Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1982/11/03 - Agenda Packet
0 i • CITY a' RANC}IO CUGAIONN&A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California November 3, 1982 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. S. Roll Call: Dahly, Buquet_j, , Fros,.7 , Schlosser, and Mikelj�-_. C. Approval of Minutes: 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Monday, November 8, 1932, FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING, Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. D. Tuesday, November 9, 1982, HISTORICAL . vy. COMMISSION, Lions Park Community Center, � 9161 Base Line Road 3. COIiSE:NT CAUNDAR The 7oilowinq Consont Calendar items are expected to be fOUt ine .ind non-:ontrov�rsial. Thou will be actod upon by I.h,, Council at one time without discussion. A. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -11 -3 in the amount of $125,)79,10. City Council Agenda -2- November 3, 1932 B. Approval of Parcel Map 7267 submitted by Lewis Development Company located on the west side of Rochester Avenue, north side of Foothill Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 82- 188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 7267 C. Acceptance of Agreement, security and Final Map for Tract 12040 submitted by the Anden Group located at the northeast corner of Turner Avenue and Arrow Route. RESOLUTION NO. 82-189 A R-- ESOLUTI04 OF THE CITY COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 10240 D. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Bonds for Minor Director Review 82 -01, Goodyear Rubber Company located at 8814 Industrial Lane. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 82 -01. E. Notice of Completion for Minor Drainage Improvements 45- 50 -67. The minor drainage improvements project has been completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. It is recommended that the city council approve acceptance of the project and authorise the city engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release performance surety and retention. l J 7 12 13 City Council Agenda -3- November 3, 1982 • RESOLUTION NO. 82- 190 1`- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MINOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (45- 50 -67) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. F. Release of Bonds and Notices of Completion: ?I Tract 8884 - located on the south side of Red Hill County Club Drive. Owner: Harnish, Morgan & Causey, Inc. Monument Bond $2,300.00 Tract 9424 - located at Whirlaway between Jasper & Sapphire Monument Bond $1,080.00 Tract 9427 - located on the south side of Banyan between Hermosa and Haven. Monument Bond $3,000.00 Tract 9433 - located on the east side of Haven, south of Highland. Monument Bond $2,150.00 D.A. 81 -11 - located at 8360 Archibald Avenue (Steer & Stein). Certificate of Deposit $5,200.00 G. Set Public Hearing for November 17, 1982 for Planned Development 81 -09 - Tentative Tract 11804 and 11805 - Allen. A total planned development of 76 condominium units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -3 and R -1 zones located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenues. :• City Council Agenda -4- November 3, 1982 H. A request for authorization to award contract for Administrative Office and Central Supply storage modification. It is recommended that the city council authorize the administrative staff to award contract for this budgeted activity (01 -17 -44 building improvements). I. Forward Claim by Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. Young and Instant Go Burgers, Inc., to the City Attorney for handling. J. Approval of Sheriff's substation improvements. Total cost not to exceed $4000.00 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. Item was continued to the November 3rd meeting for discussion. B. 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. Staff report by Rick Gomez. ORDINANCE NO. 185 (second 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 BASE LINE ROAD AND IVY LAND FROM A -1 TO R -1. 5• CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS A. REPORT ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY ON BASE LINE AT ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL. Results of a • • • City Council Agenda -5- recent review of traffic safety problems associated with Alta Loma High School to be given by the city engineer, Lloyd Hubbs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the installation of a signal in conjunction with reconstruction of high school parking access. Also recommend that council authorize execution of the design contract. B. PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS TO EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE EDUCATION, DISCIPLINE TRAINING AND DEiFLOPMENT. Staff report by Sim Robinson, C. REPORT ON ALTA LOMA AND RED HILL PARK BASIN STUDY. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. RECOMMENDATION: Request authorization to execute agreement with Williamson and Schmid to develop hydrology, hydraulic, and conceptual park usage plants for the Alta Loma and Red Hill Flood Control Basins. Estimated cost - $10,300. 6. CYfY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY COMMISSION. Appointment to fill the unexpired term left by Helen Blanchard's resignation. Term of office to run through November, 1985. B. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FROM ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE CREATING A PARKS ADVISORY COMMISSION. C. REPORT FROM ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING DIRECT ELECTION OF A MAYOR. R. ADJOURNMENT November 3, 1982 82 • Penr "Ty Df Rm(w CVCA'CNGA A]YP A VEP A V E M p 0 P N A M E IGG lr. Yi 0 ii<e5 At it"I T Vy 'I ur2 wcHl InG 19 v'10 iCU`YS Ai if `. r•hr •'111.1 V: IUA 1 1 r.1i 115f xi I nG iG n'rt .•a-II lul'V S;P ICS IeaS 0: ++ ul'A 1(l] xn'I eifx le a•n o`na u u xbtA LI nAZ C XIRR If�ai 1`:1 .r fi P tYILA hl l 5A I (.laa 1G5: oe St...f CC, P•.Yv �i7a ".7 1. ,E f il'iv 501E 1544{ {tf0 CC P' I4 GInt1x 71G il. :. r::1.i cevaruu trues u.45 rvs un Inlel In��+i }itn (I:fi f'i1 Cn�it lnt 10 J 1! +,a ]i -y K� l SIV FYif VP^ISl, If. .9 : a4 !•'!f.'.I if4 FI fLPOkA$ C4 nYl >PIAIFVSi1M1G -� In+'1 it L1 Yf'A /F Lf. L515 1I •:'a vnt f9 O15T I� +ft ]��5 C'li!ur•ru• ^6 VPlli (N6 I••'M1 Sfl fill l Ala ui[V�II IPI IHf. vkUTECT ION v +c9 i...l n PeutM Ir +r 5577 v :E ^:'Sr 311 LE • ;<<�n illy , vMIP'.eL 1p i lnIPRE 51fe Vifl6 nR0 L ":i V]( TElrl•Ilr \CF Cp 11'19 GS ^•1 I:H Yi{I To SI':.MNJ:I • ( "l9 a 11!: PI IIY I!1`ai Ir+'9 tvlS Mr(•II`:'. L<4Y 1• "1 .:n �T tr L: In yeti t nn 1ON II ") 4Y•1 III Ll.v 1i 5I,, 11 C SIIPPIV l,. •.•� :.1 .. IL 10el FPfR fG IhC Il.r.:fil jrY 1 PL ^FF u.• °l ;rI jan Cllr VIC' CTfI u:•9 z +rn ral ¢nE eL n4 pn 4uL 7 Is CIS INC 1'SGS i. cP4 V1. [LV SUN ^PE,, RDOERT Ih •.i5 iron Y4w �IHF %r Cl I�Y1 S!AVICE 1' 5^tIn+1a vb llE 6y( II R 'i e lV CCIII LN THE Ml 1 16549 ]665 Pt(f IC 1'N '11111C IS 1655D 1670 ",IEIC pOCR L GRAVEL • YeRRe HT RFcf.. II IIATIO. DATE AIf n tltE 11/03/52 DISCOUMr MET ♦59.31 on 31 9. 41.50 G1 OO no.: 00.45 " 131.]5 135.63 5G _GS rs_15 9 80 3 .5 2.9991 50.00 53.10 106.03 53.00 4 9.35 3.563.25 9.9] 942.08 x. ' 5, 1.9 • DACE I e • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 x...J nn rf Ran:.nc n¢enouaA YLVF I V(F Y V E I+ a C P F A K E In +�i lia, v:rV;CY rsC e4 If Ytl 7115 ou if Ill {1G1 °.1Ilsl CO Il as - I C.-Ill I I: MG in:4 P1.1 `.11•.'. .Inv /pFC MG11T l.11"'l"Y r.55I Jn /i R1t:I 5111, +f I f I'll IT ".1 f [(e f0.a[CFYLFPr \ N In"a a "'t Pf PIN1�F. JIIES N O Iaal .0 PvoVlcvi nEe1:5A 1n 562 ails S161VV.c SVc 1'. aGi P5 +5 'l1IFCE LY •.avICS Cf.PV 115•.. 5•a tl •.V([[' l'1Y {(.5.55 sAq Sf VIN t6Y ' "It] PAP]$ e ICSl:6 SAS SVnn Nf IFIli ICE V, vC :'1 P 1. Ilia f.la 0 :A 'Ile Y 1) VFF Ira dn10 14 lu [et :f fCISC I. [G [n sll FN5 C'V lr•.i Sl O.aavlilON GP 3!513 155 ? ^A +fl kf {S51G 1e.515 1130 tup ✓LAS ^5. TuF L 5511 P114 1I ; IT 3'I IVIVIaMNE 1I.., T1 053 -wEtl FP4. iP.C[ le +•'r aa:?l 5G5 "ITT tY CF ILIA lafi n PaTION SEAN 16 "YI CI I:l ecll 161si 9t 5 Viilff� SiV `\. .) 155 ^4 5!]p wt'+f L ttCf 0. N 1 ns•5 N2.S e"1 En9 1111 a ueY l(aF5 .II(C'11. ^<11 F�Y Ca t5'1 V'LLIS reilel11 INC. a lNeo Sell a IASN 5o; aTlflaC. Jf iN 16551 SCI I Rf YF. UY Ia Le5a2 V 13 E1.VF1 TJIALS J J J y qq WARRANT RECONCILIATION ]IJ03 162 p 1IP K690MCE 111SCOIIM FINAL TOTALS NET .00 10,13 as 25. G4 4..86 31.20 13.x5 2a .0a 1.2, 9 A2 32.al 200..0 66.32 36.92 2,2x6.11 435.60 133.6] !94.37 3,386.60 I6. 34 1.00 26..0 3 1.52 30 q.A0 113.95 22.00 ai. 13 9.54 I I0.5G 0.10 1,332.42 .a .a. 89.42 311 55 .95 15.0. 32.30 32.00 15.00 61.02..45 PALE 2 • • 0 0 Parcel Map 7267 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 27,1 1982, for the division of 468 acres into 2 parcels located on the north side of Foothill Blvd. west of Rochester Avenue. Lewis Development Company is subdividing the area for the purpose of acquiring clear title on Parcel 2. As no development is pro- posed at this time and each of the parcels contains more than 200 acres, the related improvements are being deferred until development occurs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approv- ing Parcel Map 7267 and authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map. Respectfully submitted, LBIfl: BK : j as Attachments -- CITY OF RANChIO CUCAMONGA - STAFF REPORT DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: approval of Parcel Map 7267 submitted by Lewis Development Company located on the west side of Rochester Avenue, north of Foothill Blva. Parcel Map 7267 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 27,1 1982, for the division of 468 acres into 2 parcels located on the north side of Foothill Blvd. west of Rochester Avenue. Lewis Development Company is subdividing the area for the purpose of acquiring clear title on Parcel 2. As no development is pro- posed at this time and each of the parcels contains more than 200 acres, the related improvements are being deferred until development occurs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approv- ing Parcel Map 7267 and authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign said map. Respectfully submitted, LBIfl: BK : j as Attachments • LA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N®. 7267 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA III T MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES. INC. A FD i!i; VryCOIN�T �I Ti AIIIIIJ�T 1182 -. AtMAINot" FAfl1:LL "`✓ .`•- Ali t�l. V4:.0 i1' •r.1 5 ..� �.0.... \r `n�'ylMra -. ,`'��h:�`�li 1.. y �!. Nr � (� .. `J RESOLUTION NO. �* A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC^d1ONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL 'MAP NUMBER 7267 (TENTATIVE PARCEL 11AP NO. 7267) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7267, submitted by Lewis Develooment Company and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west side of Rochester Avenue, being a division of a portion of Section 6, T. 1 S., R. 6 W. San Bernardino Base and Meridian was approved by the City Engineer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 7267 is the final map of the division of Lind approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as pre+aquisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have .r.:+ been met. N0:1, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City ;ouncil of the C'.ty of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that aaid Parcel ?lap Number 7267 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1982. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren 71. 'Aasseran, ;;iry Clem 0 S Jon 0. Nikels, Mayor 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer �GGO CCG.yp� 2� 1 i SUBJECT: Acceptance of Agreement, Security and Final Map for Tract 12040 submitted by The Anden Group located at the northeast corner of Turner Avenue and Arrow Route 1977 The subject map, located northeast corner of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue, is submitted by The Anden Group. The Tentative Map was approved by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1981 consist- ing of 328 condos on 23.6 acres. The improvement agreement and security have been submitted by The Anden Group to guarantee installation of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance: $212,500.00 Labor & Material: $106,250.00 Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Cucamonga School District and Cucamonga County Water District. The C.C. &R.s have been approved by the City Attorney. RECODt^1ENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security and the signature of said map. ResppGtfull sub mitteedd, c X "I LBH:J :jaa I Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12040 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12040, consisting of 13 lots, submitted by The Anden Group, Subdivider, located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution by said City, together with good and sufficient Improvement Security, and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is . approved and Lhe Mayor is authorized to execute same on Deha;f of said City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 49 2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and 3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: i • EmL- f or CITv OI: I(:�,A'CI10 rXGI,\rrhING DI \'ISIO\ • � J EmL- f or CITv OI: I(:�,A'CI10 rXGI,\rrhING DI \'ISIO\ October 26, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Gentlemen: The Anden Group, Developer of Tract No. 12040, situated in Rancho Cucamonga, have deposited with this District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance Bond, and a Utilities Imorovemenc Agreement. • These bonds and agreements, previously filed with the County, are now being accepted by this District as an assurance that said improvements will be provided, as stated, within the boundaries of the Cucamonga County water District. In addition, this letter is to verify that the above referenced Developer has complied with all. requirements for development that are mandated by District policy. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY MATER DISTF,ICT G. James 11, Cline, Jr. Assistant Civil Engineer JHC:bf 40 j FRANK FRANK L LE SIN SKY CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LLOYD W. MICHAEL D EARLE R. ANDERSO ROBERT NEUFELD VICTOR A. CHERBAK. JR.. 1 -d"I BEVERLY E. BRADEN October 26, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Gentlemen: The Anden Group, Developer of Tract No. 12040, situated in Rancho Cucamonga, have deposited with this District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance Bond, and a Utilities Imorovemenc Agreement. • These bonds and agreements, previously filed with the County, are now being accepted by this District as an assurance that said improvements will be provided, as stated, within the boundaries of the Cucamonga County water District. In addition, this letter is to verify that the above referenced Developer has complied with all. requirements for development that are mandated by District policy. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY MATER DISTF,ICT G. James 11, Cline, Jr. Assistant Civil Engineer JHC:bf 40 CIHAFFEY J0INT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 0 711 WEST FIFTH STREET, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIAN 11761 •,s, u,.+ • n i•r+ I of .ir I avo nE•s Rt+x, sup n ol. ,r� •s xvi t[HTF• rvl I Spaxp pr lllui.iti x,t ei i+ e�or�» o ,ory rva vlL L[ "KL.xx ESICE11...vu°rvp 1 s.x.�° e+,xn, -1-0 n, no it i.psra• .n+ C n�.+.n F -111 . --- 11.1+ Pfeiler8 Assoc. 1749 -B So. Euclid Ave. Ontario, CA 91761 983 -1101 Letter of Certification of School District Capacity Within the Chaffee Joint Union Hiqh School District attendance boundaries for the following described project: Location /Description: Tract #12040 NE corner of Turner 8 Arrow Rancho Cucamonga. CA Nu-ber of Dwellings: 328 condominiums • Anticipated Completion Date: unknown The school district hereby certifies that the capacity for 49 students will be provided within 24 months of the completion of the above project. Thds certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy G. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocation Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and reculations without priority points, The com-itment of this capacity shall expire 90 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final rap or the issuance o` building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that 90 -day period shall validate such commitment. Superintcrcen t %fast. 3uperintenaert September 20, 1982 CI• of G,:nc�l.c • I Cucamonga School District 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Telephone {714) 987 -8941 Pfeiler & Associates 1749 -6 South Euclid Avenue September_ ?4, 1982 Ontario, California 91761 Date LETTER OF CERTIFICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY BOAR. OF Ta."EEi CAROL CONFER WILLIAM CRAWF. LUIS M. GONSALCS GEORGIA GRIFFIN MANUEL M LUNA Within Cucamonga School District and Cucamonga School District attendance boundaries for the following described project: Location /Description Turner & Arrow Tract a 12040 Number of Dwelling Units 328 (Multiple Dwellings) An.iciDated Comoletion Date November 21, 1983 Gentlemen: a Cucamonga School District hereby certifies that the capacity for 95.4 students will be provided within. 24 months of L.. e ccm:,lct�on of the above project. This certification is given or the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or env successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and regulations Without priority points. The commitment o: this capacity shall expire o0 ed, f. the date of this letter. rcval c` the final ,yap or the ance�of bul l L:i �Ig permits by ai'•e y of Re r,c ho Cucamonga within that 60 day period shall validate Such commitment. v i rc.�e r t o • r1 LA E LA \I is CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Improvement Agreement and Bonds for Minor Director Review 81 -11, Goodyear Rubber Company located at 8814 Industrial Lane c MoV C9 ff� 19 Minor Development Review 82 -01, submitted by Goodyear Rubber Company was approved on March 29, 1982 for the addition of a 3,254 sq.ft. building located at 8814 Industrial Lane. Goodyear Rubber Company has submitted the attached bonds and agree- ment to guarantee the installation of required landscaping improve- ments. The bonds and agreement have been approved by the City Attor- ney. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution accenting the bonds and agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. Respectfully submitted, jaa Attachments I ?- 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ^ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 82 -01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on September 29, 1982 by Goodyear Rubber Company as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 8814 Industrial Lane; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Minor Director Review No. 82 -01; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said . Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is herby 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 3rd day of November, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: L OUren m7 =a ss erman, l— ley 7Tr • Jon D. Mike s, Mayor yor 1 ?� • 0 • C21 it cif :C ^I Por Por5 )n 31 AC SITE Po s G G pl, vw CI I'VOF R,\N( VI C I N rry \t.\ 11 ,7 0 CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT AGPEEMENT %NOS y A MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement ns nade and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the t!unic,pal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cuca-.onga, State cc California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to a s the City, by and between said City and Goodyear Rubber Company Of Southern California hereinafter referred to as the Developer. WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the City of Minor Development Review NO. 82 -01, in accordance with the provisions of the report of the Community Development Director thereon, and any amendments thereto; located at 8814 Industrial Lane; an:. WHEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be met by said developer prior to granting the final approval Of the development; and WHEREAS, the execution of this ' agreement and posting o'. improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the Cie•; and the Developer as follows: 1. The developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all improvements described on page 3 hereof within the spec,• time, as follows: (a) A six -foot high chain link fence with slats !e to b: constructed around the storage area in conjunction with the enclosure of the building addition. (b) Within one year from the date of approval of Minor Development Review 82 -01, a five -foot wide planter is to be constructod along the. outside of the `.euce along Industrial Boulevard and planted with Oleander (minimum 5 gallon size, planted 4 feet on center). (c) Within three years from the date of approval of Minor Development Review 82 -01, a five -foot wide planter is to he constructed adjacent to the property line along Industrial Boulevard, between the two northern most driveway approaches and planted with Eucalyptus trees iminimum 15 gallon size planted 20 feet on center). 2. The term of this agreement shall be three years, rnmmcn ilia. on the date of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in defnuit on the day following the last day of the term sclpulatcd, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter provided. 1. The Developer may request additional time in whiuh to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not lass than [mgt weeks pr art to the default date, and including a statement Of CS[CnmatanC ee Of necessity for additional t,mL. Sn iCn5ld Frutl C(1 'J such request, the City reserves the right to review the provleloeS hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficient of the Improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted b'/ substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer falls or neglects to comply with the prov;;iion, of this agruament, tho City shall have the n.lht at any i� tu^n t1) caus'e Bald provisions to be complctod by any lowful means, thereupon to [,cover from said Developer and /cr his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing, . 5. Encroachment permits shall be outained by the ilo rota ?ar from the office of the City Engtncer prior to start of any work +tthtn • the public right -of -way, and the aeveloper shall conduct such wo r'.; in full compliance with the regulations contained therein. Non - compliance may result in stooping of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. 6. Public right -of -way improvement 'work required shall be constructed in conformance with approved improvement plans, standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. construction shall include any transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. ]. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to Complete a and all work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cyst and expense incurred from the Developer and /or nis contractor by any lawful means. 8. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, if removal of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right- of-way resulting from work done on the adjacent property or within said rfpo -of -way, 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Doce!oper to guarantee ^ompietioh of the terms of this agreement shall be subject • 1 to the approval of the City Attorney, The principal amount of said improvement security shall be not less than the amount shown below: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUBMITTED: _ Faithful Performance Bond $5,600.00 • Material and Labor Bond 52,800.00 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledged with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth opposite their signatures: BY: _� .ti DEVELOPER DATE; 9-29 -82 G� BY: . DATE: % •R f'✓ DATE: 74! �r✓ Slate el CFLiFOR_Iid �'— "•^'lam ""^' ^� - Onlns mr 29thdayal in Iy •l ' eaenly or srrr of R•,Aan rho �aa. -- _. i - — - MARY L. MORRISOM y me uraerirn nea N,, ary PUpl¢ so,,rvon,y aonearep E. %`. SEARS and L. R. SEARS .••u In me nn me ease m sausmnp,y r.nence IO Un m9 ner>em>I F1, • wnO R.ec Uled lee wile rn in Arnim qnl a> Of FlClnt , 1. _ I N(rr ile D> nr pn ap nail nl lrve •nlp >er nom n >r rY n r,llion In lie rn nil nor: lr'I,np Wla: ill el lU min teal lke «r t;i : 0a'rna flany it., Or aM V.... fast WIL NESS my na ne don nl!q qtr se ar p dp pn exec ule0a I .,re,.a,aGa2: y t. ------- MID Nn: Sca 109 75 49 P-KYTL : $105,00 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE -BOND Ll WHEREAS, the City Council of the Cite n.` Rancho State of California, and FA701,0 W 6 a,TIMA D. SEATS (hereinafter designated as "prvncv pa 1pal ") have en meet ii nto an a gent whereby principal agrees to install and co -plete certain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated "AY ;0, _ 1991, and idenufied as project Minor Development Review o— 7 hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, said prinicpal i s required u r the te:cs iiJ agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful perfermarce of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and FMNA9'S ^4D TIANA —ICE_ CtMPANY as surety, are held and flrc'.1'.' noun - unto the Ctyy of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter called "City "), in the penal sum of Five Thousand - Six Hundred and Doll Ors (56, 60T.301Z eve Gnf ice5cates, T- 'Ile :: ant of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, cur net n;. successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the abco c bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide bp. and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and pt'ovisioua In the said nareament and any alteration thereof made ae thcEoi 1 provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects lecordin, t their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harml ass I'tt� vts nf•IOers. doubts and employees, as therein stipulated, tho� this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it sba a ib 11 ,,.main in full farce and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be iecludo,i costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such oblivation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no chance, ex- tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompao: the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it dues hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteratic or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the sped Lea ucns. IN WITNESS WHE.RF.oF, this lnstrumeet aaa been dul•; x, , ted ,i the principal and surety above named, o MAY 11 d9 =, STA'ili Ill' f.A L!MP911I • +mn v r .,..w. a r.... COO:TY OI, LOS AM ICLES a nnv.n.r,uw,nv. +A (nr nA Gmnry anJ Stv gpenomlly tplevrN .. C. E. FUY . Ion•.1 m m, m Lv ^ e Iv 11.11 . -111.11 a mb.r 1111.1 ;n ter .0 1... +nn a.mnt a m< A,Ar;ln•.mI ,a . ++nr iu F. . 