Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1983/11/16 - Agenda Packet
CrrY OF RANC W CLUANIOWA CPTY COUNCIL AGENIk Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, Calirormia November 16, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. liar Meeting 111 items submitted for the City Council Agemda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:On p.m. ou the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's office reoei�s all sash itm. • 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. P. Roll Call: Buquet o , Dahl , Frost I , Schlosser , and Mikels C. Approval of Minutes: None submitted. 2. ANNODNCE16NTs a. Thursday, November 17, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING, Lions Park Community Center. b. Wednesday, November 23, 1983, 7:00 p.m. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETiNG, Lions Park Community Center. c. Thursday, December 1, 1983, 7:30 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING, Lions Park Community Center. 0 City Council Agenda -2- November 16, 1983 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83 -11 -16 and Payroll ending 1 10 -30-53 in the total amount of $524,621.58. b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 and Assessment District 3 82 -2 Warrants for October for $253,473.16 and $6,210.00. c. Forward Claim No. CL 83 -47 against the City by S. Kennedy to 5 the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. d. Forward Claim No. CL83 -48 against the City by Ray Royster and 6 Ray Royster, Sr. to the City Attorney and Insurance Carrier for handling. e. Alcoholic Beverage Application No. AB83 -21 for On -Sale Beer A 8 Wine Eating Place License, Mimi's Deli, Marlen and William Kellas, 9799 Base Line Road, Suite A. • f. Alcoholic Beverage Application No. AB83 -22 for On -Sale Beer A 9 Wine Eating Place License for The Sassy Steer, Cheryl and Eduard Dobrzynski, 9030 Vineyard Avenue. F,. Approval to accept Bonds and Agreement for a portion of Tract 11 9351 submitted by Lewis Development Co., located on the west sine of Sapphire between 19th and Banyan. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -187 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENT AORE:F,MENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR A PORTION OF TRACT 9351 h. Approval of Imnrovament dm "eement ,d Security ror 9833 2`0 Hichi „nd Avenuo submitted by doe and Maria Dias RESOLUTION NO. 83-188 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT „ND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR 9833 HICHI,AND AVENUE 49 City Council Agenda -3- November 16, 1983 r Li I . Approval of a Cooperative Agreement No. AG83 -64 with the Department of Transportation (CalTrans) for the design and construction of a traffic signal at 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. This project is on the City's 1983-84 Capital Improvement Program. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -189 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. J. Approval of Improvement Extension Agreement and Improvement 36 Security for Tracts 11663 and 12019 - Marlborough Development Corporation - located on the east side of Archibald, south of Church. RESOLUTION N0. 83 -190 37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT • EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 11663 AND 12019 k. Approval of Intent to Vacate the Fast /West Alley located 40 between 8th Street and Acacia Street, East of Cottage Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -191 42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE THE EAST /NEST ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 8TH STREET, EAST OF COTTAGE AVENUE. 1. Approval of Agreement No. AG83 -65 for design services for a 46 traffic signal at Carnelian Street and Lemon Avenue. This project appears on the City's 1983-84 budget for capital improvem -n`s. m. Approval of Final Tract Map No. 12305, a two lot condominium 49 development on the north side of 19th Street and the east side of Hellman Avenue, and acceptance of bonds and agreement for construction of a portion of 19th Street and Hellman Avenue nubmitted by Charles Roy Construction, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 83-192 50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12305. City Council Agenda -4- November 16, 1983 J n. Approval to solicit bids for