to prepare a park operations plan to insure optimum life of the improved park facility. Respectfully submitted, G LBH:j� Attachments 11,21 A • • • • ALTA LOMA PARK RENOVATION O COST SUMMARY OF OPTIONS Placement Hybrid Hybrid Common Common Fescue Bermuda Bermuda Bermuda Bermuda Mixture By Sod BY Stolons By Seed Over Seed Over Seed Turf and Placement $38,890.01 $11,142.00 $ 5,990.00 $ 5,990.00 $ 6,540.00 Regrade slopes and drainage swales $ 9,500.0 $ 9,500.00 $ 9.500.00 relocate irrigat i on and replant Remove existing turf $ 3,000.0 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Import top soil and placement $ 9,870.00 $ 9,870.00 Top dressing and placement $ 5,105.00 $ 5,105.00 $ 2,071.00 $ 2,071.00 (60 L.Y.) (60 L.Y.) Fence rental (up to one year) $ 2,478.00 $ 2,478.00 Design engineer and set grades $ 5,000.0 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 TO7AL $54,390.0 $46,095.00 1 $40,943-001 $ 8,061.00 $ 8,611.00 113 ALTA LOMA PARK RENOVATION OPTIONS ANALYSIS - DETAIL COST ESTIMATES . A. TURF OPTIONS I. Hybrid Bermuda by Sod 152,460 s.f. @ $.185 = $28,200.00 Placement 152,460 s.f. @ $.057 = $ 8,69o.00 $36, 90.00 2. Hybrid Bermuda by Stolons 765 bushels @ $4.60 = $ 3,519.00 Placement 152,460 s.f. @ $.05 = $ 7.623.00 more gentle slopes and drainage $II, 162.00 3. Common Bermuda by Seed S 2,500.00 230 lbs. @ S2.15 $ 500.00 Placement 152,460. s.f. @ $•036 = S 5,490.00 is Replant disturbed areas $ 5,990.00 4. Fescue by Seed S 5.000.00 1500 lbs. @ $7.50 = $ 1,050.00 Placement S 3,000.00 • 152,460. s.f. @ $.036 = $ 5,49o.00 5 0.00 B. SUPPORT WORK (GRADING, SOIL PRE, TOP SOIL, ETC 1. Regrading drainage ditches: fill in rock flow lines and cut back 2:1 slopes to provide more gentle slopes and drainage swells S 2,500.00 Existing irrigation relocation as needed (extent of work needed unknown as this time) $ 2,000.00 Replant disturbed areas 100,000 s.f. @ $.05 S 5.000.00 $ 9,500.00 2. Remove existing turf S 3,000.00 • 10 • • 3. Import top soil 1410 cy @ $7.00 $ 9,870.00 Placement $ 11000.00 $10 A70.00 4. Top Dressing 230 cy @ $17.85 $ 4,105.00 Placement $ 1,000.00 $ 5,105.00 5. Fence Rental 2400 l.f. @ $.97 $ 2,328.00 2 gates @ $.75 150.00 $ 2,4x00 6. Design engineering surveys (not based on proposals) $ 5,000.00 0 • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cgGMo STAFF REPORT 4 ` Clf 9 5 DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MEASURE "W" As the Council is aware the Cities in the West End and the Flood Control District have joined together to present to the voters on November 2, Measure "W" to develop funds for flood control improvements. This measure will generate $5 to $8 million over the next ten years to build a portion of our City's major storm drains. The attached resolution formalizes the Council's support for the Mearsure. In recent discussions with the building industry a concern was raised that future home owners would be subject to building fees or assessments and the proposed benefit assessment. These residents would in effect be taxed twice for the same purpose. To alleviate this concern it was requested that the Cities indicate their support of a philosophy which removes this concern by directing funds received in newly developed areas to drains benefiting those areas. This issue could be dealt with in many ways but the moat obvious would be a reduction in drainage fees which reflects the increased revenues from Measure "W ". This issue 1s dealt with in the item on Drainage Fee's included in this agenda. To deal with this concern a general provision in the Resolution has been added which reflects a philosophy of not requiring double assessments on future development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution supporting Measure "W ". Respectfully submitted LBH� Attachments I - s, RESOLUTION NO. * ; - / 4 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE "W" WHEREAS, The residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga are frequently exposed to health and safety hazards due to flooding of major streets and drainage facilities, and; WHEREAS, Flooding causes severe damage to public property causing major expenditures of tax dollars, and; WHEREAS, The Cities and County Flood Control Diarist within Zone W have developed a Benefit Assessment Program which will generate five to eight million dollars over the next ten years to deal with these problems, and; WHEREAS, Implementation of the Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program requires approval of the voters of Measure "W" on this years November ballot. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga fully supports the passage of Measure "W" which Will develop funds to construct need drains to provide for the public health, safety and economic stability of Rancho Cucamonga. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City portion of said funds shall be directed to priority projects within the community in such a manner as to provide the maximum general benef;t Without imposing undue burden on any single segment of the community. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST; Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk J Jon D. Mikels, *kyor • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: STORM DRAIN FEE MODIFICATIONS � ��cA.aloti c� r z 1977 The Council in 1978 adopted a uniform Citywide drainage fee of $2,500 per acre. In 1980, the fee in the industrial area was raised to a level of $4,600 per acre to reflect master plan revision. With the adoption of the current raster plan revisions, it would again be appropriate to adjust these fees. The estimated cost based on the revised master plan is approximately $70,000,000. The area of spread for these costs is 18,587 acres. Fees for the storm drain system should be increased to $4,600 per acre. In March of this year the fee issue was raised with the Council but was referred back to staff to meet with community groups. Since that time two issues have evolved which could effect the proposed fee revision: The first is the proposed Flood Control Benefit Assessment (Measure "W ") and the second is the Day - Etiwanda -San Sevaine funding program. Measure "W" If Measure "W" passes it would likely generate up to $10,000,000 to supplement fee revenues. This represents approximately $550 per acre. If Measure "W" passes on November 2 it would be recommended that the fee be reduced to $4050 per acre. Day - Etiwanda -San Sevaine channel Funding As a part of the Redevelopment Program the Council has committed the County increment up to $50 million to fund these major channel facilities. Given the magnitude of construction costs it is unlikely that sufficient redevelopment funds would be generated to totally fund this channel system. The current fee proposal includes $10,000,000 for Day- Etiwanda -and San Sevaine channels. These funds are only meant to be supplemental to other more significant revenue sources. Because regional facilities have not previously been included in the fee structure the Council would have the option of deleting these funds from the calculation and assume regional funding from other mechanisms, This would reduce the fee an additional $550 per acre to $3500 per acre. SUMMARY At your next Council meeting we will know the outcome of the Measure "W" ballot issue, direction from Council is requested on funding of the regional programs. With these two items resolved staff would recommend // 0 Staff Report Bennefit Assessment October 20, 1982 Page 2 . that the drainage fee be adjusted to the appropriate level from $3500 to $4600 per acre. Attached for your review is Ordinance 75 -B revising the current drainage fee Ordnance. The Ordinance increases the acreage charge from $2500 to $4600 per acre. In addition two other language changes have been included: 1. The definition of drainage plan was revised to include revisions or amendments adopted by Council resolution. 