1e I Iiii 11\\511 M, N't'RA\t" .IMWA \y. - —�"f.lI. nmn I11U \I\\,I % 1. INA t N, A t . nF ......... 1, u,J Lu r rAu, n 11 .1, ml I,NVII I+l'i 10 L I��I, 1 one h� mr 6,111 ul Ip ,I, mr�. -i nm.q in ud l.unv {mt gtle d•r wr ,nd u 'iy /.n erylnel unr u.— . )60x01 s -66 Sp .ommm�-e. rn, .. U BOND NO: SCR 709 24 19 PREMIILI INCLUDED IN PE RFORYaHR 110Y I \ LJ L➢.ROR AND MATER!AI,R::N BOND WHE:RFAS, the City Council of the Citp of Rancho Cuz,k! '...., State of C toraia, and xARetT x sli9wA_p, 6SASS fhereiaaftnr designated as "pr cipa l"1 have entered 1 n agrcere ^r whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain, desto hate -i public i,mpravements, which said Agreement, dated �Y 20 ".982 -. and identified as project Minor Development Review 82 -0/ hnr referred to and made A part hereof: and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is :red before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient payment bona with the City of Rancho Secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 Icomme nciv w,t!� section 30821 of Part 4 of Division ] of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, said Principe; and the undersigned ao a orporata surety, a e held firmly' bound unto the City of Rancho Cuc,t%oug, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, me terialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum o' Two Thousand - F.i qht Nu ndred and 00 /100 no11a�oo Tor maters Ts— furni�)ed o[ a oe a ereon o. ar.; kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also : case suit is brought upon this bond will pay in addition to the fare, amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, includine reasonable fats, incurred by City in successful`. enforcing such • obi igatie n, tc be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed hs in the iudament therein rendoved. It is hereby expressly stipulated and aareed that thts :uc,i sh.%ll inure to the benefit of any and all persons, comp,,nics, and +rpnratiens ontitled to file claims under Title 15 IcOmmeneing wvth Section 10821 of Part 4 of Division J of the Civil Code, su as to 11ve right of action to them or their eesigns in any ..it br..uht upon this band. Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obl watiun shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be and rtmain in full force and effect. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, ex- tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompanying_ the same shall in any manner ,;'fact its obllvations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of a -,o. - ;) c. -..._ +extension, alteration or addition. 1N WITNESS WHERE01', this instrument has been duly execute: L, 'he Pn nc %pal and surety above uarle,, a MAY 21 _. - STATE N' C:I I "'IRN16 I Col'Sl'T I,r LOS ANo FLE9 _ Un IM1h 2•st ,Lv of Mav nlM1r vurty 01, Aaurc me. UH:'d L N l9 V1011 »ornnr rl.n„in+nJ(nr ,.,J Gunn and 6u,e, prwmllt .pPr+M .._..._ knn 11, 11 .Ln -- rvMml.d. ,hr — _ —_ —,he am mn -, ^!i nd ❑aib\SSII :AI)IHO'1' -t i�ID EN,UKNu�COM. e.lx,lm ^,•e :,i bn:,b. :nbd,L. I—t. mI I Iltl.... 51Iw,, IA1 L'R.l10E C061� • .. .. ... .. ... ....... r. ,el (TNT pli,Idot.,odn o -nn—t nnw^rv.,mlL, U'lInI NP'IIIIt l +P. n,nnnml^d —h-1 Is h t,u,.d mr miiAe, rtmF I ", ;• m ,+ol t.nnl+ , J e ra li �m Ivrt +lmn �nrten. �< __ 360207 - 5 -66 _ 2 y • RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE MINOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (45- 50 -67) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of street and drainage improvements on various locations throughout the City have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1982. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • Jon D. Mike s, Mayor • RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 1,HEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: DRAINAGE 6 STREET IMPROVEMENTS (VARIOUS LOCATIONS) 2. The full name and address of the undersigned cvner is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Baseline Road, post Office Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3. On the 7th day ofOCtober 1982, there was com- pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of in- provenent set forth in the contract doorments for • Minor Drainage Improvements (45- 50 -67) 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of in- provement as a whole was Slater Construction Company, Inc. , 5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, C.uRty of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: 1. Hellman Avenue at 6th Street, 2. Archibald Avenue at 4th Street. 3. Amethyst Street at Highland Avenue. 4. Sapphire Street and Banyan Street. The street address of said property is: nja DATED: November 3, , 1982. CITY OP npNC110 P ;i n::011Gi„ a m:nficj pit vc rpotati(n, Qwnor PY: 116: ('1: Ll.) 0 • is STAFF REPORT p. J� 4 c DATE: November 3, 1982 F' p TO: City Council and City Manager U1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Release of Bonds and Notices of Completion Tract No. 8884 - located on the south side of Red Hill Country Club Drive OWNER: Harnish, Morgan A Causey, Inc. 500 East "E" Street Ontario, California 91761 Monument Bond $2,300.00 Certification from Associated Engineers indicates that all final monuments have been set and they have been paid in full. The cash bond is held by the County and upon notification of Council action will be released. Tract 9424 - located at Whirlaway between Jasper A Sapphire OWNER: Morton S. Greenberg 25601 Narbonne, Suite 6 Lomita, CA 90717 Monument Bond $1,080.00 Certificatin from Associated Engineers indicates that all final monuments have been set and they have been paid in full. The cash bond is held by the County and upon notification of Council actin will be released. Tract 9427 - located on the south side of Banyan between Hermosa and Haven OWNER: Lesny /Wilshire Properties 477 S. Fairfax Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036 Monument Bond $3,000.00 Certification from Associated Engineers indicates that all final monuments have been set and they have been paid in full. The cash bond is held by the County and upon notifica- tion of Council action will be released r Staff Report - Release of Bonds November 3, 1982 Page 2 Tract No 9433 - located on the east side of Haven, south of Highland OWNER: Chevron Construction Col 2120 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Monumentation Bond $2,150.00 Certification from Madole & Assoc. indicates that all final monuments have been set and they have been paid in full: The cash bond is held by the County and upon notification of Council action will be released. D.R. 81 -11 - located at 8360 Archibald Avenue (Steer & Stein) OWNER: Deason & Assoc. 1002 E. "0" Street Ontario, CA 91764 LA L J Certificate of Deposit $5,200.00 (Street Improvements) • The street improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion. • r v'. 3. • Sl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -11 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for 8360 Archibald Avenue (Steer N Stein) have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1982. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk ').-3 Jon D. Nlikels, Mayor • RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 897 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IE HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: drainage and street improvements for entire front- age of Director Review 81 -11 (Steer 6 Stein) 2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Baseline Road, Post Office Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 3. On the 12th day of October , 1982, there was Com- pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of im- provement set forth in the contract documents for Director Review 81 -I1 (Steer 6 Stein) • 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of im- provement as a whole was James Deason Construction Co. S. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: 8360 Archibald Avenue The street address of said property is: 8360 Archibald Ave. DATED: October 27 , 1962. CITY OF RN1C110 C(XAMONGA, a municipal corpnrition, owner ❑Y: It:.imc) f21t1c1 • L • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT °i F. October 26, 1982 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Robert A. Rizzo, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Building Improvements Per 1982 -83 budgeted activity of Administrative Office and Central Supplies Storage Modification (01- 17 -43), Administration has proceeded with seeking bids for these building improvements. Numerous local contractors were notified, only five showed an interest in bidding on the project. This being such a small job, very few contractors believed it a profitable project to undertake. Five sets of plans were sent and two were returned. A. Stanton Construction $2,898.00 B. Young Contractors $4,360.00 C. Harden Drywall No response D. Fleming Construction No response E. A 6 L Acoustics No response The low bidder Stanton Construction is a licensed contractor (#401333), has a city business license, has no complaints on file with the Better Business Bureau and has done building modifications at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. (Community Services Department very well satisfied with quality and cost of work). Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council authorize Administrative Staff to award contract for Administrative Office and Central Supply Storage Modifications to low bidder, Stanton Construction. RAR /mk aq ,A, OFFICES YOUNG, HENRIE, HUMPHRIES 6 MASON • r 7 U Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ✓.OLIC SAVINGS 6 LOAN UILO? G PO..— 11— WCSi POM- NP, CPLIFOPNIA 91759 ITI n1 629252i CITY OF RA-,C!!0 CUCAir101NGA ADS INIHTRATION OCT 26 ? - AM 718191101111121112i314i5 6 Y Re: Notice of Action on Claim Date of Incident: July 8, 1982 Claimants: Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. Young, and Instant Go Burgers, Inc. Dear Ms. Authelet: In accordance with our telephone conversation of October 25, 1982, I have revised the claims of our clients, Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. Young, and Instant Go Burgers, Inc. to set forth the correct date for the incident of July 8, 1982; you will find the claims enclosed. Following our telephone conversation, I spoke with Robert Dougherty, attorney for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and he concurred with your handling of the matter. However, he requested that I provide a declaration concerning the true facts and, therefore, I have enclosed an original of such declaration as to each claimant, It is my understanding that the City will now consider the claim on its merits as if same had been filed October 14, 1982 and as if the date of July 8, 1982 had been inserted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of each claim. If the above does not meet with your understanding, please call or have Robert Dougherty call on behalf of the City. Very truly yours, _ c- PAUi. D. HELD for the firm PDH:nh Enclosure cc: Robert Dougherty, Esq. i A .. . PC,1. T O • PN J w. CO r. u [5 !JASON October 26, 1982 • r 7 U Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ✓.OLIC SAVINGS 6 LOAN UILO? G PO..— 11— WCSi POM- NP, CPLIFOPNIA 91759 ITI n1 629252i CITY OF RA-,C!!0 CUCAir101NGA ADS INIHTRATION OCT 26 ? - AM 718191101111121112i314i5 6 Y Re: Notice of Action on Claim Date of Incident: July 8, 1982 Claimants: Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. Young, and Instant Go Burgers, Inc. Dear Ms. Authelet: In accordance with our telephone conversation of October 25, 1982, I have revised the claims of our clients, Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. Young, and Instant Go Burgers, Inc. to set forth the correct date for the incident of July 8, 1982; you will find the claims enclosed. Following our telephone conversation, I spoke with Robert Dougherty, attorney for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and he concurred with your handling of the matter. However, he requested that I provide a declaration concerning the true facts and, therefore, I have enclosed an original of such declaration as to each claimant, It is my understanding that the City will now consider the claim on its merits as if same had been filed October 14, 1982 and as if the date of July 8, 1982 had been inserted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of each claim. If the above does not meet with your understanding, please call or have Robert Dougherty call on behalf of the City. Very truly yours, _ c- PAUi. D. HELD for the firm PDH:nh Enclosure cc: Robert Dougherty, Esq. i q"� 1 CLAIM OF: 2 ) BOBBY JO YOUNG ) CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAC (Scct`I4 110* -the 3 vs. ) a9PR W�F�SH?Qd'J"JoINGA / 'f ADMINISTRATION 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) > OCT 15 l°oL 5 AM P'� 6 p'f To the CITY OF RANCHO CUFPR9 Geis a2�`ib� � City 7 Council of such city: - 8 1. You are hereby notified that BOBBY JO YOUNG hereby 9 makes claim against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, computed as of 10 the date of the presentation of this claim, in the sum of 11 $1,141,239.37. 12 2. Claimant's post office address is Bobby Jo Young, 13 8931 Whirlaway, Alta Loma, California 91703. 14 3. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to 15 Young, Henrie, Humphries & Mason, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, ' 16 California. 17 4. This claim is based upon personal injuries and 18 property damages sustained by claimant by virtue of an accident �5��8 19 on or about dstse 3, 1982 in the vicinity of the train tracks on 20 Hellman Avenue between Foothill Blvd. and Baseline Avenue in 21 Rancho Cucamonga, California. 22 5. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are 23 as follows: The vehicle driven by claimant was northbound on 24 pa;. J k�� Hellman Avenue at approximately 5:00 P,M. on 8, 1932. At 25 said time and place, the intersection of Hellman and the train 26 tracks were in a dangerous condition due, in part, to the lack of 27 adequate controls and warning signals for through traffic, the 23 �� 1 _ A 1 2 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • 28 failure of the existing warning system to operate properly, the fact that the view of approaching trains is blocked to vehicles northbound on Hellman, and the generally inadequate construction and safeguards at the intersection. Due to the subject dangerous conditions, a train struck the vehicle driven by claimant as the vehicle crossed the tracks damaging same beyond repair. 6. The names of the public employees causing claimant's injuries under the described circumstances are unknown to claimant. 7. The injuries sustained by claimant as far as known, as of the date of presentation of this claim, consist of a broken right arm, three broken fingers on the left hand, a broken knuckle on the left hand, broken blood vessels in both knees with possible torn cartilage, soft tissue damage and pain in the back and neck, chest pain, damage to the jaw and right knee causing a clicking noise when moved, nightmares, loss of movement in the left hand and knees, weakening of the right arm, and generally cuts and bruises about the body. E. The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of this claim is computed as follows: Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical and hospital care $ 2,139.37 Loss of earnings 16,100,00 Spcc Lil damages for loss of value of stock in Instant Cc Burgers, Inc. due to the claimant's inability to attend to the affairs of said corporation 50,000.00 // 2 // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3.9 20 21. 22 23 241' 25 26 27 28 General damages $500,000.00 Total damages incurred to date $568,239.37 Estimated prospective damages as far as known Future expenses for medical and hospital care 3,500.00 Future loss of earnings _ 20,000.00 Other prospective future damages 50,000.00 Prospective general damages 500,000.00 Total estimated prospective damages $573,000.00 Total amount claimed as of date of presentation of this claim $1,141,239.37 Dated: October 14, 1982 YOUNG. HENRIE. HUMPHRIES & MASON PAUL D. HELD Attorneys for Claimant Bobby Jo Young - 3 - n (VERIFICATION — 446.4015S G C. P.) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF • 2 f om nk 3i4 in tA< oboac cn,i,kd oc[wn or proueding; /have read the laregaing 5 6 and Anow tha romm�u Chareoh and I cMily that th< wme a tru< of mY mm kmwled,, <a«Dt as u ,hou nwuen uMch 7 ar< [Auein,mrcd upon mY in /ormation or belie /, a,d m w 0.,e moue, / beueve u w b<,i . 8 9 10 1 Eeclnn, and, Pm I, of p,/wr ande. M, laun al [h< Sm,r of CaE/omla [hat the /o,going u hue and mrren. 11 ea<tuted a� , eac(a,nw fdaK/ (plat <1 12 13 (Signa[we/ 14 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013,, 40155 C. C. P.) • 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 am a ,aide,[ al [h< coumY a /ar,afd; f om ova ,ha ate a/ vigb,en Yeo, and rota pant m the wilhin mtiikd 16 anwn; mr bw(na, add,. u: 100 Pomona Nall West, Pomona, California 91766 17 October 14 02 CLAIM FOR PERSONAL 18 On 191 ,<rord [he wi,hin INJURIES OF BOBBY J. YOUNG 19 interested parties 20 ; ,a, d aumn, 6Y obcing,. mar aap, [h,,<o p Iom d Ina ,tolyd rnu<iov wuh pauae< [hueon /aRr veraid. m tlu Pomona, CaHtornia 21 Unimd Sm„ mail m addr,ud m /aRoun: 22 Clerk of the City of Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga 23 9320 Baseline Road Lions Park Community Bldg. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9161 Baseline Road 24 City Council of Rancho Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gucamnonga 25 Lions Park Community Bldg. 9161 Baseline Road 26 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 27 1 d"L+r<, oMr, pamllY of prpu,r and, ,h< law, nl M, sm,, of rnldarnw M., [he /vega n, i. aue and mrr,e • 28 Eurur<d on October 14, 19,02 a, Pomona cod /om(a tda,1 )(place) +' ' fSignwmel s NANCY 1 , !/li:.i.t. 1 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLAIM OF: BOBBY JO YOUNG VS. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DF.CT,ARATION CONCERNING CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE (Section 910 of the Government Code) • I, PAUL D. HDLD, state: 1. I am an attorney with the law offices of Young, Henrie, Humphries & Mason, attorneys for claimant in the above - referenced matter. 2. The statements set forth herein are within my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness to testify, I can testify competently thereto. 3. Or, or about October 14, 1982, our attorney service delivered to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a claim under Government Code Section 910 prepared by our office on behalf of claimant. • On October 15, 1982, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received the claim by mail. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of said claim, the accident referenced therein was alleged to have occurred on or about June 8, 1982. Based thereon, the subject claim was returned to our office by Beverly Authelet, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Ranch Cucamonga, being received on October 23, 1982. The basis for the claim being returned was that same was not filed within the 100 day period required by the applicable provisions of the Government Code. 4. In fact, the subject accident occurred on July 8, 1912 and the subject claim has been corrected accordingly. In 1 2 • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 17 18 1911 20 21 221111 23!, 24 75' 26 27 • 28 light thereof, the subject claim was filed within the 100 day period and is now being resubmitted for consideration on the merits. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 26, 1982 at Pomona, California. PAUL D. HELD - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12A.-O CLAIM OF: INSTANT GO BURGERS, INC. ) CLAIM FOR PROPERTY FDAieA6EUCP.b90iiGA (Section 910 of tRh iINISTRATION VS. ) Government Code) OCT 151` 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) AM 71819110j 1112tH zt3141516 i To the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and to the City Council of such city: - 1. You are hereby notified that Instant Go Burgers, Inc. hereby makes claim against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, computed as of the date of the presentation of this claim, in the sum of $14,800.00. 2. Claimant's post office address is Instant Go Burgers Inc., 515 North Mountain, Upland, California 91786. 3. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to Young, Henrie, Humphries & Mason, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, California. 4. This claim is based upon property damages sustained t� jwll by claimant on or about-. 3ane 8, 1982 in the vicinity of the train tracks on Hellman Avenue between Foothill Blvd, and Baseline Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, California. 5. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: Claimant's vehicle, driven by Bobby Jo Younp was northbound on Hellman Avenue at approximately 5:00 P.M. on 3u4 8, 1982. At said time and place, the intersection of Hellman and the train tracks were in a dangerous condition due, in part, to the lack of adequate controls and warning signals for through traffic, • • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ].9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the failure of the existing warning system to operate properly, the fact that the view of approaching trains is blocked to vehicles northbound on Hellman, and the generally inadequate construction and safeguards at the intersection. Due to the subject dangerous conditions, a train struck claimant's vehicle, as the vehicle, a 1932 6.2 Diesel Chevrolet C -10 pick -up truck, crossed the tracks damaging same beyond repair. 6. The names of the public employees causing claimant's injuries under the described circumstances are unknown to claimant. 7. The injuries sustained by claimant as far as known, as of the date of presentation of this claim, consist of the complete loss of claimant's vehicle. 8. The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim, is computed as follows: The destruction of the pick -up truck owned by claimant, which truck was in excellent condition, with a total amount claimed therefore of $14,800.00. Dated: October 14, 1932 YOUNG, HENRIE, HUMPHRIES 6 MASON PAUL D. HELD Attorneys for Claimant Instant Go Burgers, Inc. - 2 - (VERIFICATION — 416, 20155 C. C. P.) 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 2 I f am eh 3 4 in the above endued atria. ar pnrnding; I hove read the laugaing 5 6 and know the mneem thrr<aJ; and 1 Celt!/, that the tome u vue o/ mY own kmwledgq eac<pt ar to than .mum which 7 are tho,dn trend upon mY inJarmadan or belu /, and m 10 thou matt.+ 1 bdi<ve it to be une. 8 9 10 ! derfun, under pnmtrY o/ perjury md<r the lawt o/ the Smte o/ California that tAe /,,in, u nue and rornn. 11 Euewed a. ae (dwcl !➢b+<r/ Calilornio 12 13 (Sisnatard 14 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013c, 2015.5 G C P.) 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES u am a raiJen: o/ tM1e ruunry a /oruaidp f am over the age of eilhr<en year, and oat a parry 10 the within ewi,W 16 ctian: mY bwinn+ add,. u: 17 100 Pomona Mall ldest, Pomona, California 91766 October 14 E2 CLAIM FOR PROPERTY 18 O.--_19. 1 tnved the whin 19 DAMAGE OF INSTANT GO BURGERS, INC. an ter interested parties 20 in ,aid ."w.' by Pfaau�g a true ropy rhoro/ endwed m a rm(rd <n:rlope with "I., 1F.emon jai, prepod, m the 21 Lrnfted sate+ moll al omona, Ce 11 ifo r n i a addrnud v /allows: 22 Clark of the City of Clerk of the City of Rand:o Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga 23 9320 Baseline Road Lions Park Community Bldg. Rancho Cucamung,j, CA 91730 9161 Baseline Road 24 City Council of Rancho Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Cucamonga 25 LlOn9 Park Community Bldg. 26 9161 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga,, CA 91730 27 / drrbuq undo "r 'sq of palury under the L. o/ the S"" o/ Cob /omia tMt the leregoins 4 uu< arW rornn 28 Eaerw<do October 14, 1932 at Pomona (date- (place/ Ld,lorrda NANCY L. ALL(Sigrwtan) 1 CLAIM OF: ) DECLARATION CONCERNING CLAIM FOR 2 INSTANT GO BURGERS, INC. ) PROPERTY DAMAGE (Section 910 of • the Government Code) 3 vs. ) 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I ) 5 — 6 I, PAUT. D. HELD, state: 7 1. I am an attorney with the law offices of Young, B! Henrie, Humphries 6 Mason, attorneys for claimant in the above- .' 9 referenced matter. 10 2. The statements set forth herein are within my 11 personal knowledge and, if called as a witness to testify, I can 12 testify competently thereto. 13 3. Or or about October 14, 1982, our attorney service 14 delivered to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a claim under Government • 15 Code Section 910 prepared by our office on behalf of claimant. 16 On October 15, 1982, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received the 17 claim by mail. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of said claim, the accident - 18 referenced therein was alleged to have occurred on or about June 19 8, 1982. Based thereon, the subject claim was returned to our 20 office by Beverly Authelet, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Ranch. 21 Cucamonga, being received on October 23, 1982. The basis for the 22 claim being returned was that same was not filed within the 100 23 day period required by the applicable provisions of the Government 24 Code. 25 4. In fact, the subject accident occurred on July 8, 26j 192 and the subject claim has been corrected accordingly. In r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 20 211 22 23 24 �i 26 27 28 light thereof, the subject claim was filed within the 100 day Period and is now being resubmitted for consideration on the merits. • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 26, 1982 at Pomona, California. PAUL D. HELD - 2 - • E • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 C. 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2b 1 CLAIM OF BRANDON C. YOUNG ) CLAIM FOIL' F$0 °BR,TQY,jQ)AN;e(CrE (Sect3p'K Cg1C�P- .i pb�l ^.N VS. ) Governmerj 0* 'P) " L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA j OCT LS eM ) 1234 AT1815d01S1i��.) I) 1516 To the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAh:ONGA and to the City Council of such city: 1. You are hereby notified that Brandon C. Young hereby makes claim. against the City of Rancho Cucamonga, computed as of the date of the presentation of this claim, in the sum. of $502,340.87. 2, Claimant's post office address is Brandon C. Young, 8931 Whirlaway, Alta Loma, California 91703. 3. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to Young, Henrie, Humphries & Mason, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, California. 4, This claim is based upon personal injuries sustained by claimant by virtue of an accident occuring on or about 8, 1982 in the vicinity of the train tracks on Hellman Avenue between Foothill Blvd, and Baseline Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, California. 5. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: A vehicle in which claimant was riding qRs north- ? bound on Hellman Avenue at approximately 5:00 P.M. on 1982. At said time and place, the intersection of Hellman and the tracks were in a dangerous condition due, in part, to the lack of adequate controls and warnin,; signals for through traffic, the failure of the existi,g warniog system to operate properly, the fact that the view of approachin,; trains is blocked to 1 vehicles northbound on Hellman, and the generally inadequate construction and safeguards at the intersection,. Due to the subject dangerous conditions, a train struck the vehicle in which claimant was riding. 5. The names of the public employees causing claimant's injuries under the described circumstances are unknown to claimant. 7. The injuries sustained by claimant as far as known, as of the date of presentation of this claim, consist of a concussion, broken left arm, puncture wound to the neck, deep scrape wader left arm, scrape to face making, same raw, and generally cuts and bruises. 8. The amount claimed as of the date of presentation of this claim is computed as follows: Damages incurred to date Expenses for medical and $ 1,340.89 hospital care General Damages 300,000.00 Total Damages incurred to date $301,340.89 Estimated prosnective damages as far as known Future expenses for medical and hospital care 1,000.00 Prospective general damages 200,000.00 Total estimated $201,000.00 prospective damages // 2 - 1 Total amount claimed as of date of presentation of this claim $502,340.87 • 3 D,.ed: October 14, 1982 4 YOUNG, HENRIE, HUMPHRIES 6 MASON 5 PAUL D. HELD 7 Attorneys for Claimant Brandon C, Young 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 91 25 2G 21 2.3 - 3 - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (VERIFICATION — 446, 20155 G C. P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I am th in the above mdad action or pr ... edinq I Aaa read the 1o1e6ain6— _ and know the wntenu therco /: and i emill that the wme il a.e of mY e-n k- ndedeq -WI a w ,hoe- marten uA" arc thuetn e.I d upon my information or 6,4,1, and a w the.. rmaerc I believe u w be nee. I dedow, under e.h, of poiurY uMa the In. ,! the Stn:e of Cdilornia M., the Joreseing u eme and cooea. Eaeew.d e a Calilarnia (data) (➢lace) (SierwaaJ PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013., 20155 C. C P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I cm a r, id,n, of the .aunty olaraaid; 1 am oar the age of eighteen Y,.,I end rot a parry w the u*hin entitled aaien; my baineaa addna u: 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, California 91766 October 14 S2 CLAIM FOR PERSONAL On 19 1 nn d the within INJURIES OF BRASDON C. YOUNG oe,he interested parties in ,old ace n, by placing a au. copy ,hO[al enda.ed in n .,ded mvelape d1h (wuage ,her<nn lolly Dr<pald, w ,he Unilyd swm, nwita Pomona, California .dd.e».d a 1.11oun: Clerk of the City of Cleric of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Lions Park Community Bldg. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9161 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91.730 Citv Council of Rancho Cucamonga Lions park Cola;.unity Bldg. 9161 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 I d,<k,.<, under prndty nl paw,, undo the inu, nl he 51s1, of Cnhla,ni. 'hen 'A, Im <going u vue end conecL October 14, 1982 Pomona Co47arnia Ettcuted on o, rdatel � ,lDbed J NANCY 0 • • • U 1 2 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 2'i 7.6 27 28 CLAIM OF: ) DECLARATION CONCERNING CLAIM FOR BRANDON C. YOUNG ) PROPERTY DAMAGE (Section 910 of the Government Code) VS. ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCA ?CONGA ) I, PAUL D. HELD, state: 1. I am an attorney with the law offices of Young, Henrie, Humphries 6 Mason, attorneys for claimant in the above - referenced matter. 2. The statements set forth herein are within my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness to testify, I can testify competently thereto. 3. On or about October �4, 1982, our attorney service delivered to the City of Rancho Cucamonga a claim under Government Code Section 910 prepared by our office on behalf of claimant. On October 15, 1982, the City of Rancho Cucamonga received the claim by mail. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of said claim, the accident referenced therein was allesed to have occurred on or about June 8, 1982. Based thereon, the subject claim was returned to our office by Beverly Authelet, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Ranch Cucamonga, being received on October 23, 1982, The basis for the claim being, returned was that same was not filed within the 100 day period required by the applicable provisions of the Covernment Code. 4. In fact, the subject accident occurred on July 8, 19:2 and the subject claim has been corrected accordingly. In 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r7 9i 10' 111 12 13 14 15 16 171 18I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 light thereof, the subject claim was filed within the 100 day period and is now being resubmitted for consideration on the merits. • 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 26, 1982 at Pomona, California. i UL D. HELD is - 2 - 4 INTER - OFFICE MEMO DATE October 27, 1982 a�x w:ve xoreo r FROM Thomas ?Iickum, Captain PHONE • Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station TO Lauren Wasserman, City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBJECT Contruction of Evidence Locker and Related Offices As you will recall, during the budget process, $5,000 was authorized by the Council for the construction and equip- ping of an evidence locker and related office space. We have now received two bids for th ?.s project. The first bid was from Eric McCullough on October 8, 1982 in the amount of $4,2n0. The second bid was from Ron Collette on October 14, 1982 in the amount of $3,850. It is recommended that the low bidder, Ron Collette, be awarded this project and the amount of $4,000 be authorized For this construction. • T�ec • 12 Ua1OW R•.. vn October 8, 1982 Eric McCullough 8369 Lion Street Cucamonga, CA 91730 980 -2916 Proposed job location: Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff Substation • Hellman and Ninth Street Contractor proposed to furnish all materials and to perform all labor nedessary to complete the following: ' There will be one major partition measuring 14' x 32' for division of the new evidence room. This wall will be constructed of 3 -5/8" metal st;:,?s on 2' center. 1/2" drywall will be used on walls. One side of t'-c. all drywalled floor to ceiling, the other side will be 8' high from floor to ceiling. (The construction of this wall in this manner in -.ost cost efficient.) Wall will include one 4' x 618" hollow - C-. .. :..:.,onite door. The door will be painted to finish_ Tao new constructed offices approx. 8'6" x 12'0 ". Standard 2 x 4 wood studs will be used. Studs 16" on center and 2 x 6 ceiling joist 2' on center. Both walls to have 3;" drywall on both sides. All newly costructed walls will be textured and painted with flat wall paint. 436 square feet of R -11 insulation will be installed. Ceil_ngs will be sprayed with acoustic ceiling material. A 5/8" piywac d deck will be installed for storage above the ceiling installed. Ofi_;;,3 doors to be 3' x 6'8" walnut finish legacy doors, with antique • brass finished kwick -set locks. Brown metal ready hung door jambs also to be i nstalled for doors. One 3' x 6'8" masonite painted door in south wall of west office. Off',7as will have a total of eight electrical outlets and two 2' x 4' surface mount rap lens light fixtures in each office, for a total of four lights. Stairs or ladder will be provided upon agreed location. 204 square feet of asphalt tile glued to cement floor in offices. Air conditioning and heating ducts will be provided, one duct per office. Contractor is not responsible if existing air conditioning unit is not capable of adequately cooling and heating offices. All of the above work is to be completed in a substantial workman -like manner according to standard practices, for the suss of $4,150.00. If major petition wall is changed, it would be a 8' wood frame wall with 2 x •studs, 2' on center with one 2 x 4 floor to ceiling 8' on center with 6" x 6" 10 -gauge wire mesh. An additional $50.00 would be added to the totnL sum - - $4,200.00. EM:tlb • y 1, S � '� C W _ -L � D�fJI;C'- FZOor1 NEIU i,l': __. _, ^•_Q - -- 2:z=ya --- .•77TiT� , 11 New OF�I�� l � -r - - - - - - -- XSrr10 JVLOI NG1. New �FFif,L-: t 1 1 u� I ,n, ,,e RONCOLLETTE �+ General Building Contractor PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT • H,uE er+_Y�e3.v LL _�i._��/�.-• - . 1N6 w. e•Y„.q Hmr.r,x q. nm, rgq..F re r «ram r.. e�w..Y Ci,�.il= .al_...:+t'J. JE.... <�c�n_q•a. IINMO. xTOwNHO. pNnrNIHIMMX41 [INMMgIINNMnNIMNYIrNrY Wrw4rxf.NrwYX1oMN1YYluIMN+ NI.IN YI M.hrYnXNNY1M1n W1XNI1.pNMw.Y1NbbNNNMIrWaIY I. IMgvMllggNfwYXMNnIMeMfAlN141111rYMIN IIb r111L m..+rr.Nn.urxyrn+mrq n+H Ow m.nwHn Wrq n.Kr•.mmwnar.w..mmrla xrp +v�xnn.•+an �r ar n•meu >nnmamv.>veamremm ppgmxm0 .+rmM+rnrerm.rn.�yrurrr>r,pymw rr rgruo.e rn urr.rr.. rn. u.+v rn, Ne,xFNNO,'Ll'MOWXEYUXIFXMl VwNVellFlrpil Termer IRA Ip.B...... NIONI 4.EYIBb. Itt GnrrNblo Mrt .Lerlpmlrtf ay Wl+rr! ^I Mtiv Mtlrry tmlM IIfY11fINllINY.NL1 \IAlM11MI11tlR IXIfi111111111111111I0 YYNY1Xl'11na HAN111'ftL.1.4 9111111IM M[IMIIOIIII NII NtLIIIl1 f1 1- III IINIIIN AA1I11111, AIR", 1II1 NNIL 1.M ,ql CAPIAAV NA.,AI Mil II.AlAYRATIRRNlCHTMOH1llfill[ enr //` +r;N<Y<�+1 u'G �KNr N•enMC .� %J P40. ,•W. a% nrnmea ennq.,w ' rir: +rlCr r.rn..�u+rn+rpp, raen•nq im nnn rrnfd•H.m r.ry re .nrm 0+.+ne v. rc•wn. +r.urn"arvne•e.au+F r m /laGiar`yK/ lr� +rr +cnxc mn+nn+CO.r rnr arrm...nr,r.m. ,m, [on,• i . , rrrn+n,i nnna nnrnmrtr Ni rr ras>v,^'e•n marm +..n • REQUIRED ST LAW TO BE LICENSED REGULATED BY THE .. " , CONTRACTORS ARE R CONTRACTORS' TOTHE STATE LICENSE HE BO. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING T A CTORS' S T T MAYBE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE BOARD WHOSE ADDRESS IS: CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD, 1020 11" ST., EACRAMENTO. CALIF. 95314. • .......................................... ............................... j, • lJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 28, 1932 p CuCAhroy T Fli D �Z 1977 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Estimated Costs of Hearing Officer /Rent Stabilization Process Estimating costs to the City and petitioners for the rent stabilization hearing process is at best, extremely subjective. The cost involved for a management or tenant petition would depend greatly on the time required to hear and consider the petition. If a petition is contested by either party or the chairman of the stabilization board determines the matter should he referred to a hearing officer, costs could be substantially greater. With respect to costs, the proposed ordinance states that "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." Also, the ordinance does not provide for compensation to the hearing officer or stabilization board, although in my estimates I have assumed that their time would be included. In order to project petitioner costs I have listed below several scenarios involving the proposed ordinance and the estimated cost of each action by the Board or Hearing officer. $500.00 Management Adjustment /Tenant Adjustment petition to assuming one meeting by the Rent Stabilization Board $1,500.00 and there are "few disputed factual issues and the matter is capable of being decided after a brief meeting." Normally, a list of arbitrators will cost $200.00 and a daily cost for arbitrators is $300.00. Transcripts or reports from arbitrators are also approximately $300.00. If "professionals" would donate their time to serve on a stabilization board, costs could be reduced substantially. Continued.... 4r City Manager /City Council Costs of Rent Stabilization Process October 28, 1982 Page 2 . $1,200.00 Assuming the issues under discussion require an evidentiary hearing by a hearing officer or opposition to a petition is filed requiring a hearing on the contested issues. $200.00 "In the event of a contested hearing, the City Manager shall mail each tenant in the affected park a notice of the time and place of the commencement of the hearing. $100.00 All meetings and hearings of the rent stabilization board shall be open to the public and notices sent out. 1500.00 After the conclusion of the hearing on the proposed to findings and the recommended decision of the hearing $1,000.00 officer before the rent stabilization board, the board shall: a. Accept and confirm hearing officer recommendations. b. Amend the findings. • $500.00 C. Send the matter back to the hearing officer to for further hearings. $1,200. $500.00 Stabilization board meets to render its final decision. In summary, the approximate costs could range from a low of $500.00 to a high of approximately $5,000.00 depending upon the composition of the board and the length and depth of the hearing process. Further, these costs do not include staff or attorney time that may be required. Nor do these costs take into consideration the expenses of the park owners in preparing evidence before the stabilization board when a management adjustment petition is filed. Several park owners as well as representatives from the Western Mobile Home Association claim that appraisals of property and information required for the hearing process can run from $5,000 to 512,000 depending upon the size of the park. Once a final draft of the ordinance is prepared documenting the composition of the board and determining levels of compensation, cost estimates for hearings by the stabilization board can be more preditable. • JR /mk Ll M E M O R A N D U M TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: October 28, 1982 RE: Application of the California Environmental During the October 20, 1982 City Council meeting, the attorney representing the mobilehome park owners asserted that the draft Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance then under discussion was a "project" within the meaning of CEQA and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required in advance of the enactment of any such ordinance. • The attorney, Mr. Swanson, refer,ed to an opinion issued by Legislative Counsel of California. This was an opinion dated August 21, 1981 issued privately to Assemblyman John E. Thurman. The opinion is referenced "Environmental Quality: Local Rent Control Ordinances - N1478 ". A copy of this opinion was provided by Mr. Swanson and copies have been distributed to the members of the council.. The aforesaid Legislative Counsel's opinion concludes as follows: "Therefore, in conclusion, it is our opinion that while it is possible in a particular case that the enactment of a local rent control ordinance would not be subject to CEQA, generally such an enactment would be subject to the provisions of that act • and would require the preparation of either an environmental impact report or a negati.v, declaration. ". 2:�L -R I do not disagree with the conclusion of Legislative Counsel or the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached. • Also, I have reviewed opinion nSO77 -7 of the California Attorney General. That opinion did not address rent control ordi- nances in particular, but instead ordinances and resolutions in general.1 The Attorney General concluded: "Ordinances and Resolu- tions adopted by a local agency are 'projects' within the meaning of CEQA. If the Ordinance or Resolution is discretionary in nature, is not categorically exempt, and may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report must be prepared before approval. ". Stein -vs- City of Santa Monica, 110 Cal.App.3d 458, 168 Cal. Rptr. 39 (1980) appears to be the only case which dealt with CEQA in the context of a rent control ordinance. The Court in the Stein case held that Santa Monica's rent control ordinance was exempt • from the provisions of CEQA. However, the exemption was applicable because the ordinance was enacted by the people as an initiative measure. The Court noted that the ordinance was, therefore, not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15037(b)(4) of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code which excludes "the submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community. ". While the Court in the Stein case was not forced to rule on the question, my impression from reading the case is that the Court would have held the ordinance to be a "project" but for the fact that it was adopted es an initiative measure. CONCLUSION: Oases: upon the foregoing authorities I am of the opinion that it is more probable than not that a Court required to rule on the issue would determine that a municipal rent stabili- • -2- zation ordinance is a "project" for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. a RECOMMENDATION: If the City Council intends to proceed with steps preliminary to the adoption of the draft ordinance previously submitted, or a similar ordinance, an initial study, as defined in the CEQA guidelines, should he performed. At the conclusion of the initial study the City Council would determine whether an EIR should be prepared or whether a negative declaration is appropriate. RED:sjo n U • ORDINANCE NO. 165 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CO'INCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1077- 071 -01, LOCATED AT THE SOUTE:dEST 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 or Base Line Road and Ivy Lane, from A -1 (Limited Agricultural) to R -1 (Single Family Residential). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of October 1982 AYES: Dahl, Duquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels NOE.4: None ABCp;NT: None 40 yq • • STAFF REPORT DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Base Line Road at Alta Loma High School Traffic Signal Study 0GU�n /�� ` 9 1 1977 As a follow -up to the concern expressed at the October 20 Council meeting, the Staff has met with officials of Alta Loma High School to explore options for improvement of traffic safety on Base Line Road. In the past, various moderate cost attempts involving sign- ing, striping and enforcement have been utilized with mixed results. A more capital intensive solution to the pedestrian as well as vehicle access problems can be accomplished by reconstruction of the east parking lot access. This project would eliminate the existing access points, combining them at a new location aligned with the connection of vineyard Avenue to the south. This recon- struction would allow effective signalization of Base Line and Vine - yard and provide protected pedestrian crossing. This solution when discussed in the past was rejected by the high school. At their Monday, November 1 meeting the School Board will consider a recommendation to fund this type of reconstruction. If the school consents to the proposed reconstruction, a conventional traffic signal installation could appropriately receive high prior- ity for construction. The estimated cost would be $80,000. If the Council concurs in moving ahead with the project, you should be aware that actual construction of the signal will take several months and would not be functional until the beginning of next school year. In order to expedite the project, staff has negotiated a consultant contract to provide design plans and specifications for the project. If Council wishes to proceed with the project, it is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to execute the design contract. FUTURE CONCERNS: Discussion relative to pedestrian safety also dealt with longer range problems that would still. potentially exist with completion Of the proposed traffic signal. Much of the pedestrian problem, ,0 l 'AFF REPORT Base Line Road at Alta Loma High School Traffic Signal Study November 3, 1982 Page 2 which has become a concern, relates directly to the fact that in- sufficient parking exists on the high school property, resulting in extensive use of the Vineyard Park parking lot. High use of this parking area creates not only increased pedestrian exposure but also inhibits normal citizen use of the park. In order to effectively deal with both of these concerns, it is necessary to provide addi- tional parking at the school itself. This would require either ac- quisition of additional lands or displacement of existing physical education facilities. An option for future consideration would be extension of the west parking lot into the Junior Varsity Baseball field and displacment of the ball field into the Red Hill Flood Con- trol Basin as an expansion of Vineyard Park. The ball field could then provide an additional facility for general City use as a joint project. This long term goal would free parking on the school side of Base Line and reduce peak hour pedestrian crossing. In a separate item on this Council Agenda is a consultant contract to assist in development of the Vineyard Park joint use plan. Staff will proceed with this option and report back as information becomes available. Another concern in the future will likely be chronic jay walking vio- lations by students parking at Vineyard Park and failing to use the signal. This problem can be dealt with through intense enforcement efforts but may require construction of a median barrier if violations persist. Review of these concerns would be appropriate at completion of the signal. CONCLUSION: Staff requests direction from the Council on the priority of the pro- posed Base Line Road and Vineyard Avenue signal. Respectfully submitted, LBH Ljaa 51 n LJ 0 AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT BASE LINE AVENUE AND VINEYARD AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1982 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Lawrence S. Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer, with a place of business at 22400 Barton Road, Suite 200, Grand Terrace, California, 92324, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer ". WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, City has need for engineering services, consisting of the preparation of improvement plans, specifications, and estimates for the traffic signal to be constructed at the intersection of Base Line Avenue and Vineyard Avenue, hereinafter referred to as "Project ", and WHEREAS, it is beneficial to City to have under contract an engineering firm which can immediately perform required services for • City for a predetermined lump sum fee; and, WHEREAS, Engineer has specialized knowledge, training and experience in municipal engineering as well as in traffic signal design and construction; and • WHEREAS, Engineer desires to perform engineering services for City under contract. NOW, THEREFORE, be it mutually agreed as follows: I. Engineer, when authorized, shall perform professional civil engineering services in conjunction with the aforementioned project as follows: TASK A. Orientation Meeting with CiV 1. Review of project scope. 2. Obtain from City: a. Pertinent design criteria for traffic signal design; b. Available street improvement plans, utility information and plan sheets. 5� P TASK B. Complete the Improvement Plans for the project 1. Development of the plans at 1' =20' scale, a bid proposal and special provisions of the specifications utilizing the current edition of Caltrans Specifications. Plans shall include intersection striping, if required. Street improvements will not be involved in this project. 2. Preparation of detailed estimates of quantities and construc- tion costs prior to advertising for competitive bids. 3. Plans and specifications shall be suitable for approval by City. 4. furnish original plans, specifications and bidding forms to City. TASK C. Construction Phase Services Engineer shall be available for consultation during the construction phase and make recommendations on contract change orders. II. City shall provide engineer with assistance in the preparation of the plans, specifications and estimates for project by providing the following: A. Copies of all improvement plans, atlas sheets or other drawings within project limits as required. • B. location of all subsurface utility facilities and other improvements. C. Plan checking on a no fee basis. D. City standard sheets if available. E. City shall prepare the required number of bid documents, advertise for bids, and perform construction management and inspection services. III. City shall reimburse engineer for services performed a lump sum fee of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for Tasks A and B. Task C shall be paid on a time and materials basis at fifty dollars (S50.00) per hour and a mileage rate of twenty - five cents (25c) per mile. City shall pay the engineer the prorata share of the fixed fee of work cormleted as determined by the City upon billing once each month at a regular City Council meeting. n U inn City shall have the right to audit the statement and remove from payment any item with which City is in disagreement, which item shall be thereafter reviewed with the engineer. After full revie•.a, City shall make the final decision. Engineer shall begin the work to be performed within five (5) days after mailing by City to engineer of a Notice to Proceed and shall diligently prosecute same and submit plans to City for first plan check within 30 calendar days thereafter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Engineer have executed this agreement as of the date first above written. City Clerk 9 r I/ City of Rancho Cucamonga Lawrence S. Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer I m BASE LINE - a'. w' >. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS II -82 0 I J j `I I m BASE LINE - a'. w' >. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS II -82 0 I J • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 28, 1982 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Proposed Modification to Personnel Rules Section 3.5.3 thru 3.5.11 Periodically it becomes necessary to revise Personnel Rules to be in line with the "state of the art" and to comply with recent court decisions affecting personnel procedures. In order to remain "current" with the appropriate method involving employee discipline, the City Attrrney has recommended the attached modification to the City's existing personnel rules. City staff has reviewed these proposed modifications and would recommend adoption by the City Council. As a result of court decisions public agencies must comply with certain due process procedures before taking serious disciplinary action against employees, such as discharge, demotions, and lengthy suspensions. These procedures require that: (1) The employee receive a preliminary written notice of the proposed action stating the date it will be effective and the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the action will be taken. (2) The employee be provided with any known written materials, reports or documents upon which the action is based. (3) The employee be accorded the right to respond either orally, in writing, or both to the proposed charges. If the employee does not respond, the disciplinary action shall be considered conclusive. If the employee files a notice of appeal, a "post action appeals hearing" would be set. In summary, the recommended charges from the City Attorney (see attached) would clarify the City's responsibility in handling disciplinary procedures and formalize the appeals hearing procedure. These key rule changes are contained in section 3.5.9 thru 3.5.11. Under these new rules, appeals from employees faced with serious disciplinary action would be heard by a third party neutral (hearing officer) selected by the City; rather than by `""S, the City Manager as our current rules now provide. This provides • for a neutral, third party to determine the credibility of testimony and evidence, and would base the hearing officer's findings on the preponderance of the evidence. The decision of the hearing officer is advisory only and the City Council can "ratify, modify, or reverse the proposed decision, findings and conclusions of the hearing officer and the decision of the City Council sball be final and conclusive." In accordance with State Code and the Meyers -Milts -Brown Act these proposed rule changes have been reviewed by the City's employee committee and have been recommended for Council consideration and aaopt:on. Staff would recommend adoption of the attached resolution incorporating these rule changes. JHH /mk • • RESOLUTION NO. 82 -a /'� _ :1E3vLUPIDZ1 OF 71:4E Gl'.Y COU.:CIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO ,,,..,QJGA A2G.i(DIFG32C:'I0',:S 3.5.3 THRU SECTIONS 3.5.11 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING REVISED EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a comprehensive set of Personnel Rules governing the details of administration of the city's personnel system; and WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to review, revise and re- adopt comprehensive personnel rules; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the existing rules are deemed to be in essential compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, rulings and regulations governing fair, equal and bias -free public personnel administration; and WHEREAS, the attached proposed amendments known as "Appendix A -1" have been reviewed and approved by a committee of employees composed of representatives from each city department in compliance with applicable state and federal laws. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby adopt the attached, (Appendix A -1) amendments to the Rules and Regulations governing the details of administration of the City's personnel system. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1982. AYES: 0 NOES: i ABSENT: ATTEST: �I M. 'Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • lJ • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 25, 1982 TO: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: Employee Committee RE: Proposed Changes to Personnel Rules Section 3.5 - 3.5.11 Employee Evaluation Discipline, Traininq and Development GJCAMo%c, e, > OM1 O U' 1977 The Employee Committee has reviewed the attached proposed rule changes affecting Employee Discipline and held meetings with the Assistant City Manager to clarify the impact of these rules. As a result of the review and subsequent meetings with management, the Employee Committee unanimously supports these changes and would recommend they be forwarded to the City Council for their review and approval. Members of the Employee Committee John Martin �[`ry Nl � ���ll:., Engineering Sandy Hackney '/ 1G i! C/ ' -nance i Beverly Haile '1i/ Building 6 Safety I Rick Marks Planning Bob Ze tterberg - Maintenance 55 C� APPENDIX A -1 • 3.5 Employee Evaluation, Discipline, Training and Development 3.5.0 Probationary Period. The first six months after a new employee has been hired shall be a Probationary period during which he or she shall be carefully observed for successful job performance. Thirty days prior to the six month anniversary date of the hiring of the employee, the employee's performance shall be formally evaluated and the department head or City Manager shall recommend the advancement of the employee to regular status. If recommended, and approved by the City Manager, the employee shall be so advanced after the completion of the six month probationary period. If the department head does not so recommend, the employee shall be terminated. The probationary period may be extended, under unusual circumstances, upon approval of the Personnel Officer, for no more than an additional six months. _. A probationary employee may be dismissed at any • time without cause. However, if the dismissal is based on charges of misconduct which stigmatize the employee's reputation, or seriously impair the employee's opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously damage the employee's standing or associations in his or her community, then the predisciplinary procedures set forth in Section 3.5.9 of these rules shall be followed. 3.5.1 Annual Performance Evaluation: Employees who Wave passed their probation period shall have their performance evaluated annually thereafter from the date of passing probation. Evaluation forms and procedures shall be provided by the Personnel Officer for employee evaluation. It is the responsibility of the appointing authority to conduct timely and complete employee evaluations as they are due for each employee under his /her supervision or direction and to provide copies of the prescribed forms to the Personnel Officer as required. 3.5.2 Emoloyee_Training and Development: The City . shall encourage employees —to develop the skills r� needed to perform their jobs and to obtai+ skills necessary for advancement. Consistent with budgetary provisions, the City will provide both in -house and off -site training designed to achieve these goals. _ Every effort shall be made to structure the classification system in the City to allow horizontal as well as upward mobility to qualified employees, subject to the restraints of turnover, economy and efficiency. 3.5.3 Authority to Discipline: The appointing authority shall have the power and duty to take disciplinary action pursuant to the provisions of these Rules. 3.5.4. Disci 1p inary Background: Discipline is the enforcement of conformity to policies, rules and regulations and other administrative or legal requirements or practices designed to maintain a standard of cooperation and conduct necessary to carry out the service mission of the city organization successfully. Self - discipline or self- conformity is the goal strived for. Where self - discipline by th� employee fails, disciplinary action by th appointing authority is authorized and shall be accomplished in such a manner as to be just, equitable, consistent and suited to the situation. The disciplinary action, when taken, shall be documented in such a manner as to be defensible at review and /or upon filing of a grievance by the disciplined employee. Oral Warnin7. In the event that the supervr sor of an employee determines that a deficiency in performance or conduct is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant a disciplinary action, an oral warning may be given to the employee, which should include a suggestion as to corrective action which should be taken to improve performance or conduct in question. 3.5.5 Types_of_Disciplinary_Actions: Types of disciplinary actions which may be taken, in order of severity, are: dismissal, disciplinary demotion, reduction in pay, disci- plinary suspension, written reprimand, or an appropriate combination of these disciplinarY* t: -1 3.5.6 Predisciplinary Suspension. If in the opinion of the appointing authority, immediate action is required to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public, other employees, or the employee concerned, an employee may be suspended without pay for up to seven (7) days pending the processing of predisciplinary proceedings required by Section 3.5.9 of these rules, or may be suspended with pay pending completion of such investigation or hearing as may be required to determine if disciplinary action is to be taken. In the event the investigation develops in favor of the employee, or if no disciplinary action is initiated, the employee suspended without pay shall be entitled to receive all pay and benefits accruing during such period of suspension. 3.5.7 Grounds for DiscinlinarvAction: The following shall constitute the grounds for disciplinary • action. Any one of them may be sufficient upon ti � actions. The aforementioned types of disci- • plinary actions are defined as follows: Dismissal. The discharge of an employee Y—rom city service. Disciolinary Demotinn. A permanent change rn �lassificatron of an employee to a position of lower responsibility and pay for unsatisfactory performance or disciplinary reasons. Reduction in Pay. A temporary reduction of an employee's salary to a lower salary step for a maximum period of time not to exceed one calendar year. Disciplinary_ Suspension. The temporary suspension of an employee from city service, without compensation, for a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days in any one (1) calendar year. Written Reprimand. Notification in writing to the employee that there is cause for dissatisfaction with the employee's services • and that further disciplinary measures may be taken if the cause is not corrected. 3.5.6 Predisciplinary Suspension. If in the opinion of the appointing authority, immediate action is required to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public, other employees, or the employee concerned, an employee may be suspended without pay for up to seven (7) days pending the processing of predisciplinary proceedings required by Section 3.5.9 of these rules, or may be suspended with pay pending completion of such investigation or hearing as may be required to determine if disciplinary action is to be taken. In the event the investigation develops in favor of the employee, or if no disciplinary action is initiated, the employee suspended without pay shall be entitled to receive all pay and benefits accruing during such period of suspension. 3.5.7 Grounds for DiscinlinarvAction: The following shall constitute the grounds for disciplinary • action. Any one of them may be sufficient upon ti � which to base a disciplinary action. 0 Fraud. Fraud in securing employment or making a false statement on an application for employment or on any supporting documents furnished with or made a part of any application. Incompetency. Incompetency such as failure to comply with the minimum standard of an employee's position for a significant period of time. Neglect. Inexcusable neglect of duty, such as failure to perform duties required of an employee within the position assigned. Insubordination. Willful disobedience and insubordination such as a willful failure to submit to duly appointed and acting supervision or to conform to duly established orders or directions of persons in a supervisory position. Dishonesty. Dishonesty involving employ- ment. Intoxication. Being under the influence of • a coh� al or intoxicating drugs while on duty. Addiction. Addiction to or habitual use of alcoholic beverages, narcotics or any habit forming drug,. Absence. Inexcusable absence without leave. Crimes. Conviction of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, which shall be deemed to include only crimes involving dishonesty or character depravity. Discourteousneses. Discourteous treatment of the public. Unauthorized Use. Improper or unauthorized use of use property. Rules Violation. Violation of the rules and rkguLations of any department, which rules and regulations are adopted pursuant to these rules. rI L A :7 . Oath Refusal. Refusal to subscribe to an oathr aEfirmatioh which is required by law in connection with city employment. Willful Misconduct. Any willful act of conduct undertaken in bad faith which either during or outside of duty hours is of such a nature that it causes discredit to fall on the city, the employee's department or division. Willful failure to maintain proper decorum during working hours causing discredit to the employee's department or division also may be considered willful misconduct. Sick Leave Abuse. Abuse of sick leave. Procedural Lapse. Knowingly failing to fol- low the procedures set forth herein governing grievances when pursuing or investigating a grievance. Inattention. Inattention to duty, tardiness, indolence, carelessness or negligence in the care and handling of city • property. Infirmity. Mental or physical infirmity or defects which render the employee unfit for the proper performance of duty, as certified by a medical doctor, in writing. Outside Employment. Outside employment not specifically authorized by the appointing authority. Gifts. Acceptance from any source of a reward, gift or other form of remuneration in addition to regular compensation for the performance of official duties. Falsities. Falsification of any city report or record, or of any report or record required to be or filed by the employee. Violations. Willful violation of any of the provisions of the government code, lawful ordinances, resolutions, or any rules, regulations or policies which may be prescribed by the City Council or City I 1 U i- o Manager or department head. Political Activity. Improper politicate activity, provided, however, nothing in these rules and regulations shall be construed as preventing any officer or employee from becoming or continuing to be a member of a political club or organization, or from attendance at a political meeting, or from enjoying freedom from all interference in casting the vote or from seeking or accepting election or appointment to public office; provided further, however, that a person holding a position with the city must obtain a leave of absence before seeking election to the office of City Council member of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. No employee, or person seeking employment with the city, shall be employed, promoted, demoted or discharged, or in any way favored or discriminated against because of political opinions, except that no one shall be eligible to hold a position with the city who is or become sympathetic or affiliated with any grou_ or movement that advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence. B. Any employee of the city seeking election to any public office personally or for any other person or soliciting votes in favor of or against any proposition to be submitted to the voters in any election shall not do so during working hours or while wearing a uniform or badge identifying him or her with employment by the city, except, however, that such prohibition shall not be applicable to any employee appearing before any public employee's organization of which he is a member. 3.5.8 Written Reprimands. Every letter of reprimand shall be discussed with the employee to assure that he or she has read and understood its content,^,. At the direction of appointing authority, a copy of a written reprimand may be placed in the employee's personnel file. The n U C- � employee's signature should be obtained on the • file copy acknowledging receipt of the letter, but not necessarily agreemen... However, if the employee refuses to acknowledge receipt, a supervisor may endorse the fact of receipt on the copy to be placed in the employee's personnel file. After two (2) years, and upon written request of an employee, the appointing authority may remove a letter of reprimand from an employee's personnel file. 1 3.5.9 Predisciolinary_ Procedures. Pri)r to the discharge, disciplinary demotion, reduction in pay, or disciplinary suspension of any regular full -time or part -time employee, the following procedures shall be complied with: Written Notice. Notice of the proposed aisciplinary aaction shall be given to the employee by the appointing authority. Said written notice shall be given at least seven (7) working days before the action is taken. Such notice shall include the following: A statement of the reasons for the proposed action. • A statement of the charges upon which the proposed action is based. A description of the documents or materials upon which the proposed disciplinary action is based. u A statement that the employee has the right to inspect the same and to receive copies of all such written documents or materials. (Whenever possible, an employee shall be supplied with copies of such written documents and materials at the time written notice of proposed disciplinary action is given.) A statement advising the employee of his or her right to respond to the charges, either orally or in writing. The notice Should set a date, time and place for the employee to respond to the charges if he or she elects to do so. The date set for response should be approximately five (5) days after the notice is sent. . A statement of the maximum disciplinary action contemplated if the charges are established. A statement that the employee has the right to be represented at all stages of the proceeding by counsel and /or by an authorized representative of any employee bargaining unit of which the employee is a member. A statement advising the employee that discipline may be imposed whether or not he or she responds to the charges. Predisciolinary Hearing. At the date and time set for the employee to respond to the charges, the appointing authority shall receive and consider any oral and /or written response submitted by or on behalf of the employee. The appointed authority shall also consider any other oral or documentary evidence presented by the employee. Although not required to do so; the appointing authority may deem it advisable4o to arrange in advance to have witnesses present to establish the charges. I£ it appears during the course of the hearing that more information than is presently available is required to make a determination, the matter may be continued to a later time. The appointing authority shall be the sole judge of whether the charges have been established and the degree of discipline which should be imposed. 3.5.10 Action Letter by the Appo inting_ Authority. Following the completion of the predisciplinary hearing, or following the date therefor if no oral or written response is submitted, if the appointing authority determines that discipline should be imposed, the appointing authority shall promptly prepare a letter containing the following: Factual Findings. This part of the letter m'ay,, —Yo charges which have been 0 Lj established, repeat the charges as set out in the predisciplinary notice. If a charge has not been established, or facts in mitigation of the charge's seriousness have been disclosed, the letter should so state. The specification provisions of the Munic ii— pal Code, Personnel Rules and Regulations, Department Order, or other — — sion of law found to have been violated. The discipline to be imposed. This disci- pline may not exceed the maximum stated in the predisciplinary notice. If the employee has offered alternatives as to discipline, the letter should so state and the employee should be informed that he or she is required to make his or her election in writing. The effective date of the discipline im- posed. Notice of appeal rights. A statement that Lne employee may app =al any imposition of discipline as provided in these Personnel Rules, and the time limits for filing notice of appeal. The action letter should be either personally delivered to the employee or mailed to the employee at his or her last known residence address. 3.5.11 Postdiscipl inary Appeal Procedures. The appeal procedure described herein shall apply to cases of disciplinary action affecting regular full - time or part -time employees. It shall not be applirable to those positions which may be deemed exempted by council resolution or to probationary employees. The taking of an appeal pursuant to this rule shall not stay the effect of any discipline imposed. Any disciplined employee desiring to appeal the disciplinary action imposed must file a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within the appeal period stated below. If the employee does not file written notice of the appeal within said period, the disciplinary action taken shall be deemed final and �- r conclusive. . Notice of appeal must be filed within: Ten (10) days after personal delivery to the employee of the action letter. Fifteen (15) days after the action letter is mailed to the last known residence address of the employee. If the action letter is both personally delivered and mailed, the shorter of the above - stated appeal periods shall apply. If the employee files a timely notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall request a list of third party neutrals from the American Arbitration Association or the California State Conciliation Service. The city shall select a third party neutral (Hearing Officer) to hear the appeal. A time for an appeal hearing shall be established which shall not be less than ten (10) working days, nor more than sixty (50) working days, from the date of the filing oi• the appeal. All interested parties shall be notified in writing of the date, time, and place of the hearing at least five (5) working days prior to the hearing. All hearings shall be private; provided, however, that the appellant may request a hearing open to the public. The Hearing officer shall, if legally authorized, issue subpoenas at the request of either party to the commencement of such hearing. After the commencement of such hearing, subpoenas shall be issued only in the discretion of the hearing Officer. The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses, but hearings shall be conducted in a manner most conducive to determinations of the truth. 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 t0 `fir affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rules which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions, and irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded. The Hearing Officer shall not be invalidated by any formality in the proceedings, and the Hearing Officer shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. 11 The Hearing Officer shall rule on the admission or exclusion of evidence. Each party shall have these rights: to be represented by legal counsel or other person • of his or her own choice; to call and examine witnesses; to introduce evidence; to cross- examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues; to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called him /her to testify; and to rebut the evidence against him /her. If the respondent does not testify in his /her behalf, he /she may be called and examined as if under cross- examination. Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation. The hearing shall proceed in the following order, unless the Hearing Officer, for a special reason, otherwise directs: The party imposing discipline shall be permitted to make an opening statement. The appealing party shall be permitted to make an opening statement. The party imposing disciplinary action shall produce the evidence on his /her part. 11 The party appealing from suco disciplinary action may then open his /her defense and offer his /her evidence in support thereof. The parties may then, in order, respectively offer rebutting evidence only, unless the Hearing Officer for good reason, permits them to offer evidence upon their original case. Arguments shall be permitted in the discretion of the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer shall determine relevancy, weight, and credibility of testimony and evidence, and shall base his /her findings on the preponderance of the evidence. During the examination of a witness, all other witnesses, except the parties, shall be excluded from the hearing upon motion of either party. No still photographs, moving pictures, os television pictures shall be taken in the hearing chamber during a hearing, unless all parties and the Hearing Officer consent. The Hearing Officer, prior to or during a hearing, may grant a continuance for any reason he /she believes to be important to reaching a fair and proper decision. The Hearing Officer shall render his /her written findings and recommendations as soon after the conclusion of the hearing as possible and in no event later than ten (10) working days after concluding the hearing, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. His /her decision shall set forth the recommendations as to each of the charges and the reasons therefor. The Hearing Officer may recommend the sustaining or rejecting of any or all of the charges Filed against the employee. He /she may recommend sustaining, rejecting, or modifying the disciplinary action invoked 12 . against the employee. The decision of the Hearing Officer is advisory only. The proposed decision shall be filed with the charged employee, the appointing authority, and the City Council, and shall set forth all findings and conclusions. If a dismissal is not sustained, the proposed decision shall set forth the recommended effective date the employee is to be reinstated, which may be any time on or after the date the disciplinary action went into effect. Either the appellant or the appointing authority may file written exception to the proposed decision, findings, and conclusions of the Hearing Officer within ten (10) working days after the proposed decision is filed. Unless such written exceptions are filed within the time period above stated, the proposed decision of the hearing officer shall become final and conclusive. The party excepting from the proposed • decision of the Hearing Officer shall at the same time request a transcript of the proceedings before the Hearing Officer for review by the City Council. If the appellant is the requesting party, he or she shall pay the sum of $100.00 to the City Clerk as a deposit at the time the request is made. This amount shall be applied toward the cost of preparing the record. When the total cost of the preparation of the record has been ascertained by the City Clerk, the appellant shall pay the amount of the cost thereof within five (5) days after being notified by the Clerk. If the cost of the record is less than $100.00, any amount in excess of the actual cost shall be refunded to the appellant. Failure by the appellant to pay any sums required for the preparation of the transcript, when due, shall be deemd an abandonment of appellant's exceptions to the proposed decisions, findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer and said proposed decision shall thereupon become final. • Upon completion of the transcript of the 13 �ti proceedings before the Hearing Officer, the same shall be lodged with the City Clerk. The City Council shall, within ten (10) days thereafter, review the transcript, the proposed decision, findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer and the exceptions filed. The City Council may ratify, modify, or reverse the proposed decision, findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer, and the decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. 14 a' • C L � • EXISTING RULES Employee Review. The employee shall be given an opportunity to review the documents or materials upon which the proposed disciplinary action is based, and, if practicable, he /she shall be supplied with a copy of the documents. The employee is entitled to be represented at any meeting concerned with potential disciplinary action. EmN ov,se Response. Within five working days after the employee has had the review opportunity provided above, she /he shall have the right to respond, orally or in writing, or both, at his /her option, to the appointing authority concerning the proposed action. c: -a v;'oJ ,�q ainaC Who" tha ail ..0 be taken rn;• aj +L'oar ;.o rsonal :•u rtn,• .I.1 mina .n v; ',:verso wrtnessos, present ..i ...:. L.: ,. n.: _0 r:ei. resan[e,d b;• ;I- Q date of passing probation. Evaluation forms and procedures shall be provided by the Personnel officer for employee evaluation. It is the responsibility of the appointing authority to conduct timely and complete employee evaluations as they are due for each employee under his /her supervision or direction and to provide copies of the prescribed forms to the Personnel officer as required. 3.5.2 Employee Trainina and Development: The City shall encourage employees to develop the skills needed to perform their jobs and to obtain skills necessary for advancement. Consistent with budgetary provisions, the City will provide both in -house and off -site training designed to achieve these goals. Every effort shall be made to structure the classifi- cation system in the City to allow horizontal as well as upward mobility to qualified employees, subject to the restraints of turnover, economy and efficiency. 3.5.3 Disciolinary Procedures: Prior to the discharge, 1.� demotion for disciplinary purpose or suspension of any —i> probationary, part -time or regular employee the following procedure shall be complied with: Written Notice. Written notice of the proposed disciplinary action shall be given to the employee by the City Manager. Such notice shall include a statement of the reason(s) for the proposed action and the charge(s) being considered. Employee Review. The employee shall be given an opportunity to review the documents or materials upon which the proposed disciplinary action is based, and, if practicable, he /she shall be supplied with a copy of the documents. The employee is entitled to be represented at any meeting concerned with potential disciplinary action. EmN ov,se Response. Within five working days after the employee has had the review opportunity provided above, she /he shall have the right to respond, orally or in writing, or both, at his /her option, to the appointing authority concerning the proposed action. c: -a v;'oJ ,�q ainaC Who" tha ail ..0 be taken rn;• aj +L'oar ;.o rsonal :•u rtn,• .I.1 mina .n v; ',:verso wrtnessos, present ..i ...:. L.: ,. n.: _0 r:ei. resan[e,d b;• ;I- Q Temporary Absence With Pay: Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, upon the recommendation of the Personnel Officer, the City Manager may approve the temporary assignment of an employee to the status of absence with pay pending conduct or completion of such investigations or hearings as may be required to determine if disciplinary action is to be taken. Such status shall be con- ditioned such that the employee remain available and in daily telephonic contact with the employer. 3.5.4 Disciplinary Background: Discipline is the enforcement of conformity to policies, rules and regulations and other administrative or legal requirements or practices designed to maintain a standard of cooperation and conduct necessary to carry out the service mission of the city organization successfully. Self - discipline or self - conformity is the goal strived for. Where self - discipline by the employee fails, disciplinary action by the appointing authority is authorized and shall be accomplished in such a manner as to be just, equitable, consistent and suited to the situation. The disciplinary action, when taken, shall be documented in such a manner as to be defensible at review and /or upon filing of a grievance by the disciplined employee. % oral Warning. In the event that the appointing autkor'b�, of an employee determines that a deficiency in pecforma� or conduct is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant a disciplinary action, an oral warning may be given to the employee, which should include a suggestion as to correctiv action which should be taken to improve performance or con- duct in question. A confidential written record should be made of such conferences with a copy provided the employee. 3.5.5 Types of Disciplinary Actions: Types of disciplinary actions which may be taken, in order of severity are: dismissal, damotion without consent, reduction in pay, disciplinary suspension and written reprimand, or an appropriate coa.binatic of these disciplinary actions. The aforementioned types of disciplinary actions are aefined as follows: Dinnissal. The discharge of an employee from city r,ervico on the initiative of the appointing authority and with thu approval of the City Manager. Di n::inl ina r� Prmotion. The demotion of an employee from a ,'e.-ttan in onu class to a position in another class havin i • a lower maximum rate of pay. The demotion may be tem- C porary or permanent. • Disciplinary Suspension. The temporary separation from city service of an employee without compensation for a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days in any one (1) calendar year. Written Reprimand. After verbal consultation an official notification in writing by the appointing authority to the employee that there is cause for dissatisfaction with his services and that further disciplinary measures may be taken if the cause is not corrected. 3.5.5 Non Disciplinary Suspension: An appointing authority may temporarily suspend an employee from city service without pay for a period of not to exceed ten (10) days to permit an investigation in the matter of a disciplinary action. In the event the investigation, with or without the filing of a grievance and a hearing as provided for herein in section 3.5.3 and 3.6.3 hereof, developes in the employee's favor, and no disciplinary action is filed within the ten (10) day suspension period, the employee shall be reinstated to duty with all accrued salary and other benefits subject, however, to a later disciplinary action involving the same matter under investigation. All such suspensions shall be reported to the Personnel Officer within twenty four (24) hours of such action being taken. 3.5.7 Authority to Discipline: The appointing authority shall have the power and duty to take disciplinary actions pursuant to provisions of these Rules; provided, however, that when the appointing authority is different from the City Manager, the approval of the City Manager must be first obtained prior to taking the action. 3.5.3 Grounds for Discinlinary Action: The following shall con- stitute the grounds for disciplinary action. Any one of them may be sufficient upon which to base a disciplinary action. Fraud. Fraud in securing employment or making a false statement on an application for employment or on any supporting dOCllmpnts furnished with or made a part of any application. I nro- t n_o,:v. Incompetency such as failure to cor:ply with thr minimum standard of an employee's position for a sinnificant period of time. 7;rnlrr t. Inrxc:: :a nle npnle•ct of duty, such as failure [o purl urm ,:ut.irs rrq.lirurl of an employee within the position ,�:•. r;i ,n r.;, rncutw+ni_in l tie. wilful disol,edience and insubordination LIICh aU a willull failur^ LO .uh:ITit t0 duly appoint^,: and n^ acting supervision or to conform to duly established orders or directions of persons in a supervisory . position. Dishonesty. Dishonesty involving employment. Intoxication. Being under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating drugs while on duty. Addiction. Addiction to or habitual use of alcoholic beverages, narcotics or any habit forming drug. Absence. Inexcusable absence without leave. Crimes. Conviction of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, which shall be deemed to include only crimes involving dishonesty or character depravity. Discourteousness. Discourteous treatment of the public. Normally such behavior is grounds for reprimand, but more serious discipline shall be given in the event Of multiple reprimands for discourteousness. Unauthorized Use. Improper or unauthorized use of city property. Rules Violations. Violation of the rules and regulations of any department, which rules and regulations are adopted pursuant to these rules. Oath Refusal. Refusal to subscribe to an oath or affirma- tion which is required by law in connection with city employment. Wilful Conduct. Any wilful act of conduct undertaken in bad faith which either during or outside of duty hours is of such a nature that it causes discredit to fall on the city, the employee's department or division. Wilful failure to maintain proper decorum during working hours causing dis- credit to the employee's department or division also may be considered wilful misconduct. Sick Lra ve Ahuoe. Abune of sick leaee. Procedural Lapno. Knowingly failing to follow the pro - cedurcu net forth herein governing grievances when pursuing or intactinating a grievance. tnret b,m ism. fnaLLention to dut'i, tardiness, indolence, or negligence in the care and handling of city pro: ity. \ Inf ir--r Dlontal or physical infirmity or defects which • 9' C render the employee unfit for the proper performance of duty, as certified by a medical doctor, in writing. • Outside Employment. Outside employment not specifically authorized by the appointing authority. Gifts. Acceptance from any source of a reward, gift or other form of remuneration in addition to regular com- pensation for the performance of official duties. Falsities. Falsification of any city report or record, or of any report or record required to be or filed by the employee. Violations. Wilful violation of any of the provisions of the government code, lawful ordinances, resolutions, or any rules, regulations or policies which may be prescribed by the City Council or City Manager or depart- ment head. Political Activity. Improper political activity, pro- vided, however, nothing in these rules and regulations shall be construed as preventing any officer or employee from becoming or continuing to be a member of a political club or organization, or from attendance at a political meeting, or from enjoying freedom from all interference in casting the vote or from seeking or accepting election or appointment to public office; provided further, how- ever, that a person holding a position with the city must obtain a leave of absence before seeking election to the office of City Council member of the City of Rancho Cucacanga. A. No employee, or person seeking employment with the city, shall be employed, promoted, demoted or discharged, or in any way favored or discriminated against because of political opinions, except that no one shall be eligible to hold a position with the city who is or becomes sympathetic or affiliated with any group or movement that advocates the over- throw of the government by force or violence. Any employee of the city seeking election to any public office personally or for any other person or soliciting votes in favor of or against any proposi- tion to be submitted to the voters in any election shall not do so during working hours or while wearing a uniform or bodge identifyinq him or her with enploe- ment by the city, except, however, that such prohibition shell not be applicable to any employee appearing befcre aru public om.p luyee ';; organization of which he is a mnrt cr. 1.5.9 ni. :o lulim r�_�r.ri nn: Th.- appointinq authority shall have • do :v: ii`1 in.�n and roro:al authority and responsibility, and shall br allowed full freedom in such ratters, but subject ^_ ; f1 /_ 5 / in all respects to these rules and regulations. Suspension. All persons holding positions with the city shall be subject to suspension without pay for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, and also to demotion or removal from employment for misconduct, incompetency, inefficiency, failure to perform duties, or any other reason cited in these rules, but in all cases subject to the procedures, processes and restric- tions set forth in these rules. Reprimand. An appointing authority may reprimand a subordinate for cause. Such reprimand shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the employee. A signed copy shall he delivered to the Personnel officer along with a narrative report of the case. The reprimand shall be inserted into the file of the employee who is so reprimanded. Suspension Without PBV. An employee may be suspended without pay by the appointing authority, after careful investigation, for a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days in any one calendar year as a disciplinary measure, but only for cause. Before the effective date of the suspension the employee shall be furnished with a written statement setting forth reasons for such sus- pension. The employee will also be advised of his or her right of review, hearing and grievance under these rules and informed of the rules and procedures governing such appeals. Disciplinary Demotion. An appointing authority may demote an employee in pay range and /or salary of up to fifteen (15) percent in any continuous twelve (12) month period for disciplinary reasons. Before the effective date of said demotion the employee shall be advised of the action and the reasons therefor. Such action shall be subject to appeal under the procedures set forth in these rules. Provided, however, any employee who has received an increase in salary pursuant to the merit provisions of the pay plan may have a salary reduction to the extent of such rerit pay increase and such decrease shall not be construed as a "disciplinary action' but shall be subject to the grievance procedure. 3..:, rneva rose Pr-n.- r.l•:: 3.0.!1 ?_c t. <.�rs t� rv.ur:o iv�:c��iur�: A �)rinvancn shall be uycq 0 i hiu, lion ovo beh,rlf, con- -or. l:;i: i, u,, Sv :io1.. t,:d ue mi r..rpplied .m :�6 Li,:a ti,m r'� i( C- • 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 3, 1992 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer 6 Bill Holley, CS Director SUBJECT: Alta Loma and Red Hill Park -Basin Study Attached for Council approval is a proposal from Williamson and Schmid Engineering to study joint use potentials for the Alta Loma and Red Hill Basins. Staff has been in contact with the Flood Control District exploring the potential of park development and use of these flood control facilities. In order to explore this option, further detailed hydraulic, hydrologic and park utilization studies are required. The attached proposal would provide the information necessary to develop the joint use plans. The study would also provide further analysis of the storm drain master plan serving the Alta Loma Basin. It may be possible to develop this basin to an extent which would reduce flows onto Hermosa Street and make better utilization of the existing Haven Avenue storm drain. Williamson and Schmid was selected to prepare the study because of their unique computer capabilities for this type of study and their close relationship with the County Flood Control District. Their firm recently completed the County hydrologic design manual establish- ing the criteria for this type of analysis. The proposed study provides a unique opportunity to optimize utiliza- tion of the City's resources. The scope of work chosen would not include the "Other Tasks of In- terest", The $10,300 fee would be drawn 50% from Storm Drain Fees and 50; from Park Development Funds. PECOX:IENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the project proposal and authorize the Mayor to execute appropriate contracts in an amount not to exceed $10,300 to he drawn from the Storm Drain Fee fund and the Park Dovelopment fund. Respectfully sub-Atted � _, �,�.,..�, LBil: BH: jaa 9 x > October 12, 1982 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline, Suite A Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear qtr. Hubbs: SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN STUDYING THE REDHILL AND ALTA LOMA DETENTION BASINS; OUR JOB NO. 82253 1 sincerely appreciate the opportunity to prepare this proposal for studies regarding the subject detention basins. After our meeting last Thursday, l field - inspected both detention basins and tributary watersheds, as well as examined the pertinent Cucamonga Creek facilities and much of the watershed downstream of the subject basins. Based on the meeting's topics, I have prepared a proposal for engineering • services for your consideration and for discussion purposes. Several items are listed in this engineering study "shopping list" and many of these may be eliminated entirely from the project study scope. However, 1 included several mini - proposals for studies which you may be interested in pursuing now or, if you wish, at some later date. • When reviewing this proposal, please be aware that I have attempted to give the absolute minimum engineering fee that is feasible for Williamson and Schmid to contract at. I am very much aware of the competitiveness that currently exists for civil engineering work and have prepared the cost estimates based on the unique hydrology /hvdraulics computer software capability that Williamson and Schmid makes available. Additionally, the proposed studies will be based on the new San Bernardino County hydrology manual which as prepared by Williamson and Schmid. PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES Task No. Description Est. Cost I. Regenerate new master plan of drainage peak runoff rates and pipe sizes for Syste:n 02 based on L. D. King system $ 600.00 2. Regenerate new master plan of dr mage peak runoff rates anrd pipe sizes for System If 3 based on L. D. King system 550.50 Corporate Jfhr.n • 177.'.2 soy dark 'No Irvin. CAilorn;d 92711 M VS49S222 sar D:ego C oun1l UI I; c9 5375 A,m, ;a E 1'IS. :i!c t Cansbad, Cdldormo'.q CO3 14 438 ad32 —t -'1 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Our Job No. 82253 October 12, 1982 Page 2 Task No. Description Fst. Cost 3. Reg=enerate new master plan of drainage peak runoff rates and pipe sizes for System #4 based on L. D. King system $ 1,050.00 4. Determine 10, 25 and 100 -year runoff hydrographs tributary to the Redhill and Alta Loma detention basins 200.00 5. Determine existing detention basin capacities and current capabilities to handle a design 100 -year storm 550.00 6. Redhill Basin Study A. Determine minimum detention basin requirements needed for a 100 -year storm 250.00 B. Determine possible base line storm drain diversion 450.00 C. Determine possible storm drain system through the Redhill basin to Cucamonga Creek 450.00 D. Prepare preliminary feasibility study of converting portions or all of Redhill basin to recreational use • purposes (includes one meeting with City staff and one meeting with SBCFCD) 1,600.00 7. Alta Loma Basin Study A. Determine minimum detention basin requirements needed for a 100 -year storm assuming minimal flows into system 4 -C 600.00 B. Determine r!etent:on basin requ;re,rents for master ?Ism ^d '-t', and '' -I systems (L. n. Kin 650.00 C. Prepare prehrmnary fc IS0)'lity ,tuav of converting PM-,Ions or all of i2ecn:ll basin ro recreational use purposes (incl -ides one meeting with City staff and one meetim; wan S!1CFCD) 1,750.00 n. Reanalyze systems 'r -C and ncludin; the \Ita Loma detention has:n of feet; and orepare nc'.v master plan tar Systems d -(.; ano 4 -I 950.00 8. Prepare written report for steps 6 and 7 !c9cribed above 650.00 TOTAL CSTI%IATFD COST FOR TASKS I THROUGH 8 $10,300.00 • • Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Our Job No. 82253 October 12, 1982 Page 3 NOTE: Tasks 6(0) and 7(C) include a preliminary plan of required detention basin facilities, proposed recreational and parking areas and identifies potential traffic access. OTHER TASKS OF INTEREST 9. Regenerate peak runoff rates and master plan pipe sizes for remaining systems of L. D. King study report $ 1,950.00 10. Prepare detailed study of earthwork balance, drainage system, traffic access, and recreational area utilization optimization and develop several alternatives for City Staff consideration 4,500.00 II. Additional studies, alternatives, etc. on an extra job basis By signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to our office you ackn.owiedge your acceptance of this proposal, which constitutes a contract for professional services. We 'will commence work only after receipt of the executed copy of this proposal. Please confirm whether you wish to include any of the additional tasks in the proposed work (Items 9, 10, or 11). Carefully read the terms on the reverse side of the signature page, as they are an integral part • of this proposal. Thank you for .giving us the opportunity to be of service to you. If you should have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Ted Hro:nadka, Ph.D., P.E. S L nrJSU r ^.: :la2J }heft cc: \GREED AV) ACCEPTED: CITY OF RANCHO CUCA \IOXGA RY • T)ATE �� N (rte `yl�J 4 {r '•� t^' �` i : L 11 i $ v x e u � tiJ8 �: o �-' "•' h l'=[, nn:z lnv A.L �t , •c Pns +, , _- - < r -. y - _.HILLSIDE AVP•, -' -� 42" OQYO�f}y .. a .i 33 33 -.48" 33� 30� 33' "� 3-F F b- 0 3 H M. ... �.6 30' 42 3-K _.. 3Q' ' L] 45 ,39 � ALTA L @Ak BASINS - (� w.w.o. nlat.c vi >[urve .i• 'Q— C! 7f CF RANCtr:O CL'C.at' %'CA CC`AFREF:ENSIVE STORM CRAIN PLAN ?,10JZCT NO. 2— 3 ow — °�� 517 N. Euclid Avenue JUNE Ontario, CA 91762 1981 DRAWING 1 OF 10 • • dj� OWN 4� M.W.D. RIALTO -A -4 7 p lLtp,�---- 9X4 R .' 4-C 3 -'V.,W D IL ALTO PIPEL.m'E 4-K b-W 42! 