2. The provision allowing reimbursement agreements which was discretionary under the current ordinance has been made mandatory under the proposed revision. This change reflects experience in the recent Mark III case and is consistent with the subdivision ordinance which makes reimbursement mandatory. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review the data and direct staff to prepare the appropriate fee revision Ordinance for first reading November 3, 1982 Respectfully sub�m1i /tt�ed�,� f • ✓./��Ai ciL /V'� LLOYD &. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER Attachments LBH:bc • rl i C < ORDINANCE NO. 75 -B • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND DRAINAGE FEES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 13.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 13.08.010 Intent and purpose. 13.08.020 Drainage plan and local area. 13.08.030 Fees- Payment. 13.08.040 Fees - Amount. 13.08.050 Fees - Deposit and utilization. 13.08.060 Exceptions. 13.08.070 Single drainage fee payment. 13.08,080 Construction by developer- Reimbursement. 13.08.010 Intent and purpose. The city is seriously affected by surface and storm waters and the continual subdivision and development of property within the city has placed a serious demand on existing facilities which handle surface and storm waters. In order to plan and • develop drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters and to provide an equitable manner for the apportionment of the cost of the development of such facilities, the City Council does determine that a drainage plan must be adopted and a drainage fee established to provide funds to be used for the construction of the facilities described in the drainage plan. (Ord. 75, Section 1, 1979). • 13.08.020 Drainage plan and local area. The comprehensive storm drain plans numbers 1 and 2, the in thereto and the appropriate plan sheets for the area lying within the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, together with construction Costs and other related material, which comprehensive storm drain plans were prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and all revisions or amendments subse- quently adooted by the City Council by Resolution, are hereby found and declared to be the drainage n an for the city. For the purposes of this chapter, Planned drainage facilities shall mean drainage contained within the drainage plan. The City Council finds that drainage problems are approximately of equal magnitude in all areas of the city, and declares that for the purposes of this chapter, all areas of the city shall Constitute one local drainage area. (Ord. 75, Section 2, 1979). 12' Ordinance No. 75- Page 2 13.08.030 Fees - Payment A. As a condition of approval of a final map, a parcel map, • the waiver of a parcel map, director reviews, site approval, location and development plan, conditional use permit, or the issuance of a building permit, the city shall require the payment of a fee as provided in this chapter for the purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters from the local drainage area. The City Council finds that development of property within the local drainage area will require construction of the facilities described in the drainage plan, and the fees are fairly apportioned on the basis of benefits conferred on the property in the local drainage area and on the need for such facilities created by the proposed division or development of oroperty in the local drainage area. The City Council further finds that the fee as to any property does not exceed the pro rata share of the amount of the total actual or estimated cost of all facilities pursuant to the drainage plan which would be assessable on any parcel of property if such costs were apportioned on a per acre basis. B. Fees required to be paid by this chapter shall be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 75, Section 3, 1979). 13.08.040 Fees - Amount. A. The fee required to be paid by this chapter is forty -six dollars (446) Der one one - hundreth of an acre or fraction thereof. • B. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter the fee shall be based on the area of the entire parcel with respect to which the building permit is issued. C. If the parcel with respect to which the building permit is issued is larger than one acre, the fee shall be based on: 1. The area of the developed portion of the parcel. As used in this chapter, the phrase "area of developed Portion of the parcel" means the area of that portion of the parcel lying within a single rectangle which encloses all improvements, landscaped areas, stordge areas, parking areas, required access and required setback lines. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1 of this subsection, the fee shall riot be Parsed upon that portion of the area of the developed portion of the parcel which was developed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and which remains unchanged, provided, however, that this exception shall not apply once the total area of additions to structures, or new structures, constructed after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, exceeds fifty percent of the area of the structures on the parcel which existed on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. n iL' Ordinance No. 75 -8 Page 3 ( t 0. The amount of the fee and the area for which the fee shall be considered paid shall be determined by the building official. (Ord. • 75, Section 1, 1980: Ord. 75, Section 4, 1979). 13.08.050 Fees - Deposit and utilization. The fee required to be paid by this chapter shall be deposited in a "planned drainage facilities fund" and shall be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for the construction of drainage facilities pursuant to the drainage plan or to reimburse the city for the costs of engineering, planning and administrative services to establish, design and construct the plan and facilities up to twenty -five percent. Initial funds collected may be utilized for specific planning and engineering studies as designated by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 75, Section 5, 1979). 13.08.060 Exceptions. Drainage fees shall not be required as a condition of the issuance of a building oermit for: A. Alterations; B. Reconstruction; C. An addition to a single- family residence when the addition does not exceed six hundred fifty square feet in area; D. Construction of garages, carports, storage buildincs, patio covers, swimming pools, and similar structures, accessory to a single family residence. (Ord. 75, Section 6, 1979). . 13.08.070 Single drainace fee payment. No portion of a parcel shall be subject to payment of a drainage fee more than once. If a drainage fee has been previously paid with respect to a parcel, or portion thereof, credit shall be given for such prior payment, and a proper apportionment shall be made, toward any fee payment required by this chapter. (Ord. 75, Section 7, 1979). • 13.08.080 Construction by developer- Peinbursement. 'Whenever the construction of planned drainage facilities is necessary for the proper drainage of a subdivision, the city may require the subdivider to construct such facilities with credit beinn given by the city toward any fee payment required by this chapter. If the cost of such construction exceeds the fee which would otherwise by payable with respect to the subdivision, the City Council will enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. In the event a reimbursement agreement is entered into, reimbursement shall be made only after the fee required by this chanter is collected in connection with a subdivision or development on other property in the area encompassed by the reimbursement boundaries described in the reimbursement agreement. The basis of reimbursement shall he the developer's actual cost of construction of the planned drainage facilities. The term of a reimbursement aoreement shall be as specified in the an rper�pn *.. Ortl. i5, Section __T__ , L9i9 '� 2 Ordinance No, ip -r Pace a SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Dailv 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 3rd day of March, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren rl. Wasserman, City Clerk Phillip D, Schlosser, Mayor / L / • • • I � LJ C Sections: 13.08.010 13.08.020 13.08.030 13.08.040 13.08.050 13.08.060 13.08.070 13.08.080 C 3.08.010 -- 13.08.030 Chapter 13.08 STOM DRAINAGE PLAN Intent and purpose. Drainage plan and local area. Fees -- Pavment. Fees -- Amount. Fees -- Deposit and utilization. Fx-�ptions. Single drainage fee payment. Construction by developer -- Reimbursement. 13.08.010 Intent and purpose. The city is seriously affected by sur ?ace and storm waters and the continual sub- division and development of property within the city has placed a serious demand on existing facilities which handle surface and storm waters. In order to plan and develop drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters and to provide an equitable manner for the apportionment of the cost of the development of such facilities, the city council does determine that a drainage plan must be adopted and a drainage fee established to provide funds to be used for the construction of the facilities described in the drainage plan. (Ord. 75 §1, 1979). 13.08.020 Drainace olan and local area. The ccmmrehen- si•:e storm drain plans pumpers 1 and 2, the index thereto and the appropriate plan sheets for the area lying within the city limits of Rancho Cucamonca, together with construc- tion casts and et:-er related material, which comprehensive storm drain clans were prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, are hereb_: found and declared to be the drainace plan for the city. For the purposes of this chapter, Manned drainage facilities shall mean drai. ^.ace contained within the drainace plan. The city council :finds that drainace problems are aoproximately of equal magnitude in all areas of the cit_i, and declares that for the purposes of this chanter, all areas of the city shall constitut one local dr_iaace area. (Ord. 7i §2, 19 i9). 13.;3.070 Foes-- Pav rent . A. As a condition of approval of a u na1 r..a p, a parsl map, the wai':ar of a parcel map, dir:;ctcr reviews, site approval, location and deveiocc.en't n1an, conditional use er ^,it, Or -e - 3suanco of a b- .' ilding permit, the city shall require the npavment of a fee as provided in this chapter for the purpcses of de'ravinc the actual or est_cated cost of eontructeng planned 3rainace facil -_zes .er 159 13.0E-0ao - -13.00 ,50 the removal of surface and storm waters from the local drainage_ area. The city council finds that development of property within the local drainage area will require constructlon of the facilities described in the drainage plan, and the fees • are fairly apportioned on t:-,e basis of benefits conferred on the property in the local drainace area and on the need for such facilities c or created by the proposed division development of property in the local drainage area. The city council further finds that the fee as to any property does not exceed the pro rata share of the amount of the total actual or estimated cost of all facilities pursuant to th drainace plan which would be assessable on any parcel of prenerty if such costs were apportioned on a per acre basis. E. Fees required to be paid '�• this chapter shall be Paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 75 33, 1979) 13.x'8.040 Fees -- Amount. A. The fee recuired to be ..aid by this chapter is twenty -five dollars per one one - hundreth of an acre or fraction thereof. 6. Except as othe raise providec in this chapter t fie shall be based on the area of the entire parcel with e respect to which the building permit is issued. C. If the parcel with respect to which the building based on; permit is issued is larger than one acre, the fee shall be / 1. The area of the developed portion of the parcel. As used in .this chapter, the phrase "area of developed portion o: the parcel" means the area cf that portion of the parcel • lying Within a single rectangle which encloses all im land =gaped areas, storage areas, parking areas, proveme r. `s, access and recuired setback lines. recuired Z• Notwithstandina the provisions of subdivision 1 Of this subsection, the fee shall not be based upon that per tion of the area of the developed portion of the parcel which was develoe'd ordinance codified prior to the effactive date of the in this chapter, and Which remains un- changed, provided, however, that this e:<c=Dtion shall not apply once the total area of addit' -cn structures, mnstruate _s to structures, or nee d after the et_=cti'. Aare of he ordinance codified '-;, this c..a cter, exceeds of the area c` t -a st ..ores ,^ cir =:' Percent the off =_cti - -_da c <r� �•. one oa real which existed on D. The _mount _ he ordinance p,.i_d in the., er, the - - ant toe -area fur whicn�- - ..__dera'_ ' j -1i be de¢ rmi::eu n -` build_nc•o fig iai. (Ord.ui5 -A 51, 1980: eOrd, 73 5-1,"'979). ar.d ❑'i" . •ecuLr•_c ro ce b _- `a -`J, The tae pale this c r shai- be decosited in a "p.annod drainace fsc; L•ties f,:-d" and steal' be posited solely for t.`.a construction of - rcir.buraamant for the 160 /1 S 7.03.060-- 13.04.Ca0 construction of drainage £aci L'ties pursuant to the drainage plan or to reimburse the city for the costs of engineering . planning and administrative services to establish, design and construct the plan and facilities up to twenty -five percent. Initial funds collected may be utilized fcr spec'fic planning and engineering studies as designated by resoluticr. or the city council (Ord. 75 55, 1979). 