4-P o P r w 36� 39M 48 6 7 0 4-0 L- 4-E 6 X z411 "Ir", scr - ve 0 BABE LINE RD. A 39 i. 57 Ly -G 46 IF A A4 LOCH STi OR t RCAVj1 4-Q 1"-2000' 30"636• 33.. f) FOOTHILL BLVD, CITY OF RANCX0 CUCXACNIGA CC,MFREHENSFVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT NO.2 - 4 rM<]nrZ 517 N. Euclid Avenue JUNE 1 ,I Jaw . Ontario, CA 91762 1981 DRAWING 1 I OF 17 0 1C ,5 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 27, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: James H. Robinson, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Appointment to the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission The following is a list of residents from Alta Loma who have submitted applications to serve on the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission. Ulla E. Sauers John A. Huggins John C. Book Sheryl Moody Wanda Dixon Carl P. Stark John D. Dunlap III Bradlee F. Williams '�vP Attached are copies of their applications for your review. JHR /mk Attachments ruo�(7p CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CI.16NONGA P.CL; I N I STu. r ln!• •J'I V i `CT 1lI 1jC_ 197 AA 713191101311=11121314016 CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: A..,,, ADDRESS FECNE :.. JCCUFh T1CN rvl!- n.e(uye c- a r.o. c..;,ig� EOUCATICN: (list highest year completed and all degrees) .cc lr.r Irsu r. ;n. Ci xr Col11 .e .�1 u. n .a ac in —s er lrrl in ucc,n,;ttoI Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. fr, rl:ct blro ra.n,. nys It ,...11x11 Why are you interested in this position? .cn.:.r :1.,:z • a_ i 1/ ✓I. c.m. l.ni tr 1111. to ye in to tr., .I.:., -, ..r; leials rn. r,Y I C, x..o! I,.- I r,, What do you consider to be your major qualifications? y .t,+r'i1nc. ,rs , — :r nx:h U;.. ltI i och,— l .tstrtc: 'Y rnf 1..'1[4..11 . x C.... i.E r. f I r al lr,Is :In(, c.,,,i {L (s Ut.I REFERENCES: 1 2 Plcaso attach a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel wmlld be useful to the City Council. POST111'p;l'CHOX x07 • RAN( '110('1'('.UIUNC.1,('. %[.It MCNIA 917311 • 171119tl9'ISA o— C'CANJO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (ca` Y U_ I> 19;7 CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: PLANNING C0101ISSION N 9280 Hillside Road, Rancho Pvio:JE 987 -3510 OCCUPATION U.S. Postal Employee EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) 15 + years - A.A. and Business Management Degree Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. none Why are you interested in this position ?I'm truly concerned about the future of our city and all its citizens. What do you consider to be your major qualifications? My 19 years o£ active comunity service including 6 years on the A.L. Chamber of Commerce Planning and Zoning Committee. .Plus studies in Urban Planing and Zoning. REFERENCES: 1. The Rancho Cucamonga Citv Council members 2 3 Please attach a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Council. 11OFTOFFICFROX807 • RAN(' 110010 ('A \111SC.A,CAI.IFORNIA91700 • (71U999-1851 • • • nC, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1417 CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: Citizen's. %dv;aony Cor.iss� n NAME Jlla E ADDRESS ".57 ° -e' -L Vista (:.lta '_ ^ma) PHONE o ^9 .1382 OCCUPATION Goyerrmont teacher EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) ?er':elay) plus two additional years of cost- rrcdu ?te work in mo:'ernrcn- and relRted areas. Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so', please list. "uesda• (tennornrily) Why are you interested in this position? = believe strongly in citizen in. • ut tha does not cl °:ter the Council's agenda; •Juan,. to cone nue ;Lci c service •d'aen retired frog to ;clang; l believe my exneriance and aducntion will be of .-U& .O ...._ j. What do you consider to be your major qualifications? Levotion to the :rinciples of citizen partici,.Rtion :.nd concern for the a sires and naeds of the citizenry; a mr.ster's degree in cublic administration and 3$ years o^ close scrutiny of loci E;overnmont as a nertscaperman and a teacher; a belief in solution to loc l crobloms by local officials and citizenry lest nu'.nority tr. usurr.id by higher acna ons of ,;overrnent. REFERENCES: 1. City loran �d,-sserman 2. Cnuncils:en ." iick -.u,,Uot end Dick Dahl 3. ::Ticr Jon :.ikols Please attach a written statement containing any addi G}onal infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Counli -4 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .'UMINISTRATION 1982 • 71819110(11112(112(51415,8 P)ST0rFI(9:00 %8e7 • RANCII()C'C(1\AOSGA.CAI.IFOR \IA21770 • (714)MM -l"I A. ?L_C .LION :'D Ss"RVS 05 CIII w tS ;- WrI30' -°.1 C0:_:15SICi; .. I am vtr; nuch concerned 7x, lack of citizenry interest in loenl government until t.._rs is a h. :oening that sparks anger by them tavard elected officials. I believe tie Citizents .- .dvisory Cocmission and its members could act as something in tha nature of ombudsmen, ^caring citizen cocr•?aints, acting as intermediary between citizom= and either staff or Council, making it easier to solve problems before they re,ch crisis :roportions. I believe Commission members should actively solicit citizen opinion rnd rawrt it to City officials. 'yhen the present ;:ariod of economic distress is ended aancho Cucamonga Grob -bly :rill experience a period of gra,•th far beyond what has preceded. Commission members npy to icle to take some of the conmonication burdens fr.:n the elected o:fiuiais in that event. I recognize the ;:otential difficulty of a strong Commission competing sith or at ior._erhecds with the Council or other commissions but believe sensible Commission .oIici.s can koep it active without usurping other government agencies' rowers. • In sofa moos, the Avisory commission should bx able to investigate and ^.�_ke re;:orta witnnut bu.^dening staff and I believe reecamentatiozu- to the Council should be m-,de not on the basis of what the Commission chinks is best but more what the citizenry ;rants or thdnka best. A. U. s, e:.CgdS Rl i�i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA p`1 u > 1977 CITIZEN'S APPLICATIONN�TO 'SERVE ON: /TdVi SOr l_ fjryl'NI$Sr 011 NAME < �l')I )_ _ �.% ✓�..'il lfrL7 .- ADDRESS / (• 7 S S P<s: i-� f}t'P . Fi I-fn pl..ormc� `; 91701 PHONE 1 7l��h%-/171 OCCUPATIONl7S51cu(,1f_ ryrrra.n �- EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) C141-c.gcril-6,11.4ini-e •SilrcrI fikSfe,-,(Alp /9 PLO e PC ii�a5ncries Are there any workday evenings you could not aeet? If so, Please- list. IIIUfvC Why are you interested in this position? AS '14 C.,c.i.n.,,�,la �. ti<r.c «�cZ: t.GI �n4ere5� i•r -/Irt Cit ,22"fll. What do you consider to be your major qualifications? Ct„cern �'c:,.(lir_ U.ZII- �.r�+rl n"f Hr:. Ct * +7,N ✓i+ %�y nr+nj ed�c<.�,orl<I Laek�vo.. -.e/ nrrCl i'rgr.��nrf. u REFERENCES: 1.:LJr.n h1is,,r, —a- +-C +Ire z. .1t rClA l ek (1-13) 3l'l• - ?K33 GcSry.L- e•cus,PA. ,If- Ccwrrrorr `(i;� „SEr.''I<dien Sirvw (7r,4 / 1yl-4yn y.y 1 �%"l".t el4 Sh�f'1217 �u4u of 5 /H4q I \[ryrGli�> C <r,Cp ,HO,v r:. ._ Please attach a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Council. �. POSTOPFICEROX007 a RANCNOCUCANONGA,CALIPORNIA91770 0 (714)010.1001 Cit: of :iana;lo Cucamn,-ya a.u. :;m ;C7 nuncho Cu:anvn,7a, CA 3173 -; wear Sirs: I a, supilyin,; tiis stater, nt as a supplement to cry citizen -s ciplication for a position on either the A&isor-• or ?lannin conmission. 1 have been a resident of the i:est End for sorm 12 ;ears, of •dnich the last tvn have been spent in the ci • of Rancho Cwa;.. n a. I hale been encour3;et by the rapil progress tie Ci y has Wade since its incorporation and ,;ould be deli,-hted to ta.:e part in aicin; to its I anly for a seat on i city commission out of concern. I belia.e the Cis: is in need of more concerned citizens she are to volunteer Lira to-.ards the betterment Of our fine comrunit ,,. 1 :none voc ,:ill consider me a serious candidate. Shank you. Sinoorely, • in Lunlan • Sn: y . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: APVISCFY CC!','InSION NAME John Lllen Huggins ADDRESS 1-224 Helms Avenue Rancho Cun•ironra. C-14fornia 91710 PHONE (714) 969 -5431 OCCUPATION Contractor EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) 1 "th (CrAuated) Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. - -- • Why are you interested in this position ?I ar.. interested in the _ develo•tient and ^rowth of this area what do you consider to be your major qualifications? °'•� ^P "nr'F�P - finish ^r inrt^ - T 111,P �nnple - T h:nra ahil+t" for tallinr rood de.cisionS and search for constructive cha11onrns. REFERENCES: 1. Vr 'AfL11v ^"vlson MOO U4 -(114 a e 3.-r. . .., 1, 1 „� . ., r, t,; f.h..1 roll) c1-^ - ?4o1 Please attach a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Council. u1. m p0ST9MCE 001M7 a RANCROCUCANONOA,CALIFORNIA 417" a (711)"1-1141 �'9 a4. April 29, 19Ea CIT.. Gi• :....0 u 1IIC.:: 3uhject: desune for advisory Co:isdssion I ;lave been in tk: C�c�1 VO1. \ \O9 �— 1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON= NAME ADDRESS PHONE OCCUPATION EDUCATION• (list highest year completed and all degrees) Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. • why are you interested in this position? • what do you consider to be your major qualifications? REFERENCES: 2. 3. Please att.ich a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Council. _;i I POST OFI'ICE BOX 807 • RANCIIOCCCA )I0BOA.CALIFORSLl91790 • (711)989.1951 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA,lV 011- GAUGA .ONGA < cps ADMINISTRnTION < S a'I ' r ra Ay 0 G 1982 F rp liz AY G n}SC i3hca, Ca.� - Y 7 i8t9.. �9 r�g34i5t6 197] CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: CITY PLD.N ?i ?Nli OOMMISSION NAME C." M PST3 STARK ADDRESS 3051 id,3C::Si00D DRI'✓3 ALTA LOilk, CAL. 91701 PHONE (714) 987 5111 OCCUPATION CONTRACTOR 0-27 EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) 12 years graduation and d12i0rla.. ,.2 years anginee:- i nw,_ adu certi.lcaatdR omm •. c a units ?usi ^.ess and Commercial law B units a�rtificat ?on Chaf1'eq College. Are thr!,e any workdhy evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. gatu dav every other el" seek and every third t5,esrlay in month. Why age you interested in this position? CQ=o nits interest relevant to soeclal exoorisnce and na3A1)?1.1ty that I can of lon- • What do you consider to be your major qualifications ?Undertalcln. of construction nrojacts. Administration of legal aspects. Co- operatir. in the anolieRtion of good judgement of values for monies expended and merr to of forsight for planning. REFERENCES: (714) 1. Dyson "; Cox, Hon taunlcinal Courts Ontaplc Ca. (988 1241)(1268) 213 z. Bruce Par;dlurst Local B a & 9oa rrl 3 of Trustee Pension Plan a83 181 7. Kenneth 9onll la ?.+D. Pomona, (714) 629 5021 Please attach a written statement containing any additional infor- mation you feel would be useful to the City Council. • 0-.), YOSTOFFICERO %807 • RANC111 )CC('A11O�(7A.CALIFOR8IA91730 0 4710989.18SI • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA :`ice' +'1�n� 1= I` x 1977 CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: ADVISORY COMMITTEE NAME ADDRESS 8060 Gardenia Avenue Pe ONE 287 -1452 OCCUPATION Transportation Planner, SCAG EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees) MS - Public Systems Engineering. University of Michigan BS Applied M� a hematics. University of Michigan Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please list. No Why are you interested in this position? I desire to be directly invol- yed in local goyprnrmnt and feel that I have some planning expertise to offer. What do you consider to be your major qualifications? Technical nlanoinu Pxperience (4 1/2 years) and an understanding of the political REFERENCES: 1• tim Gasnell Director of Transportation SCAG 2. w« Mrnaniel F ecutime Director SANBAG 1 . Larry Nalkcr Mayor Chino Plca:e attach a written statement containing any additional info,- Cation you feel would be useful to the City Council. o '! ' PfItiT OfFirt: I1(IX P07 0 NASCIIII (IUCA)IONGA•CALIFOIISIA91790 • (711)989.1851 Bggp1 cg FLOYD :71LLIAr'S 8060 Gardenia Avenue. • Pzlti tc:i, Califor -:ia 91701 (?14) 987 -14;2 O'JF`C'."IYE To billd upon demonstrate] tr..nsportation plan-n.tng ability in assuming roles of increasin.- renponsltillty in the planning and management of regional transit. mMSCrNAL Born. September 2, 1951; 5'8 ", 130 pounds; Msrried, four children.; Excellent health. ED "CA70n Master of Science in Nblic Systems Engineering The 1niversity of Michigan Lnstitu *_e of A,blic Policy Studies In a ?oint program with the College of L`:glneering January, 19 ?8 Bachelor of Science in AppliM mathe-matics The University of MichiCan College of ]hgineering December, 1973 W(' ..! 'r ?STMv Jan. :981 - sout!:ern California kssoclatior. of Cover..cents ,present Les Angeles, California Tranzporteticn Flarr:er, Transit Section Direct respcncitilities in long mnCe planning. Currently developing the line haul t _ncit elemo:;t of the iegicral Transportation Flnn. Develnpad work progran and AFP for the coem,ter mil element of tha.Santi Ana Transportation Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Jan. 1978 - Peat, 14nrwick, Mitchell k Co. Jan. 1991 Wanhington, D.C. Consultant, Transportation Croup Specialization in transit planning including travel denand forecasting, revenue and cost estimtim, and ztatictical analysis. ?, I 1 • l J r .• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: October 29, 1982 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: Park Advisory Commission Ordinance - Draft iiCy Find attached a draft Ordinance for the creation of a Parks Advisory Commission. The Ordinance is constructed as requested in a very general way, but at the same time gives Council the complete flexibility to direct the Advisory Commission to address any number of items relative to parks and recreation facilities. Should Council wish to be more explicit in duties and responsibilities contained within the Ordinance, we can add sections without any problem to meet your desires. The Citizens Advisory Commission reviewed the draft Ordinance at their meeting October 28. Details of that meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to your November 3 meeting. If I can provide further information, please advise. wLH:nm 04 19177 Ow I HANCE N). NI ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COU NCI4 OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIPORNIA, CREATING A PARK ADVISOR'( CONNISSIvN TO ACT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does crisis as follow: SECTION It Purmse. It is hereby found that the provision of Parka and r estlerol facilities are of A cultural, social, aesthetic And s Co..,. benefit . the eleitmns of the to .... ity, and that those benefits can be furthered through the creation of A Park Advisory Cceaimion. SECTION I: park Advisory Cmwiuion. There fa hereby otmeed the city of Rancho Cucarorpa Park Advisory Commission. SECTION 1: MembenAf p. This Perks Advlso(y Commission shall ..let of five (5) mtby rollers Who shall be Walden. of the city of Nacho C.Cmunga all appointed by the City Council, smbleet to the following condition. (a) The ten of office for each weber shall he four (4) Year., except that two (I) of the Members first appointed shall be designated to re for A OR. ea. . of n (2) Y, all theme U s ) • term of four (41 Wars, e a to, provide A cwtlmity of membership en the Commission, Thereafter. the term for each voting Member shall M four (4) Wars. An appointment to fill an uninspired term shall be for the reminder, of much ...pirSO tan. (b) A Commission Member my ba removed upon the mAjority vote Of • this entire City Council. SECTION 4: Term. The Mayor, With the eppt..l of the City C ... cil, shall appoint the first Chairperson from among the Members, eobject to the following conditions: The term of office of the Chairperson shall be for the calendA( yea(, or that portion examining after old Chaitpenon is appointed or elected. Thereafter, When there in a vacancy in the office of Mairpe.on, the Comnlralon sbell elect A Ch.irpe.on from men, ire MeMe.. SECTION 5: Administration. The Community Services Director shall act an Secretary to the Parks Advisory Commission and shall be the Custodian of its records, conduct official correspondence, and generally coordinate the clerical all technical Work of the Park. Advisory Commission in "ministering this Sane. a Coss UL Ordinance. nonce. The Community Services Director ay designate an alternate to Director d me the aServic o[ the y m SECTION It Duties of the Parks Advisory Commission. The Parks \,•VY' �Q Mvlsory Commission shall Dave the following outlast (al Tho Commission .hall revive park and recreational facility goals and objectives and make rero.mendaeions to the City Council on such mat Gera; 1 UJ Itq The Commission anal l review Y Yr matters relative to dark non rrn n eaCi li ti es� each as s:[. plan revlev' am rrnue. red by city Council and nake Comments, or recommendations to the City ruunoll as may h" apprui Race; and Con— hall t0 City CeUnCll on ('Inn t,,-on a., Is evekoe no[Inns brnnd4 .H• of imdm•nry ^nch•t.t muss dr. ve m, a pn�mity n of a; � ,:r ' iLtl :min ✓ n n[ IH•nett[ to ; all recreational Luv llUnn to Rancho i a v leas: x r mot. Tl1, SMI�TIO!: ]; y: rr^ ,s• T`n' park•: Advisory sort' mm, shall 'endnrt dvisorc'Y•rt.aur� l • ariafar .i tire; n'1 Nu:.11^ •n tin ls, tbn ! [e Ind :Jrndo,t which J ;.Ill In• nr.,i by S nolunicn 'r ininnb•,: n lit 1 City ctl. R 6 SCCttoN 9: The Mayor enall sian ch,s oral nn nc. and eM Ctr/ C elk sou 11 attest ca cne 5 and the Ctcr ^ r\ shall c e in, s e o be pa Elished +itnin fifteen, Ilsl days aft!r•its pnesno +,aat. !,A,' , n,.' r. rb: .ail, Ht Part, A ne•spaper of yerorn: a , oulauon. Published in th -C._ Oncu w, California, and circulated in the City of 2ancho Cucamonga, California. Attef c: PASS©, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1992. AYES: NOES: AMENT: City Clerk city Attorney L� 71 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM October 28, 1982 TO: City Manager and City Council .__ ,,�" 1977 FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manageryryj SUBJECT: Rand Report /The Impact of Rent Control on the Los Angeles Housing Market At Council's direction, staff has provided copies of the Rand Report that was requested at the City Council's last meeting. The Rand Report essentially outlines the impact of rent control in the Los Angeles area following the enactment of rent control laws in 1978. The study covers the characteristics of rent control, options for rent control, impact of rent control and provides some conclusions. If time permits staff would recommend reading the summary and conclusion sections to acquaint you with the Rand study. The report itself admits that the assessment of rent control effect's in Los Angeles cannot be generalized to other locations, but does highlight the impact of rent control in a controlled study and outlines some of the apparent advantages and disadvantages. It is interesting to note that the period surveyed from 1978 to 1982 showed the average controlled rent will be only 4% below what rent would have been without rent control. Eligibility for rent control was based on type of housing and tenure rather than on income or need. The report also concluded that a rent control program in which eligibility is based solely on housing type and tenure is not effective at zeroing in and helping low income households. This information is being provided to you well in advance of the November 3 Council meeting so you will have time to review the Rand Report. If you have any specific questions, please give me a call. The City Attorney is reviewing case law relating to the question of whether the City would be required to comply with CEOA guidelines and the necessity of an EIR as a prerequisite to adopting a rent stabilization ordinance. we hope to have this information available to you as soon as possible. In addition, Council had also asked that an estimate of rent stabilization costs to the city and petitioning applicants be prepared for your review. This information will be provided with the Council packet on Friday. Again, the issue of the proposed ordinance itself will be presented as part of the Public Hearing portion of the City Council agenda, however, the ordinance will not appear as a first reading item, but for discussion only. " Vlll VL' 1 \Al \V 11V VVVAl \1V1YVA `•LIIAIYI MEMORANDUM' , V I s November 3, 1982 FI VI. 1977 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Estimated Costs of Hearing Officer /Rent Stabilization Process - Supplement to City Council Report. In my memo in the City Council packet dated October 28, 1982, I concluded that the approximate costs for a hearing could vary between $500.00 and $5,000.00, excluding park and coach owner preparation of evidence. These additional "preparation" costs would include appraisals, accountants, attorney and expert witnesses. The attached memo dated November 3, 1982 from Jim Kosik, representing the park owners, estimates costs to park owners of $9,500 for the proceedings. Estimates for the tenants in his opinion would range between $5,500 and $9,500. Also attached is a specific example from Carlsbad outlining costs of arbitration proceedings recently concluded at Rancho Carlsbad for a total of $17,203.00. This obviously is an exceptional case, however, in that the park owner was raising the rent some $125.00. In addition to cost estimates for arbitration proceeding, the Western Mobile Home Association has provided "Selected Findings" from the E.I.R. for the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. JR /mk Attachments v.a.i a v' a�nivv.iiv v.�vniuvavvn �� Guv.nmp^,y MEMORANDUM O c x, November 3, 1982 H' 1977 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Estimated Costs of Hearing Officer /Rent Stabilization Process - Supplement to City Council Report. In my memo in the City Council packet dated October 28, 1982, I concluded that the approximate costs for a hearing could vary between $500.00 and $5,000.00, excluding park and coach owner preparation of evidence. These additional "preparation" costs would include appraisals, accountants, attorney and expert witnesses. The attached memo dated November 3, 1982 from Jim Kosik, representing the park owners, estimates costs to park owners of $9,500 for the proceedings. Estimates for the tenants in his opinion would range between $5,500 and $9,500. Also attached is a specific example from Carlsbad outlining costs of arbitration proceedings recently concluded at Rancho Carlsbad for a total of $17,203.00. This obviously is an exceptional case, however, in that the park owner was raising the rent some $125.00. In addition to cost estimates for arbitration proceeding, the Western Mobile Home Association has provided "Selected Findings" from the E.I.P. for the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. JR /mk Attachments Western Mobi!ehorrle Association DATE: November 3, 1982 TO: Jim Robinson, Assistant Cityy/ Manager FR0M: Rebecca Bell (for Jim Kosik)�((y SUBJECT: Costs of Arbitration // You will find attached a letter addressed to me from the attorneys for Rancho Carlsbad, a mobilehome community in Carlsbad, California. This letter details the actual costs to the park owner and residents for arbitration of a rent. increase. You will note that the San Diego office of the American Arbitration Association has indicated that should another mobilehome park rent arbitration be under- taken, their administrative fee will be higher due to the unforseen length and complexity of the proceeding. In addition to the costs billed by AAA which were split by the park owner and residents in accordance with the Lwo parties' signed agreement, the park owner estimates his rests for representation at the hearings at $40,000. This includes fees for three. MAI appraisers, an accountant, an attorney and an expert witness. In addition, the residents are estimated to have spent $10- 20,000 for their witnesses, which included an attorney and an MAI appraiser. C. Brent Swanson, attorney -at -law, Santa Ana, has provided the following figures as average costs for certain types of witnesses to these types of proceedings. His information is gleaned from appearing alongside these professionals at rent increase hearings before rent review commissions in several cities in California. Appraisal of the Park ...............$2,500 - $5,000 Accountant .. .........................$2,000 - 54,000 Aitnrnev ... .........................$3,000 - $6,000 Export LVitnr.s ......................$2,000 - 55,000 1225 81h Stmet, Suite 425 • Sacramento, CA 9i814 • (91614440847 Jim Robinson Novomber 3, 1982 Page 2 Both the park owner and the residents '. would incur these costs, with the park owner obligated to provide a witness in each of the above categories. The mobilehome park residents would more than likely need the services of at least an attorney, an appraiser and perhaps an expert witness and accountant. In addition, of course, the residents and park owner Mould be required to split the costs for arbitration. Using the most conservative figures provided by Mr. Swanson, the park owner would be spending a minimum of $9,500 for the proceedings, while the residents would be spending, at a minimum, between $5,500 and $9,500. Clearly, these costs are an unnecessary burden for both the park owner and the residents. The park owner's costs will be passed on to the residents in future rent increases, thus the residents are the real losers in the long run, regardless of the results of arbitration. Should you have any questions, please don't. hesitate to canLar_t me. RUB:sh SULLIVAN & JONES ' ,....,., AM..v+ At Lam' »..,b„ FINANCIAL SQUARE 600 "O "STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 (714) 2361611 October 30, 1981 Ms. Rebecca Brown 1225 Eighth Street, Suite 425 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Rancho Carlsbad Arbitration Dear Becky: This letter responds to your request for information regarding the cost of the arbitration proceedings recently concluded at Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park. The following costs were incurred (and divided equally) by the parties to the arbitration proceedings: . Administrative fee of the American Arbitration Association . . . $ 500.00 Compensation to the arbitrator (138 hours at $75 /hour) . . . . . . . . 