13.08.060 Exceptions. Drainage fees shall not be recuired as a condition of the issuance of a building petrit for: A. Alterations; B. Reconstruction; C. An addition to a single- family residence when the addition does not exceed six hundred fifty sa_uare feet in area; D. Construction of garages, carports, storage buildings, patio covers, swimming pools, and similar structures, acces- scry to a single family residence. (Ord. 75 56, 1979). 13.09.070 Sincle drainaae fee oavment. No portion c: a parcel shall be subject to pa, or a arainace fee more than. once. If a drainage fee has been. previously paid with respect to a pa,:el, or portion thereof, credit shall be given for such prior oavment, and a orooer apportionment shall be made, toward any fee paviaent recuired by this chapt= -r. (Ord. 75 57, 1979). . ♦�.�a.�ov aanscr,:c uoc py geveioce r-- xeampurseme. ^. :. •ihenever to construction oz drainace rac- litres is n- ecessary for the proper drainage cr a subdivision, the city may rec_uire the subdivider to construct such facilities with credit being given by the city toward any fee payment ree m red by this chapter. If the cost of such construction exceeds the fee whicn would otherwise by payable with respect to the subdivision, the city council mav, at its discretion., enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. In the event a reimbursement agreement is entered into, reimbursement shall be made only after the fee required by this chapter is collected in connection with a subdivision or development on other property in the area encomoassed by the reimbursement boundaries described in the reimbursement agreement. The basis of reir..bursement shall be the developer's actual cost of construction of the planned drainace facilities. T:•.e term o? a reimbursement a. _ ement shall not exceed ten, /aa (Ord. 75 53, 1979) . • 161 'L(' E E • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 18, 1982 T0: Drainage Fee Workshop FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Drainage Fee Calculation GuCAh1pN G Y 2 � � a„ III F Fi 2 isr, I Attached is a detailed summary of the calculation of the proposed $4,600 per acre drainage fee. The fee is based on spreading the total estimated cost of the storm drain system including a $10 million contribution to the regional flood control system over the area of the City. The area calculated at 18,587 acres includes all develcged and undeveloped acreage but excludes street and utility rights -of -way, public lands and unbuildable sites on steep slopes. Also attached is a similar calcuation spread through a zonal breakdown. This option was discarded for several reasons but is shown here for comparison and discussion purposes. LBH:jaa Attachments Iz "l STORM DRAIN FEE CALCULATION CSD31P (REVISION - L.D. KING) Line 2 -1 (A -E) 2 -2 (A -K) 2 -3 (A -K) 2 -4 (A -T) 2 -5 (A, B) 2 -6 (A -?) 2 -7 (A -E) 2 -17 (A) 2 -32 (A, 3) CSDMP (MOFFAT- NICHOL) Estimate 2,923,297.30 9,946,690.60 5,567,405.80 15,291,233.10 602,673.50 5,216,093.30 3,578,394.60 1,362,300.50 2,631,126.30 TOTAL $47,119,215.00 Estimate (1969) 198,476.30 739,156.00 191,826.80 165,122.10 504,775.70, 417,865.80 1,016,180.00 TOTAL $3,233,402.70 • • • Line 2 -4 (D) 2 -5 (A, B) 2 -14 C 2 -15 C 2-16 (a,u,c) 2 -17 (a, d, 8, e) 2 -22 (a, n, n, d) Estimate 2,923,297.30 9,946,690.60 5,567,405.80 15,291,233.10 602,673.50 5,216,093.30 3,578,394.60 1,362,300.50 2,631,126.30 TOTAL $47,119,215.00 Estimate (1969) 198,476.30 739,156.00 191,826.80 165,122.10 504,775.70, 417,865.80 1,016,180.00 TOTAL $3,233,402.70 • • • STORK DRAIN FEE CALCULATION • ENR (11 -81) ENR = 3709 z 2.99596 3.0 (3 -69) ENR = 1238 3,233,403 X 3.0 = 59,700,209 CALTRANS Channel Etivanda Ave. to East Etiwanda Channel - $1,040,000 TOTAL = $10,740,209 VICTORIA P.C. DRAINAGE PLAN TOTAL $16,469,929 Regional System $10,000,000 • TOTAL COST - 85,000,000 AREA = 18,587 Acres FEE 85,000,000 = $4,573.09 18,587 • VICTORIA STORM DRAIN PLAN ESTIMATE A. $ 76,510 15a $ 275,920 B. 197,710 15b 614,605 C. 56,125 15C 341,220 D. 317,020 15d 129,000 E -1 99,060 15e 173,160 E 519,775 15h 559,190 E -2 113,310 15i 586,490 E -3 76,500 15j 134,610 F 603,315 G 517,640 11,764,235 H 2,280,700 H -1 '76,695 +40% 4,705,694 H -2 47,520 H -3 47,520 16,469,929 H -5 62,430 H -6 237,040 H -7 66,165 H -8 152,450 H -9 102,680 H -10 73,630 I 1,807,680 I -1 55,550 I -2 188,000 I -3 75,260 1 -4 88,760 1 -5 149,740 I -6 56,680 I -7 60,255 I -8 110,160 I -9 110,160 CALTRANS 524,000 I l..� • • • STORM DRAIN FEE CALCULATION ZONE BRFAKDO14N • AREA SYSTEM REGIONAL FEE TOTAL ZONE (Acres) COST FEE $ /ACRE FEE 1 789 2,631,126 0 3,335 3,335 2 4,495 18,086,081 0 4,024 4,024 3 5,010 24,708,344 0 4,932 4,932 4 1,138 4,141,041 0 3,639 3,639 5 1,712 6,307,022 2,093 3,684 5,777 6 1,746 6,679,297 2,093 3,826 51919 7 3,701 4,666,380 729 1,261 1,990 l I c f / E cc a ........... 7-.., LL . Li. Lo V) 1 of ......... .. - 1 211 C) 55 ri 'r ry rr -4 L-i r;T, 7i 0 '.W O«"CES OI BEST. BEST 6 KRIEGER September 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY FROM: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COUNSEL RE: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The City Council has from time to time advanced funds for the administrative expenses and overhead of the Re- development Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council is also authorized to advance additional moneys • to the Redevelopment Agency to assist in undertaking redevelop- ment. Attached to this memorandum is an agreement for 0 cooperation between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga which essentially sets forth the terms and conditions under which the City Council will advance sums to the Redevelopment Agency. The adoption of this agreement will assist the City Council in formally documenting any and all loans to be repaid by the Agency and will further insure that those loans are indebtedness for purposes of permitting the Redevelopment Agency to repay such indebtedness out of tax increment. If the attached agreement meets with your approval, you should lAW Of FICES OF BEST. BEST 6 KRIEGER September 9, 1982 adopt the attached resolution approving the agreement • between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Since it is anticipated that the City will advance funds to the Agency, you should determine the rate of interest per annum which such loans are to bear. JOHN E. BRO14N 1� • `J RESOLUTION NO. * Z 2', /,�, 10 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (the "City ") that it hereby approves the proposed agreement between the City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (the "Agency ") entitled "Agreement for Cooperation Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that it hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this * day of *, 1982. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C erk • Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 • • 4 , l.- /ill T ♦ TIl rlT 1111 ♦ 11�T11 . STAFF REPORT DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATIN Cwu�lu''l^ F" U 1977 Attached for Council review is a request from Red Hill Country Club proposing the construction of a retaining wall on Red Hil Country Club Drive at the first curve northerly of Foothill Boulevard. This wall would perform the function of preventing sloughing of the bank onto the roadway and stabilization of a green area on the country club golf course. In recognition of the mutual benefits of such a project and the Country Club offer to fund 50% it would seem appropriate for the City to participate in the project. It is recommended that the Council direct staff to proceed with development of a cooperative project with the Red Hill Country Club to construct the required retaining wall adjacent to fled Hill Country Club Drive for an amount not to exceed $20,000. Final project agreements subject to Council approval. Funding for the project to be drawn from Systems Development Funds. Respectfully subm'tted, I LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER Attachments LBH:bc September 17, 1982 ..,,� Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Red Hill Country Club Drive Dear Lloyd: Red Hill Country Club is continuing its efforts to increase the stability of the bluff between the first green and Red Hill Country Club Drive. We are now replacing the existing clogged drain line with new drain pipe. When completed next week, it should be able to remove all free standing water primarily from rain runoff that accumulates above the bluff easterly of the first green. This should significantly reduce water seepage through the bluff face re- sulting in concurrent reduction of bluff erosion. While this action will alleviate the bluff erosion problem, we still desire a more permanent solution if one can be found for a reasonable cost, that, in addition to protecting the roadway would also protect the existing first green and golf course bound- aries. I'm sure you can appreciate that Red Hill Country Club has only a limited budget that can be allocated to this project. • Following our earlier discussion about retaining walls, parti- cularly a cement block wall to hold the toe of the slope and your expression that the city might share in the cost, 1 met with Ernie Reed of Retaining Walls, Inc, to explore the feasibility and cost of retaining the bluff with a criblock interlocking concrete crib - wall. Subsequently Retaining Walls, Inc. submitted a proposal to engineer and construct approximately 1,444 square feet of wall face area (about 150' base stepping in to a height of about 16' above the road surface), for $18,050 (copy attached). This would be adequate to retain the critical erosion area and would be added to in the fu- ture if it ever became necessary. Construction of the criblock wall which would take about one week would not damage the root zone of the trees atop the bluff which are essential as a backdrop screen for the first green. We find this proposal to be attractive and believe it would solve our mutual erosion problem. Therefore, the Red Hill Country Club board of directors has expressed its willingness to share crib- lock retaining wall costs equally with the city up to a maximum Red Hill share of 510,000. Please advise whether or not the city of Rancho Cucamonga will proceed with the project on this basis. Yours truly, • eote45 eorq 1. Crum Project Chairman �— "cloth - - -_ 2358 Neu nn iounny Club �.,�:e uu_. ..� p17a) ; Ia1992.1758 RETAINING WALLS, INC. CRIBL&K Northern California San Diego Area LOS Angeles Area P.O -Be. 621 ❑ PO. Bo% 1036 Orinda CA firl PC Be. 2129 Escondido, CA 02025 Pasadena. CA 91102 (415) 2544446 (714) 4891108 (213) 7925828 PROPO$ALE ' ?t,d gill i'ountrc Club (i "L} TO • STREET._ OWNER CITY ' "1•�!` ('I;c :y:onya. A 017 GENERAL CONTRACTOR " ATTN '211, i' I I. Illil S UBCONTRACTOR Res ..; rtn.ta ?stork iE5 -irri di f,d Retaining '40115. Inc will erect CRIBLOCK' cnb bin retaining walls as required for the above project, as folIOwS: roh 91' ^t'e n1j,,n, there 1i In=. X1.:1te1C =4.1 :ic=e treat n. face 3TeR. ^.t n "r "' sava: e `.oat the • ;.-all cost tiauld 1' e arm xJrareip :iB,G D.rn Invoicing I Retaining walx will be mwlced AS Built: measured on face of wall from the bottom of the base, 'I per sq ft single depth wall i "' per so it double depth wall or per sq, it (Composite) 11 per so it Triple depth wall 2 Invoice price shall be 'Lump Sum' in the amount of 5 - -- based ce the design and dimensions as submitted; Changes Any a'ea icn cr tleviatl an Yom the above speClfICaUans mWlving estro cost of material cr labor will be e%ecated only Vpan wit Yep orders la same and ­11 becbme on e%tto charge over the sum mentioned In ITS proposal. Retaining Walls, Inc. will provide or be responsible for A. Engineering design deratl required to secure buiiding permit or all appropriate government agency capital Wall design to be based on all and ^' "eeting site detail and soils criteria furnished by owner Contractor B Sopery,g I, finish grading far ail CRIBLOCK crib retaining walls C An CC:BLCCK' materials and labor necessary to erect the re'oimng walls D Labor and egWpmenl to compact backfill material within he Crib wall, and Immediately behind the wall to a ma %imum of Iwo /961 he '.1 Corrector/ Owner will provide or be responsible lark E 51 Bulldog Permit or other approvals necessary to commence work. and payment of all fees related ttterelo. F All excovanan required for crib wall as per engineered design G All engineered stoking tar location of wall and control points, H Suitable bocklil material stockpiled as directed by us I Water for mmoaction of stockpile and wall locations i Sall and ccmpactlon tests as may be required K Reworking of foundation Sol if required. L All drainage materials required as per engineered design. M An, shoring tier may be required N Earth movement caused by flooding, sliding or acts of others. O All other conditions not specifically awmed by R W I Performance: f!Ns proposal is ac tented, work will begin within ten work mg days of receipt of a boicl permit or appropriate outhonzafion Estimated time to coma ere. O -- --- working days. subject to delays beyond our reasonable control Validity This preoasol is valid until r` . and antes quoted are firm provided actual conshuction commences within 6 moans of acceptance dote PAYMENT TERMS 1)n nn,, qT t ,,,1 i;; r'. ?1'. :'r`�<`t✓' ''11;:1'Or. •'n''i' +lra {ill' ` r ^r'r'.n1,Pte. Late ph,,9nS 11,11'. bear Interest at I". rate of IVYb pet month ATTORNEY'S FEES Shaja any rti be brought at either Iaw or equity to either enforce or interpret this agreement. then the Pavel parry She I be, enW'eal to rill _alts and reasonable attorneys fees ADDENOUM PLEASE SIGN ANO RFT'JRN -NE COPY FOR CUR FILE WORK CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE Accepted RETAINING WALLS, INC: Contractor State License No 37757• By By Dore Dole :G•r`t; SiT)FQ' hl.i 1:'•iJ7 CRIBLOCK® A cea�a. a 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 1982 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 81 -30 -A REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES C"`AA10N I-' 0 r ii 077 Resolution No. 81 -30 -A is an existing resolution designating certain City employees to enforce City ordinances, Over the last several years of actual enforcement experience, two modifications of this Resolution are recommended: the first is to modify the resolution to establish City positions rather than specific individuals holding these positions because staff turnover creates gaps in the continuity of code enforce- ment activities. Second, the list