10,350.00 Court reporters' fees and cost of transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,353.00 TOTAL $17,203.00 In a future arbitration proceeding to establish the fair rent at a mobilehome park, the administrative fee of the American Arbitration Association would (at least in San Diego) probably be higher. San Diego's local AAA administrator has made the comment that, when he set the fee for the Rancho Carlsbad proceeding, he underestimated the magnitude of the work that would need to be performed by AAA. io SULLIVAN & JONES Ms. Rebecca Brown October 30, 1991 Page Two If we can be of further service, let us know. Very yttruly Oyours, William R. Nevitt, Jr. WRN:clm P.S. Enclosed is a copy of the arbitrator's award. Western Mobilehome Association November 1, 1982 Mr. Jim Robinson Assistant city Manager p. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Dear Jim: I have attached for your information selected findings from the Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the City of Los Angeles. In many cases, the owners of mobilehome parks have suffered severe economic impacts as a result of the rent stabilization ordinance. The deterioration of mobilehome parks cannot be ignored in an analysis of this type, for its effects reach far beyond those normally associated with rental property deterioration. Not only do mobilehome park owners suffer the depreciation of their property, but the mobilehome owners, who are allegedly reaping the benefits of rent control, suffer damages at the time they decide to sell their homes. Despite their name, mobilehomes are seldom moved. Industry surveys report less than five percent of all mobilehomes are moved after situs in a mobilehome park. The mobilehome owner's ability to sell his or her home in a mobilehome park and realize a return on his investment is directly linked to the quality of the mobilehome park. As the EIR notes, " ..the question is not whether rent stabilization induces deterioration, but rather how rapidly it does so." (IV -30) The deterioration of mobilehome parks, then is not only affecting the value of the park owner's property, but also that of the very renters this ordinance is designed to aid. Any further discussion of the city's rent stabiliza- tion ordinance as it applies to mobilehome parks must address these issues. Thant: you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, JAMES1. KOSIK Direbter of Community and Industry Relations JFK:sh mh SO 12S nh. cA 9;514 • (915) 444.5577 Western Mobilehome Association. Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angeles October, 1981 SELECTED FI1rD1 \GS The number of demolitions has doubled in the two years since rent stabilization began. (1I1 -23) According to some economic theorists, substantial new construction of apartment buildings will not occur until. . the disparity between current rents and rents required to support new construction is substantially reduced. (I71 -39) Data clearly indicates a trend 'toward declining nobility of renter households since the imposition of rent stabilization. (III =50) Landlords not only continue to raise rents for new tenants higher than the market average, but with rent regulation they raise them higher than they would if there were no regulation, Landlords compensate for the limited annual increases for continuing tenants by setting inttial rents higher than they would have without the law. .(IV -37) Rent regulation allows landlords sn incentive to undermaintain their buildings. (IV -29) Traditional economic theory argues that in the long run, landlords will allot: the portion of their product that yields no rr:enue to disappear. d6terioration. (IV -20) Thy quost'ion is not, whether rent st.ubi.li.za't'iou induces dC..torioration, but rather how rapidly it does so. (IV -30) 'The lon -er rent regulation is in place, the greater the r ^duel, .ion in the "yna ?.t y'' of tbo hol-r.irlg stock duc. Lo d torioratloll 'l'hc lonycr the Vabili.zatiot. crd`u;t`.cc is in effect, •r ::a i:a• L1:c t.Ile grc`il,t Cr LT:C (?C ^:'lU1'atioil, $C:.bad, tt12 t, reut ra uctioW,,, th,t: grel -. vl Uta aeclino i.n Nl(ali.ty -• of. hou%ing (IV -3'L) . Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angeles SELECTED FINDINGS Page Two By 1990, only about 20 percent of the total loss of housing services are offset by gains from new construction. (IV -38) The city is trying to produce an additional 15,000 units. Extension of ;he rent stabilization ordinance could compromise . achievement , f that goal by causing additional 'demolitions at the same time the city is trying to add to the total number of housing units. (IV -41) Rental housing services at the end of the decade will be reduced by 3.2 percent as a result of rent regulation. (IV -42) By 1990, a reduction of the availability of housing services due to demolitions and conversions will be induced by the rent stabilization ordinance. (IV -43) With the city searching for new sources of revenue, a $1.1 million to $1.6 million annual reduction in property tax revenues is not inconsequential, even if it is not substantial. (IV -51) Rand's conclusion that the tax revenue effects of rent stabilization will persist beyond 1990.cannot be ignored. The average annual decreases in tax revenues are projected to be small (between $1.1 million and $1.6 million), but they will persist (in increasingly smaller amounts) after 1990, even if the ordinance is terminated in that year. (IV -52) . Either dropping the law or phasing it out mitigates the adverse effects on population dislocation anticipated with extension of the current ordinance. (VII -il) The city's ability to provide municipal services could be affected by extending the rent stabilization ordinance. Reductions in the quality and quantity of the housing stock could reduce revenues available to the city. The city's ability to provide public services could also be afice.ted by changes :i.n demand for those services. (VII -J2) Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angeles SELECTED FINDINGS Page Three The 5.6 no -cap. law and the 7.6, 10 law could have potentially significant adverse impacts upon the level of housing services. (VII -43) Of the alternatives studied, none of the rent stabilization alternatives except phasing out the law significantly mitigate the loss of housing services under rent stabilization. (VII -55) k .;, °o.gTNLE- NILGA TUTTLE & TAYLOR A. sCNN pN. MEIN w. CALL NMIERO• INCON PORAT.. yLinx+"A ATTORNEYS AT LAW J`.IENN ......IL ZE -ADEN [9wA.G w.Tmn[ =D1 WANE 609 SOUTH GRANO AVENUE USLe-u501 N�«sn[n[m LOS ANGELESr CALIFORNIA 90017 p[ "AN T[L[P"ON C: I215I .63-0000 JOSC��AU S'rN T .. W[TUx T[LCC OPICN: ILIJI OOJ022S L6 u3.N L. NOAFNN TWS'. 910- 3[1-3056 TUTTL[ A TAYLOR XLC S � NOXN[CRO' N. nA9L.. M R TT �LXArXa 1601 L $T9[[T. N.N.SUIT[ 606 aC R N�T. C. XU WASHINGTON, O.0 5 neN`io"GC. NALLE. N. ALAND."sA�NX..w October 29, 1982 12G[I OOI ouaGa NIA..• '— N.1Nnis`. ..ELNe. Le 1..EA J.. wSwan• W.I..E a. EIENIENO ZA.NNGO nmo . "/..T. L. NA— Mr. Jim Robinson Assistant City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga California 91730 Re: Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park, Ltd. Dear Mr. Robinson: Mr. Allan Wilk is the general partner of the entity which owns and operates Alta Laguna Mobile Home Park, located at 9210 Base Line in Rancho Cucamonga. He has asked us to reply to your memorandum of October 15, 1982, concerning the proposed Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. We apologize for not getting these comments to you prior to the October 20, 1982, council meeting. Since receipt of your memorandum and the enclosed proposed ordinance we have also received and reviewed copies of Robert A. Rizzo's memorandum of September 29, 1982, entitled " Mobilehome Park survey" (hereinafter "Survey ") and several newspaper reports on the recent council meeting. We should perhaps state our general conclusion at the outset: based on the applicable facts, the ordinance is not a proper exercise of the police power; the ordinance is in conflict with the statewide Mobilehome Residency Law; and, if enacted, would result in confiscation of the property of park owners. For these and other reasons we believe the proposed ordinance would be invalid and would feel compelled to so advise our client. We also join in the view apparently expressed by Mr. Swanson at the recent council meeting that before enacting the proposed ordinance the City must comply fully with the California Environmental Quality Act, particularly the requirements concerning the preparation of an environmental impact report. i TUTTLE & TAYLOR Mr. Jim Robinson October 29, 1982 Page Two our specific problems with the proposed ordinance are as follows: 1. Inade uate Basis For Exercise of Police Power. Section 8.10.010 of the proposed ordinance sets forth two justifications for enactment of the ordinance. The first is a purported "shortage of mobilehome sites." The survey shows, however, that there are 15 vacancies in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and an additional 51 vacancies in the immediate vicinity. Moreover, the declaration of the ordinance and the survey fail to acknowledge or account for the impact of Government Code Section 65852.3 and Health and Safety Code Section 18300 which permit mobilehome coaches tc be located on lots zoned for single - family use, whether or not in a formal mobilehome park. In these circumstances, the declaration that there is a "shortage" of available spaces is clearly unsupportable. The second is the finding that park owners have imposed "unreasonable rent increases." Again the survey obviously undercuts the veracity of this declaration. Particularly, the survey shows that Alta Laguna has the greatest number of luxury amenities but not the highest rents in the area. 2. Denial of Due Process. The ordinance establishes a July -June fiscal year for all parks, regardless of any pre- existing rent term or fiscal period, and freezes all rents at July 1, 1982, levels for one year S 8.10.050. Thereafter rents can be increased only in accordance with the "ratio of change in the Consumer Price Index" (S 8.10. 050.8) or pursuant to a petition for adjustment (S 8.10.060.A). The ordinance provides no standards or guidelines for adjustment by petition except that the park is to receive a just and reasonable return." Since the constitutionally minimum return which a park owner is entitled to receive is a fair return on the fair market value of the property subject to regulation, the articulated standard is inadequate. 3. Conflict with State Law. Because the statewide Mobilehome Residency Law, Cal. Civ. Code SS 798 et seq., comprehensively regulates the economic relationships between park owners and park residents, any local regulation of these relationships is preempted. Moreover, particular provisions of the proposed ordinance conflict directly with the Mobilehome Residency Law. For example, the proposed TUTTLEop &gTAYLOR Mr. Jim Robinson October 29, 1982 Page Three ordinance permits only one rent increase each twelve months (5 8.10.050) while the Mobilehome Residency Law permits increases at any time on sixty -days notice (Cal. Civ. Code 9 798.30) except where leases are in effect (see Cal. Civ. Code 5 798.18). The proposed ordinance also permits increases with little or no notice (S 8.10.050.C), while the Mobilehome Residency Law requires a minimum of sixty - days notice for any change in rent (Cal. Civ. Code S 798.30). Finally, the proposed ordinance interferes with the statutory grounds for termination of the tenancy of a mobilehome resident and conflicts directly with statewide statutory provisions regarding retaliation against tenants. (Cal. Civ. Code 5 1942.5.) Because the City's own factual Survey indicates a total lack of any reasonable basis on which to impose rent controls it is shocking that the council has even proposed adoption of a rent control ordinance. In the past, we have advised our client to seek damages through legal redress when a City's unconstitutional regulations impinge on our client's rights. If a local legislative body intentionally adopts an ordinance knowing that the factual and legal bases for its adoption are absent, we believe its individual members can also be held accountable for damages, and we would so advise our client if the proposed ordinance were adopted under the present circumstances. For these and other reasons we urge that the council not adopt the proposed ordinance. very truly yours, TUTTL TAYLORD By (� Joseph R. Austin JRA:ds cc: Mayor Jon D. Mikels Councilman Charles J. Buquet, II Councilman Richard M. Dahl Councilman James C. Frost Councilman Phillip D. Schlosser Mr. Allan Wilk n !� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM November 3, 1982 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Estimated Costs of Hearing Officer /Rent Stabilization Process - Supplement to City Council Report. In my memo in the City Council packet dated October 28, 1982, I concluded that the approximate costs for a hearing could vary between $500.00 and $5,000.00, excluding park and coach owner preparation of evidence. These additional "preparation" costs would include appraisals, accountants, attorney and expert witnesses. The attached memo dated November 3, 1982 from Jim Kosik, representing the park owners, estimates costs to park owners of $9,500 for the proceedings. Estimates for the tenants in his opinion would range between $5,500 and $9,500. Also attached is a specific example from Carlsbad outlining costs of arbitration proceedings recently concluded at Rancho Carlsbad for a total of $17,203.00. This obviously is an exceptional case, however, in that the park owner was raising the rent some $125.00. In addition to cost estimates for arbitration proceeding, the western Mobile Home Association has provided "Selected Findings" from the E.I.A. for the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. JR /mk Attachments b� 1Western N'lobi!enome Association DATE: November 3, 1982 T0: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager FROM; Rebecca Bell (for Jim Kosik SUBJECT: Costs of Arbitration You will find attached a letter addressed to me from the attorneys for Rancho Carlsbad, a mobilehome community in Carlsbad, California. This letter details the actual costs to the park owner and residents for arbitration of a rent, increase. You will note that the San Diego office of the American Arbitration Association has indicated that should another mobilehome park rent arbitration be under- taken, their administrative fee will be higher due to the unforseen length and complexity of the proceeding. In addition to the costs billed by AAA which were split by the park owner and residents in accordance with the two parties' signed agreement, the park owner estimates his costs for representation at the hearings at $40,000. This includes fees for three MAI appraisers, an accountant, :w atturney and an exp�,rl witness. In addition, the residents are estimated to have spent $10- 20,000 for their witnesses, which included an attorney and an MAI appraiser. C. Brant Swanson, attorney -at -law, Santa Ana, has provided I,he following figures as average costs for certain types of wit.r.,:sses to these types of proceedings. His information is gleaned from appearing alongside these professionals at rent, increase hearings heforp runt review commissions in several cities in California. Appraisal of the Park ...............$2,900 - $5,000 Accountant .......................... S2.000 _ $1.000 Attorney ............................ S3,000 - $ti,000 E:;p,•rt Witness ......................$2,000 - 55,000 1225 81h Street Suite 425 a Saaomenlo, CA 95814 a (916) 444.8647 Jim Robinson November 3, 1983 Page 2 Both the park owner and the residents would incur these costs, with the park owner ob,igated to provide a witness in each of the above categories. The mobilehome park residents would more than likely need the services of at least an attorney, an appraiser and perhaps an expert witness and accountant. In addition, of course, the residents and park owner would be required to split the costs for arbitration. Using the most conservative figures provided by Mr. Swanson, the park owner would be spending a minimum of $9,500 for the proceedings, while the residents would be spending, at a minimum, between $5,500 a,.d $9,500. Clearly, these costs are an unnecessary burden for both the park owner and the residents. The park owner's costs will be passed on to the residents in future rent increases, thus the residents are the real losers in the long run, regardless of the results of arbitration. Should you have anv questions, please don't hesitate to contact, me.. RLB: sh SULLIVAN & JONES • ,....,., Atmrney, At Law .. >..,w.. FINANCIAL SQUARE 1 MIf: "B "STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101 9141 2381811 October 30, 1981 Ms. Rebecca Brown 1225 Eighth Street, Suite 425 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: Rancho Carlsbad Arbitration Dear Becky: This letter responds to your request for information regarding the cost of the arbitration proceedings recently concluded at Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park. The following costs were incurred (and divided equally) by the parties to the arbitration proceedings: Administrative fee of the American Arbitration Association . . . $ 500.00 Compensation to the arbitrator (138 hours at $75 /hour) . . . . . . . . 10,350.00 Court reporters' fees and cost of transcript. . . . . . . . . . . 6,353.00 TOTAL $17,203.00 In a future arbitration proceeding to establish the fair rent at a mobilehome park, the administrative fee of the American Arbitration Association would (at least in San Diego) probably be higher. San Diego's local AAA administrator has made the comment that, when he set the fee for the Rancho Carlsbad proceeding, he underestimated the magnitude of the work that would need to be performed by AAA. SULLIVAN s JONES Ms. Rebecca Brown October 30, 1981 Paae Two If we can be of further service, let us know. Very truly ynyours, yt z)'o �� William R. Nevitt, Jr. WRN:clm P.S. Enclosed is a copy of the arbitrator's award. � � I Western Mobilehome Association November 1, 1982 Mr. Jim Robinson Assistant City Manager P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Dear Jim: I have attached for your information selected findings from the Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the City of Los Angeles. In many cases, the owners of mobilehome parks have suffered evere economic impacts as a result of the rent stabilization ordinance. The deterioration of mobilehome parks cannot be ignored in an analysis of this type, for its effects reach far beyond those normally associated with rental property deterioration. Not only do mobilehome park owners suffer the depreciation of their property, but the mobilehome owners, who are allegedly reaping the benefits of rent control, suffer damages at the time they decide to sell their homes. Despite their name, mobilehomes are seldom moved. Industry surveys report less than five percent of all mobilehomes are moved after situs in a mobilehome park. The mobilehome owner's ability to sell his or her home in a mobilehome park and realize a return on his investment is directly linked to the quality of the mobilehome park. As the EIR notes, ..the question is not whether rent stabilization induces deterioration, but rather how rapidly it does so.' (IV -30) The deterioration of mobilehome parks, then is not only affecting the value of the park owner's property, but also that of the very renters this ordinance is designed to aid. Any further discussion of the city's rent stabiliza- tion ordinance as it applies to mobilehome parks must address these issues. Thanl: you for your attention to these matters. .Sincel,cly, JAMEU'11 xoslx Di.rp.Lo;, of Community and Industry Relations JFK:sh 1275 611, Slreel, SWIl .117 • SAcomr.W, CA 9:611 • (916) 444 6n17 Western Mtobilehorn-- Rssoda; ion Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angelcs October, 1951 SELECTED FJNDINGS The number of demolitions has doubled in the two years ;;ince rent stabilization began. (III -23) According to some economic theorists, substantial new construction of apartment buildings will not occur until the disparity between cutrent rents and rents required to support new construction is substantially reduced. (I7I -39) Data clearly indicates a tread toward declining nobility of renter households since the imposition of rent stabilization. (Iii" -50) Landlords not only continue to raise rents for new tenants higher than the market average, but with rent regulation they raise them higher than they would if there were no regulation. Landlords compensate for the limited annual increases for continuing tenants by setting initial rents higher than they would have Without the law. .(IV -27) Rent, regulation allows landlords s.n Incentive to undernaintain their buildings. (IV -29) ' Traditional ecuaomic thso•cy argues that in the long run, landlorR ;, will allot,., the portion of their product that yields no r ^venue to disappear -vi.✓. dcLc.rioration. (IV -29) The: quostion is not whether rent; st.a.bi.l.i.vm Lion induces d(+'ierioration, bur. :rather how rapidly it does so. (IV -30) The lon;;or rant regulation is in place, the greater the reduc 1, ion in Mir: "civa ?,ty'' of tba hoa : :i ni: sCri due to deLt,riorat ion. (lv -9: %) The 'lomtcr t.hu r•:,::I. s: :dti!i. -ratio :. cr(_nan.ce is in cffer.t, the. g1-oalor the dci r:r Loral. i.ou. 'S W): rl, tl',+ real. rcuc Lion::, tit t;rot'.6';t th.• :i•clinc r, "g1n :Ii t.y" of housi :sl; :,u rvi c:,'s;. (IV-3 ?) �i Environmental Impact Report fox, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angeles SELECTED FINDINGS page Two By 1990, only about 20 percent of the total loss of housing services are offset by gains from new construction. (IV -38) The city is trying to produce an additional 15,000 units. Extension of tho rent stabilization ordinance could compromise achievement of that goal by causing additional 'demolitions at the same time the city is trying to add to the total number of housing units. (IV -41) Rental housing services at the end of the decade will be reduced by 3.2 percent as a result of rent regulation. (IV -42) By 1990, a reduction of the availability of housing services clue to demolitions and conversions will be induced by the rent stabilization ordinance. (IV -43) With.the city searching for new sources of revenue, a $1.1 million to $1.6 million annual reduction in property tax revenues is not inconsequential, even if it is not substantial. (IV -51) Hand's conclusion that the tax revenue effects of rent stabilization will persist beyond 1990.cannot be ignored. The average annual decreases in tax revenues are projected to be small (between $1.1 million and $1.6 million), but they will persist (in increasingly smaller amounts) after 1990, even if the ordinance is terminated in that year. (IV -52) Either dropping the law or phasing it out Mitigates "the adverse effects on population dislocation anticipated with extension of the current ordinance. (VII -11) The city's ability to provide municipal services could be affected by extending the rent stabilization ordinance. Reduel.ions in the quality and quantity of the housing stool; could reduce revcnuci,: available to the city. The city':; ability to provide public: services could also be nffected by changes :i.n demand for those services. (Vf I -)2) Environmental Impact Report for the Rent Stabilization Ordinance City of Los Angeles SELECTED FINDINGS Page Three The 5.6 no -cap. law and the 7.6, 10 law could have potentially significant adverse impacts upon the level of housing services. (VII -43) Of the alternatives studied, none of the rent stabilization alternatives except phasing out the law significantly mitigate the loss of housing services under rent stabilization. (VI I_ -55) BRUT SUBTEM TO REVISION October 27, 1982 Board of Directors City of Rancho Cucamonga Fedevelopnent Agency Post Office Box 807 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Financial Consultant Services City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing Gentlemen: This letter proposal is submitted in accordance with a request from Jack lam, Director of Gon nity Development. The proposal is concerned with furnishing financial consultant services to be performed in conjunction with the contemplated mortgage revenue bond financing (Project) as contemplated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The proposed services will be provided by Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates in association with Radie- Jensen and Johnson. We understand that our responsibilities to the 80.4 will be as follows: "Consultation with the underwriter, bond counsel and others as necessary concerning bond financing, timing, term, and their structure including the review and comment on: Structure of the plan of financing - Developer agrowents and cmmitment fee schedule Mortgaging sale and servicing agreements - Draft of preliminary official statement Feasibility study Other financing doc=ents necessary to establish terms of the bond issue." The follaaing are the services we will provide: 1. Scope of %brk A. General Assist in providing financial consultant services in con- nection with any and all financing requirenents as they pertain to the proposed Project. In this connection, we will make available to you the research, statistical and consultant staffs of the Fieldman, Polapp and Associates organization and of the Kadie- Jensen and Johnson organization to such extent as they may be necessary and helpful. Mr. William L. Fieldren, President of Fiel& ran, RDlapp and Associates, will be in overall charge of our effort. We will also advise on areas wherein the RDA can tailor the Project to meet the unique needs of the RD.A ( "Hard" and "Soft" areas) . B. Specific Services 1) Selection of Participants in Project. At FDA's request, we will assist in the selection of firms who will be required to perform other professional services in conjunction with the Project. These firms include, but are not limited to: a qualified bord underwriter whose reputation, financial strength, and experience will best serve the interest of the RDA and the Project; bond counsel, lenders, trustees, and feasibility consultants. 