of employees needs to be expanded for a number of reasons. The limited number of employees designated in the current resolution creates difficulties for enforcement cover- age since departments that have only one designated representative have difficulty at times in pulling away the designated individual to deal with an enforcement problem in the field when that person is involved in other pressing activities. Further, there is inadequate designation of field employees, those who most often run across vio- lations such as dumping. By the time a designated individual may be reached, the violator is gone. Therefore, it is recommended that the following positions be added to this resolution. Finance Director City Engineer Building Inspector Supervisor Public Works Engineer Maintenance Superintendent Public Works Inspector Staff recommends that Resolution No. 81 -30 -A be modi- e enforcement personnel by position and to add the positions to those already named in the Resolution. JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director JL:jk Attachment: Resolution I RESOLUTION NO. 81 -30 -8 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN SECTION 1: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 54 the following City employees are designated by position to enforce City ordinances, in all primary and secondary codes referred to therein: City Engineer City Planner Finance Director Building Official Senior Planner Public Works Engineer Building Inspector Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Code Enforcement Officer Public Works Inspector Business License Inspector • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • IL'r 0 Mayor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER. A meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Wednesday, October 20, 1982. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikcl.:. Present were: City Council Members Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Finance Director, Harry Empey; Senior Planners, Tim Beedle and Mike Vairin. Approval of Minutes: Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the minutes of August 18, 1982 and September 1, 1982 as amended. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -10 -20 in the total amount of $428,471.15. b. Alcoholic Beverage Application, for off -sale beer and wine by John R. Nix, John's Mobile Service, 8477 Archibald. C. Approval of Agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation Company and R. C. Land Company for construction of a storm drain beneath the railroad tracks within the Victoria Community Project. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -177 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AHD R.C. LAND COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION TRACKS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN INDENTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE BENEATH THE RAILROAD TRACKS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. d. Approval of Improvement Extensions Agreement for Minor Development Review 82 -08. A I VC rr UC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -08. e. Approval of agreement with City of Ontario for construction of signals at Archibald and Fourth Street. To be funded with Federal Aid Urban Funds. f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 82- 05- Reiter Development Company. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 82 -05. g. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for 10020 Almond Street submitted by Allen and Mary Jones. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM ALLEN AND MARY JONES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAME. h. Revision of partial reimbursement to members of Planning Commission for expenses incurred. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION 79 -55 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ESTABLISHING NEW PROVISIONS FOR PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE SERVING AS MEMBERS OF THE C"ISSION. i. It is recommended that the Council accept offers of dedication for streets and storm drains in a portion of Assessment District 82 -1 and approve an easement agreement with R. C. Land Go. providing for payment of $178,439 for the acquisitions from the Assessment District right of way funds. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR STREETS AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -1. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4A. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES. An ordinance establishing public notification procedures for projects requiring Planning Commission public hearing. Presented by Jack Lam. , City Clem, _ ti ORDINANCE NO. 164 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.20 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2.20.090 THERETO REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROJECTS REpUIRiNG PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Dahl to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 184. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Dahl to adopt Ordinance No. 184. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: None. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution 82 -168. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79 -1, REESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Resolution 82 -168. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to adopt Resolution 82 -168. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4B. PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE NO. 70. An ordinance to establish Historic Landmarks and Points of Interest designations by a Resolution. Presently such designations are made by Ordinance. Staff report by Bill Holley. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance 70 -E. ORDINANCE NO. 70 -E (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS D, E, AND F OF SECTION 2.24.100 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEDURE. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Frost to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 70 -E. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Frost to adopt Ordinance 70 -E. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: None. COMMITTEE TO ADOPT A RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. A City Council Committee was appointed consisting of Councilman Dahl and Councilman Buquet to review Councilman Dahl stated the ordinance excluded new development of parks and any new parks built in the city, since those involved in any new investment in the city in terms of mobile home parks would be aware of the costs prior to moving in. Councilman Frost stated that not infrequently new park owners will come in as part of their marketing strategy with a lower fee with the intent of increasing rent later on. The proposed ordinance would exclude any type of protection for those future owners. Councilman Dahl stated t:-':t we do not want to retard the development of parks. Rent stabilization :an also become affected by competition -- as there are more parks in the area, rates will change. Councilman Buquet explained the intent of the ordinance was a short term solution. By not including any development of new parks, there was a hope to come up with a long range solution by enticing more parks to come into the City. In response to a question from Councilman Frost concerning the July 1 date, Mr. Dougherty explained that if the ordinance were adopted the date of July 1, would be selected as the base date from which any change would occur such as increase or decrease of rent. July 1 would be the reference date for all purposes including reduction of services. Councilman Frost inquired if the service level would always be July 1, 1982. Councilman Dahl replied services could not be reduced below what the owners had been receiving as of July 1, 1982. Additional discussion was held concerning legal language of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were the following representatives for coach owners. • Jack Emerson, Chaparral Heights Mobile Home Park, felt this was a reasonable solution and fair to both parties. He urged passage of the ordinance. • Harry Pate, Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park, requested information on what procedure he should follow if his rent were increased. • Mr. Grossman, Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park, requested advice on payment of rent if rent were increased. The following representatives for park owners addressed Council. Brent Swanson, attorney for park owners, stated a study conducted by him shows rent increases in this area were not out of line with other cities. Also, we must demonstrate some injury is occurring and that increases are not due to normal raises. We must prove the coach owners are injured by rent increases. Park owners must have a just and reasonable return on the fair market value of their investment. In addition, the ordinance must be specific and define terms, etc, or court could deem the ordinance invalid. Using the CPI of May is not practical. and would not provide sufficient time to inform those concerned. Most importantly, before the ordinance is adopted we must comply with California Environmental Quality Act and an Environmental Impact Report must be completed in order to be in compliance with the law. on a rent control ordinance before the public had provided more input. • Katherine Downey, Sycamore Villa Mobile Home Park, expressed her difficulty in receiving a fair and reasonable return on her investment. • Brad Downey, Casa Volante Mobile Home Park, 8651 Foothill, expressed his concern that the City was considering rent control. 9 Warren Hillgren, Foothill Mobile Manor, is opposed to the rent control ordinance stating that rent control has not worked for other communities. Earl Williams, Ramona Villa, opposed to rent control. Jim Kosik, 1225 8th Street, Sacramento, represents Western Mobile Home Association, which is a trade association representing over 2,000 mobile home park owners. He stated that no financial institution would loan money on new construction if rent control were in effect. We have no provision in our ordinance to protect park owners against rising costs in the coming years, and no provision to cover closing of a facility such as a clubhouse. He indicated a study should be completed and the voters of Rancho Cucamonga should be able to decide on a rent control issue. Additional remarks from citizens: • Jack Emerson, Chaparral Heights Mobile Home Park, again urged passage of t'ce ordinance. Tom Pavey, 8561 Monte Vista, felt the previous speaker for mobile home park owners himself inciting the crowd. • Ed Babes, Alta Laguna, stated coach owners are improving their area and absorbing costs themselves for the improvements which add value to the mobile home park. Mr. Dougherty explained the ordinance was brought to the City Council not for first reading, but as an item for public input to determine if Council wanted to proceed with the ordinance proposed by the committee. If Council Wanted to proceed, it would have to be brought back for first reading, and eventually second reading for adoption. He also stated that before any further action could be taken we would have to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act Mayor Mikels called a recess at 9:24 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:44 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. Action taken at this time on the Mobile Home Park issue: 1. Resolve legal question as to CEQA compliance. 2. Council Committee to work with City Attorney in further follow up, and keep other council members up to date. 3. Mr. Swanson to furnish a copy of the Hand Report to the City Attorney. Rand Ri)port to be forwarded to City Council by City Attorney. Mayor Mikels stated he Would like to review the Bergenfeld decision and constitutional requirements raised, specifically on reasonable rate of return. Mayor Mikels continued mobile home park issue to November 3, 1982, meeting of acres of land locatec on the southwest core Base Line A ..> L. - APN 1077- 071 -01. Staff report by Mike Vairin. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 185. ORDINANCE NO. 185 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 071 -01, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE RD. AND IVY LANE FROM A -1 TO R -1. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to waive full reading of 1 Ordinance No. 185. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Mikels set second reading of Ordinance No. 185 to the November 3, 1982 City Council meeting. i Annexation No. 10 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract No. 9658 located at the northwest corner of 9th Street and Madrone Avenue. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution No. 82 -184. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORE IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 10 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9658. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Resolution 82 -184. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution 82 -184. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. INSERTED ITEM: REQUEST FROM LOUISA MEZA. Louisa Meza, 10171 24th Street, expressed concern for a crossing guard at Turner and Peron and requested Council approval for the Sheriff's Department to train volunteer crossing guards. Captain Wickum stated the Vehicle Code prohibits unauthorized persons to direct traffic. location. c. Student exposure to traffic on Turner. Mayor Mikels stated City policy has been to fund 50% of crossing guard's salary, with the other 50% being funded by the School Board. At this time the school board does not have sufficient funds. Mr. Dougherty stated the City would not assume any more liability with volunteer workers than with paid employees. If we establish a crossing guard and volunteers do not continue, the City may have the responsibility to provide a paid guard. In response to Councilman Frost's question regarding employment status of crossing guards, Mr. Robinson stated crossing guards are considered employees of the City, however, are supervised by the Sheriff's Department. Councilman Buquet expressed the concern that we could set a precedent by establishing volunteer crossing guards, which could be requested by other school districts. Mr. Hubbs recommended the traffic analyst look