2) Review of Docwmnts. Review of the financial aspects of all docwmnts pertaining to the Project. This includes review and oanment on developer agreemnts, oom bmant fee schedule; mortgaging sale and servicing agreements, and marketing feasibility studies. 3) Mmicipal Bond Market. Furnish the RDA with infor- mation corncen=q the then current muucipal bond market conditions and make recammndations as to the technical details of the financing, including maturity schedules, funds, covenants, prior redemption schedules, and other details which will, in our opinion, make the proposed financing mst accept- able to the designated underwriter; and, therefore, marketable at the lowest possible interest rate. 4) Negotiated Sale. Assist the RDA in negotiating the sale of the contemplated bonds to the underwriter selected pursuant to 1.B.1), above. In this connection, we will review and commt and advise the RDA on coupon rates, the bond discount, and the underwriter's gross profit in an effort to assure a satisfactory net effective interest rate. 5) ,Official Statement. Assist the Imo in the review of the Official Statement prepared by the underwriter. If a due diligence meeting is held, uv will • rticipate in such due diligence meeting and assist you in the examination of pertinent financial data. 6) Consultation /Advice. Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary, arid, in addition, will be available for consultation and advice until such time as the bonds issued to finance the Project have been sold. These meetings include, but are not limited to, cork sessions and seminars and conferences with other professional consultants associated with the Project, prospective developers, and lenders. 7) Negotiaticns with State of California. Assist in negotiations with appropriate State of California agencies and officials concerning the recertification of the Project. 8) Project Negotiations. Assist in negotiations with developers, lenders, and others concerned with the Project. 9) Project Criteria. Assist in developing Project criteria in accordance with the City's housing element plan. 10) Critical Path. Assist in the development of the critical path of events. 11) Attendance at Bond Closing. We will canpute closing figures including accrued interest and assist in coordinating the events of the closing. 2. Fees Fees for services rendered hereunder shall be at our current hourly rates as shown on the attached schedule; provided, however, that if the contenplated financing is crnpleted within six months fran the date hereof, fees based on this rate schedule shall not exceed $45,000. It is understood and agreed that no services will be provided and subsequently billed without authorization by the MA or menbers of its staff. 3. Expenses We will pay our own out -of- pocket expenses; provided, however, that if travel outside of Southern California is necessary in the furtherance of the Project and such travel is authorized by the RDA, the RDA will reimburse us for all costs of such travel and expenses incident thereto, including lodging and subsistence. 4. Payment C� Fees and rekdxxse en ^expenses shall be due and payable monthly. 5. Terms The RDA may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice thereof to Consultant, provided that the FDA shall be obliged to pay - Cer�bmrb for all work performed and all direct costs incurred prior to aS receipt of notice of termination by the-Consultant- It is expressly understood that this agreement does not intend to and is not order any circumstances to be construed as requiring us to perform arty services which constitute the practice Of law; we are a iployed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. If the foregoing proposal is satisfactory to you, please take appropriate action to authorize its acceptance by signing and returning the duplicate copy hereof. Respectfully submitted, FMI aW, RJIAPP 6 ASSOCIATES William L. Fieldman VU:rs Enclosure Executed on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga RedeveloMmt Agency this day of , 1982. '��I it • I •N} BY Jon D. Mikels, CI4lilln37t Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS CURRENT SCHEDULE OF RATES OCTOBER 1, 1982 Principal Consultants William L. Fieldman Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates $85.00 Per Hour Lawrence G. Rolapp Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates $85.00 Per Hour Carl Kadie Kadie- Jensen & Johnson $85.00 Per Hour John Horan Kadie - Jensen & Johnson $85.00 Per Hour Secretarial Services $16.00 Per Hour 8081 Business Center Drive, Suite 803 • Irvine, California 92715 • (714) 752 -2781 vrl MEMORANDUM n46 oZ > Date: September 17, 1982 1977 To: Council Park Committee From: Bill Holley, Director, Comb unity Services Department Subject: Church Park /Marlborough /A Further Option The Church Street Park Project, which is the subject of the contract ratified by Council at your September 1 meeting, is proceeding ahead of schedule. We are moving with MDC's design firm rapidly and are on the 'third cut' of site plan designs currently. I feel we will all be pleased with the results of the work on this irregular shaped site. I did, however, wish to bring an option to you for your consideration. We could 'enhance' what will already be a good project by purchasing an additional 3.6+ acres immediately east of the park site, giving it a major access point from the neighborhood to the north, through the dead end of Center Avenue. Approximate coat should be around $120,000 to $130,000. Would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this item with you in detail and getting your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. WLH:nm cc: City Manager 1 i s x e e. j Pe, T 8anburyb Sue. M.B. ei71 Par. Wm. Hawker Sub., M.8.8/39 1 • _,. Rancho CucamongoCily ion -27 I 19q.7'� dR 0 i I 4 1 i s x e e. j Pe, T 8anburyb Sue. M.B. ei71 Par. Wm. Hawker Sub., M.8.8/39 1 • _,. Rancho CucamongoCily ion -27 I 19q.7'� dR 0 1 Cm Par. N.E.I /4, Sec.2, T.1S., R.M. I LvrS(C ' Assessor's Mao Book 1077, Page 27 ^ San Bernardino Counlry t I a - s ze.a un 2 I IT try eau C) V% 1 Cm Par. N.E.I /4, Sec.2, T.1S., R.M. I LvrS(C ' Assessor's Mao Book 1077, Page 27 ^ San Bernardino Counlry City of Fontana C A L I F O R N I A MEMORANDUM TO: City Managers d C unty Administrative Officer FROM: Jack D. Rate airman SUBJECT: Highlights of Cities /County Meeting - September 27, 1982 DATE: September 27, 1982 A regular monthly meeting of the Cities /County Managers was held at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, September 27, 1982, in the Conference Room of the City Hall, City of Fontana. The following is a synopsis of the items discussed: 1) Jean Carr, Public Participation Coordinator, made a presentation on the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Project. She handed out several papers and reports. Included in her discussion was the necessity to assess what type of hazardous waste treatment is needed in an area, to determine what type of facilities are needed to dispose of hazardous wastes, and to rank potential sites and facilities for hazardous wastes. Basically, the goal of the Southern California Hazardous Wast Management Project is to determine siting criteria, and the policies for hazardous disposal. Attached is the agenda that was developed for the Cities /County Conference You will note that it will be held on November 4 and 5, 1982, at the Lake Arrowhead Hilton. Room rates will be $65 for single or double occupancy. w Dinner on Thursday and breakfast on Friday will be provided for the entire !-• group. Please contact your councils and secure the names of the two designated representatives as soon as possible. The County is handling n' !,. the arrangements and they need to have some indication of not only the Co, number attending, but also a preference of a single or double room. Once again, the County Redevelopment Policy Agreement was reviewed. The input of the law offices of Brown 8 Nazarek, and the California Redevelop- ment, Agencies Association was discussed. This item will be on the / November-, 1982 Cities /County meeting. 4) Police pursuits were not discussed. 5) Don't forget the special Cities /County meeting to be held at Victorville on October 29, 1982. Please contact Jim Cox at your convenience regard- ing not only the members attending, but your preference for specifically designated activities. JDR:fh Attachment 1� Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Coma:.nity Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, November 3, 1982. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels Present were: City Council members Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. S2hlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; and Finance Director, Harry Empey. 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Founder's Day Parade on Saturday, November 9, 1982. b. Etiwanda Specific Plan hearings before the Planning Commission, Thursday, November 4, at 7:00 p.m. c. Mr. Wasserman requested that Council adjourn to an Executive Session regarding pending litigation. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -11 -3 in the amount of $124,379.10. B. Approval of Parcel Map 7267 submitted by Lewis Development Company (1) located on the west side of Rochester Avenue, north aide of Foothill Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 7267 C. Acceptance of Agreement, security and Final Map for Tract 12040 (2) submitted by the Anden Group located at the northeast corner of Turner Avenue and Arrow Route. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -189 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 10240 D. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Bonds for Minor (3) Director Review 82 -01, Goodyear Rubber Company located at 8814 Industrial Lane. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR MINOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 82 -01. (6) E. Notice of Completion for Minor Drainage Improvements 45- 50 -67. The minor drainage improvements project has been completed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. It is recommended that the city council approve acceptance of the project and authorize the city engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder and release performance surety and retention. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING TH; MINOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (45- 50 -67) AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. F. Release of Bonds and Notices of Completion: (5) Tract 8884 - located on the south side of Red Hill County Club Drive. Owner: Harnish, Morgan A Causey, Inc. Monument Bond $2,300.00 (6) Tract 9424 - located at Whirlaway between Jasper A Sapphire Monument Bond $1,080.00 (7) Tract 9427 - located on the south side of Banyan between Hermosa and Haven. Monument Bond $3,000.00 (8) Tract 9433 - located on the east side of Haven, south of Highland. Monument Bond $2,150.00 (9) D.P. 81 -11 - located at 8360 Archibald Avenue (Steer A Stein). Certificate of Deposit $5,200.00 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -11 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK. (10) G. Set Public Hearing for November 17, 1982 for Planned Development 81- 09 - Tentative Tract 11804 and 11805 - Allen. A total planned development of 76 condominium units on 11.03 acres of land in the R -3 and R -1 zones located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenues. (11) H. A request for authorization to award contract for Administrative Office and Central Supply storage modification. It is recommended 1 I. Forward Claim by Bobby Jo Young, Brandon C. . Go (12) Burgers, Inc., to the City Attorney for handling. J. Approval of Sheriff's substation improvements. Total cost not to (13) exceed $4000.00 Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. Item (14) was continued to the November 3rd meeting for discussion. Staff report by Jim Robinson. Bob Dougherty reported that at the last meeting the attorney representing the mobilehome park owners claimed that the draft ordinance under council discussion was considered as a "project" within the meaning of CEQA and that an environmental impact report would be required prior to the ordinance approval. Mr. Dougherty stated that what was referred to was an opinion issued by Legislative Counsel of California. After reviewing the opinion, Mr. Dougherty stated that it was his opinion that generally such an enactment would be subject to the provisions of that Act and would require the preparation of either an environmental impact report or a negative declaration. Therefore, an initial study would have to be done before the adoption of an ordinance since this would come under the definition of "project" as referred to in CEQA. Mr. Frost asked how these are relevant to local rent controls. Mr. Dougherty stated that ordinance will include in the amptus CEQA and that the courts have held that other type of ordinances are subject to the Act. Mr. Dougherty stated that he also looked at the Attorney General's opinion in which stated that "Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by a local agency are 'projects' within the meaning of CEQA. If the Ordinance or Resolution is discretionary in nature, is not categorically exempt, and may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report must be prepared before approval." Mr Dahl stated that has a member of the Committee which brought forth a recommendation at the last meeting and since many items have come to light with additional data yet to come, he would like to continue this to the next meeting in order to digest the material and come back with a further recommendation. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to continue the item to December 1, 1982. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: *Jack Emerson, Chapparel Heights Mobile Home Park, asked what the residents should do that have leases before them now for consideration. There being no further comments, the Mayor closed the meeting to public comments. Mi .a me:: :g . or . ier public comments: *Mr. Grossman, Alta Laguna, wanted to know whether they should pay their rents now. Mayor Mikels stated that they were not in a position to advise them. They would have to consult their own attorney. There being no further public comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Buquet expressed that we were compounding the problem by extending this so far for the City, park owners, and park tenants. He felt this should be dealt with sooner. Mr. Dahl stated that he felt likewise. If we could get all the necessary information sooner, then this could be put on the agenda sooner. Mr. Frost expressed that perhaps the time frame would not allow for input from the others. Discussion followed as to when this should come back to council. Motion to continued to December 1, 1982 was approved by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: Buquet. ABSENT: None. (15) B. 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. Staff report by Rick Gomez. City Clerk Wasseman read the title of Ordinance No. 185. ORDINANCE NO. 185 (second 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 BASE LINE ROAD AND IVY LANE FROM A -1 TO R -1. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 185. 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 Buquet, seconded by Dahl to approved Ordinance No, 185. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Buquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (16) 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS A. REPORT ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY ON BASE LINE AT ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. probl, i at high A. At a recent me mg with the s:uccents, he discussed with them that the City has other needy locations for signal lights. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council were: *Norman Guith, 6215 Hellman Avenue, Alta Loma. He went over some similar situations in Riverside showing that installation of a traffic signal does not necessarily out down accidents, but often causes more. *Gary Brown, 6439 Ziecon, addressed the use of a crossing guard or a volunteer. *Ray Rayburn, principal at Alta Loma High School, appreciated steps already taken by the City and expressed all three recent accidents were because of carelessness and may or may not have changed if a traffic signal were there. •Pam Wright, representing the PTSA Board urging and supporting a resolution of the problem; suggesting that the entrance to the Park parking lot be changed to front Vineyard Avenue instead of Base Line, and to install some barriers to prevent jay walking from the park. *Mike Perry, student body president at Alta Loma High School, suggested that perhaps a bridge could be installed. *Darrell Fulkerson suggested that some temporary lights be installed to see if they did help the situation. *Paul Sedans reported ways in which some students have suggested to earn funds to help the city in this situation. *Sharon, Romero recommended that the gates to the front of the school be closed, thus causing the foot traffic to be diverted to the sides of the school. Therefore, eliminating the necessity for crossing in front of the school. *Andy Moffett smitted a draft drawing of a stop sign which were used in the East and very effective -- the sign had a flip top which could be lowered during school hours, and raised at other times. *Livia Vallance stated she liked the plan which had been submitted by the pity staff. *Pat Nyler, had been put in charge of the Foothill Council Safety Program. She made a presentation offering to send out a safety survey to include the high school, junior high school, elementary schools and newpapers. Once the results were in they would present it to our engineering department. *David Pedrocelli, student at Alta Loma High, expressed approval of the change in the driveway. *Melvin Futrell, 2623 Topaz Street, urged a solution to the problem. *Mary Moffitt, Alta Lome school bus driver, suggested that a policeman could be used for safety crossing. There being no further comments, Mayor Mikels closed the public portion of the meeting. Motion: Moved by Dahl to proceed with the authorization for engineering services for the light to be in conjunction with the school board determination with the realignment of the parking lot egress and ingress with Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Schlosser was interested in the engineering study in order to be sure we would be doing it right and actually be resolving the problem. Mr. Buquet felt we should investigate more thoroughly what would happen when the traffic signal was installed. He felt more people would use Vineyard as a shortcut to Carnelian, and would create more traffic problem, at that point. Motion by Mr. Dahl died for a lack of a second. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to proceed with the engineering and traffic study and authorize purchase of the light. If the engineering study shows that the light is not necessary at this location, then the light could be used elsewhere in the community. Mr. Hubbs pointed out that the proposal establishes our design for that particular site and probably the light could not be used elsewhere. After further discussion, Mr. Dahl withdrew his second. Mr. Buquet seconded Mr. Schlosser's motion. Both concurred the motion should also state that this all would be in conjunction with the School Board's determination regarding the alignment of the parking lot entrances with Vineyard Avenue. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Mikels called a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. with all members of council and staff present. (17) B. Staff Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution No. 82 -192, and waive the entire reading. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 82 -192. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -192 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 3.5.3 THROUGH SECTIONS 3.5.11 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PERSONNEL RULES AND RGULATIONS ESTABLISHING REVISED EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES. (18) C. REPORT ON ALTA LOMA AND RED HILL PARK BASIN STUDY Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs and Bill Holley. *Ray Reyburn, principal at Alta Loma High School, stated that he could not commit the Chaffey Board of Trustees to anything, but that the school and city did have a lot of joint use of recreational fields at the high school. They have been approached by some specific groups with plans to include a stadium. The new high school in Etiwanda will probably not have the funds to build a stadium so there will be some joint use between the high schools. He suggested that perhaps we could get some joint planning with the youth sport groups, high schools and city to build a stadium to house a lighted soccer, baseball and football fields within the same facility. There being no further public input, Mayor Mikels closed the public portion of the meeting. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve the project proposals and to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements with Williamson and Schmid, amount not to exceed $10,300. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There were none. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY COMMISSION B. it Appointment was for the unexpired term created by the resignation. of Helen Blanchard. Mayor Mikels asked if there were any other nominations to add to the list which was before them. There were none. Nominations were: Ulla E. Bauers John C. Book Wanda Dixon John D. Dunlap III Pam Henry John A. Huggins Sheryl Moody Carl P. Stark Bradlee P. Williams Ballots were distributed to each councilman by the city clerk for voting. Each councilman was instructed to vote for one name. City Clerk Wasserman collected the ballots, and both he and the Mayor nounted the ballots. Results were announced as follows: Book - 1 vote Moody - 1 vote Henry - 3 votes Pam Henry was the new member on the CAC to fill the unexpired term of Helen Blanchard. The term would run through November 1985. (19) (20) Dave Bonham, president of the Citrus Little League, felt such a committee would help in resolve their field uses and problems which the Little League has. He recommended that council continue with the formation of the Commission. *Ion Baer, member of the CAC, stated he has been against the appointment of another Commission within the city. If council feels this is a moat and that a fifteen- member body would be too large to handle the parks issues, then he recommended the Commission comprise of at least one member from each community on the CAC to deal with the matters and make recommendations to the Council. *Larry McNeil, 7084 Alta Quests, recommended that council proceed with the formation of the parks commission. There being no further input from the public, Mayor Mikels closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Dahl recommended that we retain the Commission level for the group and that it should not be tied with the CAC. He would like to see members of the CAC on this commisaion however. He further recommended that we adopt the two changes recommended by the CAC which were: SECTION 6: Duties of the Parks Advisory Commission (b) The Commission shall review et"r all matters relative to park and recreation facilities, such as site plan review, as requested by city council and make comments or recommendations to the city council as may be appropriate; and (e) The Commission shall make recommendations to City Council on broad, general budgetary matters, (relative to their area of responsibility,) such as developing a priority listing of capital improvementa of benefit to parks and recreational facilities in Rancho Cucamonga. Motion: Moved by Dahl to approve adoption of the proposed Ordinance as revised by the CAC. Mr. Wasserman stated that the City Attorney needed to work on this since it did not mention code sections. We would bring this back at the next meeting for first reading. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to direct staff to prepare a codified ordinance as modified by the CAC and bring back at the next meeting for consideration. Mayor Mikels stated he would have a Linkage between the membership from the CAC on the PAC. He felt it could piggyback the CAC agenda. *Don Baer expressed that usually members chould be involved on the commission, but the meetings should be held separately from the CAC meetings. Discussion followed regarding the linkage between the Citizens Advisory Commission and the Parks Advisory Commission. C. NOES: Buquet, Frost ABSTAINED: Mikels Motion: Moved by Buquet for the parks commission be selected by council from the CAC. Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Frost suggested that since there was a lack of a second to Mr. Buquet's motion, that council should set a special meeting to discuss the CAC and its role. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to create a body from the CAC to deal specifically with parks and other things as outlined in Mr. Dahl's memo; that appointments be by the Mayor with ratification by the Council, and to come back at the next meeting with a draft ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Buquat, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: Dahl. should put this on the agenda for the next meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, f � " Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk 4 (21)