into the feasibility of a crossing guard and no decision should be made until the results of the traffic reports. City Council accepted staff recommendation to have further input from the Traffic Committee and send a letter to the school board stating the City's position. ADDED ITEM: ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL TRAFFIC PROBLEM. Larry Clock presented to City Council the traffic hazards at Alta Loma High School on Base Line. He son was critically injured while exiting the entrance at the high school parking lot. He felt the bushes along the entrance to the parking lot should be eliminated to provide more visibility for oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. Other residents speaking on traffic problems at that location are: • Susan Sackett, 18358 Pumalo • Jennifer Davis, 9233 Lemon • Tom Pavey, 8561 Monte Vista • Mary Ellen Hill, President, Associated Chaffey Teachers • Paul Saldana, 8649 Pine • Jeff Haddock, 5237 London • Pat Tyler, 7042 Cameo • Rose Gustafson, President PTSA, Alta Loma High School Items suggested for correcting the traffic hazard: • Remove bushes • Install sidewalks • Install flashing amber light • Reduce speed limit on Base Line • Install traffic signal Councilman Dahl suggested in the interim perhaps the teachers could use the parking lot at Vineyard Park rather than the students. to Mayor Mikels called a recess at 11:19 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:30 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. ALTA LOMA PARK RENOVATIONS. A presentation of options for improving and redeveloping the Alta Loma Park. Referred from October 6 meeting. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. • Sandy Cerly, AYSO, on behalf of the players and coaches supports the rennovation of Beryl Park, but would like the fields ready by August. Councilman Buquet asked if AYSO would support the fence rental. Mrs. Oerly requested a letter from City Council to AYSO Board stating fence rental need. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to approve Alta Loma Park rennovation using Option 4 -- Hybrid Bermuda by Stolons, the total amount not to exceed $40,000. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5B. FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR MEASURE "W ". Approval of Resolution of the City Council giving its support to the passage of Measure "W" on the November ballot. Measure "W" will provide funds for construction of drainage and flood control facilities. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution 82 -185. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE "W ". Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Resolution 82 -185. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution 82 -185 supporting passage of Measure "W ". Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5C. STORM DRAIN FEE MODIFICATIONS. Proposed revision to storm drain fee ordinance to increase fees from ;2500 per acre to $4600 per acre to reflect current cost estimates. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. The passage of Measure W could generate $10,000,000 in revenue for the City. This could result in a fee reduction to $4050.00 per acre. Those speaking in opposition to the increase in fees: • Ken Willis, in favor of funds being transferred from beautification fees. __. __ . in nonprofit groups and would like Council to consider relief for nonprofit organizations. Council decision was to consider results if Measure W passes, study overall fees, and meet with the building Industry to make final recommendations. Staff was directed to provide City Council with current fee structure and one from the Building Industry Association for comparison with other cities. Staff also to include in the fee structure, increases proposed for next fiscal year. Item continued to November 17 meeting. as. �ewe.,� euaoies cne neaeveiopment Agency to document its indebtedness for the purposes of repaying such indebtedness out of tax increment funds. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of Resolution 82 -186. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution 82 -186. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -186 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to adopt Resolution 82 -186. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5E. RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE SLOPE STABILIZATION. Request from Red Hill Country Club to construct a retaining wall on Red Hill Country Club Drive north of Foothill. Project would prevent sloughing onto the street and erosion of the golf course. Estimated cost $20,000, split $10,000 each between the City and Red Hill Country Club. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. There was some discussion as to actual property lines of the location, cost of the project for a 16' high by 150' long block wall, and City liability if the retaining wall were not constructed. Mr. Dougherty stated the exact property lines should be determined before proceeding further. Legal aspects could be defined after the location is determined. Council recommended Red Hill Country Club provide the City with appropriate surveys, such as boundary survey and topographic before further action can be taken. a Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Resolution 81 -30 -B. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution 81 -30 -B. RESOLUTION 81 -30 -B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES BY POSITION TO ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES AND ALL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CODES REFERRED TO THEREIN. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution 81 -30 -B. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Has obtained changes in planning, zoning, and portable housing from the League of California Cities meeting. A report will follow at a future date. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS. 7A. REQUEST FROM LOUISA MEZA. This item given consideration after 4E. 7B. WATER AGENCY. A resolution stating City's opposition to Proposition 13 on the November 2 ballot. SCAG and SANBAG are among other agencies opposing this proposition. Mayor Mikels stated all correspondence he has received has been in opposition to the proposition. Councilman Frost stated he was opposed to Proposition 13 but felt it was inappropriate for Council to take on an item without prior public discussion. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Mikels to waive full reading of Resolution 82 -187. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Mikels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: Frost. Jim Robinson, Acting City Clerk, read the title of Resolution 82 -187. RESOLUTION 82 -187. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION TO WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT (PROPOSITION 13) NOVEMBER 2, 1982, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Mikels to adopt Resolution 82 -188. Motion carried by the following vote. AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Mikels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: Frost. , _ at 12. - a.m. Respectfully submitted, Nary Kuhn Acting Deputy City Clerk