City -wide Concrete Repair Annual 60 Maintenance Contract. o. Approval of Map Amendment for Final Tract Map No. 11350 72 submitted by Lowy Development Corporation (formerly Lesney) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Base Line Road. - n- ESOLUTION NO. 83 -193 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDING MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350. p. Approval of release of a portion of Letter of Credit for 4th 75 Street Storm Drain - located on the north side of 4th Street 23001 west of Etiwanda Avenue. The bank will continue to hold $176,000 for six months as guarantee of labor and materials. Developer: Etiwanda Investment Company (Plc -N -Save) Release Letter of Credit $352,000.00 • q. Approval to accept a Real Property Improvement Contract and 76 Lien Agreement for CUP 81 -03 for construction of a median island on Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue (Miller's Outpost). RESOLUTION NO. 83 -194 77 A RESOLUTION OF TUJMJLTY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,- _ RNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DAVID AND DENYSE MILLER FOR CUP 81 -03 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. r. Approval to begin employee development and training program 81 with Ross -Lewis A .Associates. Cost of the program is $7,000; amount is budgeted. s. Set public hearing of December 7, 1983: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Denying General Plan Amendment 83 -043 and Zone Change 93 -04B - Sycamore Investments. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Office to Neighborhood Commercial and a zone change from A -P (Administrative Professional) to C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on 5.44 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Rase Line - APN 202- 181 -27. 46 City Council Agenda -5- November 16, 1983 • t. Set public hearing of December 7, 1983: Amendment to Final Map 11350 - Lowy. The applicant is requesting approval for architectural, site 'plbn and amendment' to the lot lines for the previously approved Tract 11350, 114 Lownhomes located on 10 acres of land on the northwest corner of Base Line and Hermosa - APN 202 - 182 -13. u. Set public hearing c: December 7, 1983: Environmental Assessment and Planned Development 83 -04 (Tentative Tract 12386) - TAC. A change of zone from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 54 townhomes on 4.3 acres of land generally located west of Vineyard, north of Arrow - APN 207- 211-16. V. Set public hearing of December 7, 1983 Proposed Development Agreement - PD 83 -01 Calmark. Approval of the developer agreement for the Heritage Park senior citizen apartment units located northwest of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue, south of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. w. Approval of Resolution to set public hearing of December 21, 82 1983: for the intent to change street names of Pepper Court to • Culpepper Court and Pepper Street to Culpepper Street. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -195 83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO CHANGE THE NAME OF PEPPER COURT TO CULPEPPER COURT AND PEPPER STREET TO CULPEPPER STREET. 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DISTRICT MAP. Review and consideration of the proposed Development Code and Map to replace the current Interim Zoning Ordinance. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. ORDINANCE NO. 7.11 (second reading) 87 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAM040A MUNICIAPL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE. City Council Agenda -6- November 16, 1983 B. ORDERING THE WORK IN CDNNECIION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 15 FOR 89 TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1, AND 12237-2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -196 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAIVTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12237, 12231-1 AND 12237 -2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION OF OPERATIONS POR 94 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 HOAR-3 HEAD An appeal for the review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is located within the Rancho Plaza located on the nort'iweat corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. • D. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENTING GENERAL PLAN 129 AMENDMENT 83 -04A AND ZONE CHARGE 83 -04A GRNRLIAN INVESTMENTS. A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) and a change or zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential) on approximately 7 acres of land located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 21a -08. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. 5. NON- ADVERTIZED PUBLIC HEARING A. CONSIDERATION OF Al&NDM3NT TO CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE RANCHO 155 CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO REDEFINE CERTAIN WORDS. ORDINANCE NO 212 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE. BY AMENDING SECTION 1.04.010 (G) TO REDEFINE THE WORDS "MUST" AND "SHAI,L" AND BY ADDING SECTION 1.04.100 TO PROVIDE THAT NO CODE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR ADMI)ISTRATIVE REGULATION SHALL CREATE OR IMPOSE A MANDATORY DUTY FOR OR UPON THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OR ANY OFFICFH OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. City Council Agenda -7- November 16, 1983 6. CITY HMGER•S REPORYS A. REQUEST FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY TO SUPPORT 158 RELIGENSING OF HYDROBLECIRIC PROJECTS. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. RE80LUTION NO. 83 -197 159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY_ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF RELICENSING OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY R. CONSIDERATION OF CATV CONSULTANT. Oral report by Lauren Wasserman, City Manager. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS A, COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN AMBULANCE ORDINANCE. Staff report 172 by Robert Dougherty, City Attorney. • No items submitted. S. COUNCIL HO3IN638 9. ADJOURNWHT CITY rr n1VrV0 SOC VI^VF4 VAO PFCCVCILIATlrV 1111615+ • ': f �•P i Vr•r 7 V r y n r P 9 A F 4W ^Ilr 9r1YpM4�, o1sCru"T -AFT It ^53 11 ^54 11 "- 11'•`• T I. .c. 1' ^5^ 11`51 1 I "' itv -1 II ^tc !1 ^w5 11'.55 11 n.n ll "9 11'15'. 11 ,TI 11 "' ll ^7i I1 ^74 Ii9i5 11 ]" t l9M 11 :7n I1 •an rn ett 1 >551 V 559 I xAI Iq ^tl 1 ItSi 1G.5^ In :Si 1.154 _ 115" 1 ^57I to.'1 7< 115's inST. 1n c7T 1 ^5I9 L.v.9 IG S9n I9w1 4'150) In S.ii 19 "c f- �5 1 rSil I -aa, 10500 � ^tvl n thl 1' 59 4 1 1n 49 11'9: 1994 I9 S•r T I.rS9• R 1 •t 4•t) ^415 nG�v • I^ 141 741 AS" 6514 16 14 I,45 uG�.. lir 9 Sal' ..a 1. V ^I9 V.. I VI 11 V' 19 11I 1 1'1G 1�x+ 1i 9i Ill, 14S, lA4` 1 . ' x• < Tilb 147 J�y4 Vr'In t +t ,5 ?n 1555 ^5r.• `•r 1 �7 4114 4t ^1 H ]^ < 4.A, A �wi 71 7 <w•1 40" 4an] 65,]5 5.]n 9.i14.aJ 430 r.'/ 3n.Jr, 51. ^n 1a R..)IT .4i 75.9) 75. 6'.5n 50 ]0.00 1 ^.n0 19. 77.51 Sn 94. n0 40.50 179.0^ 5. 611.0 j5. ^0 15.99 15 19 15.90 S1.JC 4.970.09 SS�nn t9.99 IS ?.00 1.547 tp 6.I5 171.04 7 X41.41 1.053. SC 5 ^0.90 L.'. 75 77.00 1.009.90 4]7.65 t 13.04 Il. vs 1.7 M.]6 5.465.09 5.117.49 ?1 1 46 1.M1 99.17 1.]09.00 79.17 149:10 13.•'7 7.750.]0 IS.n1 Ar." ?0.91 9.44 7.146.4^ 57. 157.94 �Cn.91.76 00 1 75.09 S OO.CO 1.14 11300.09 200.00 'IS' CITY ^T %Il?!CK` rIIEANIN6A VA4P A VFA• A V F Ny 1 C R N A 4 E ,o,n' 4 ^�^ 15 11VL.` L11 HFF INC I•En. .1p /A4 In5n4 Slrn 1• ;PA•• pborR •n•,45 5144 I•ILA4nSS 111 :" FIFCT%IC 1 16M A5 +2 Kryc 4b PIN T1VITr ENT 1 nECR [°t I'Mc -CARING I °'f. 56 pip YIrIG TWINFIFRS9 L O 11•1U 61 rS LFF -LINT l- nlhTIV4 1! 1.1' %PVSh In AN iv41a N.4•] LATPn Cr4%TP•1CT1CN Fn Ie61, is L.N. JACK t.cl4 ET>' UAt1P r- rat IF CIiIF$ 1.615 C °11 ln5 R•GFL'.... ri 1.616 'I n4 N C N RFrPTGTNIG 1.411 In[ "f ASC FKAFR CNrpq ,", TIP, °1 IY AI^ An AKF In T FJ I1NI ^•1 SFRVICF I ^r.n 1.+' vAT TC4 CJ1 ,,SJI Tlet '1:'Tno^L4 14C ,.SP. 714'1 •T VT =Y C14" C YERR^P I45,] 71.65 •1:1 1•v 1^ 14 TA45 n191 FLFCan IC l," I'll P'.TTn• SALfS CnRP in r.+4 lino PIT4F1 PI3NFS 1]tJ• •n5 P,'4A 9ISTPI,INT1`!i LD 'tol - ^FCT'.I"N I1Yn ^MILK Sys 1.6. ' loon p ^c55-TIG' 14ST PTC, 1 ?631 "'n' - PE VPIT ISN I^.63I 1157 . F o AUT^.AnTTVF 1 ^611 ')IS ^,Vlw MINIM AL + ?e l' qa.l c1u CIM1 MFITCAL CLINIC Iar,l4 R ^.5 Roo 'I T. INC 1 ^615 °Ill 111,119••5 TI PFVfrN ••5lE 'U` PI >TC, Pn-r RT P4'R SA4 A414` Cr o,IRCH PCPT ^51n 1,' -1 %%N -nNr Cn S4ERIFFs 1 ^eln .441 SAN A ^N,; Cn 11Lll MARE i 1n4t+ ^pS CHUr STFFL S'JPrLY Cr 1"A41 ^T FYCn lv4A•I11 CIA. 7n54f 51 STVr4 nAY ANTI ARTS I'•64' V'9'+. YTNM° MO. 4610 1.1441 °5I7 s^ CAI IF 'n TS ^'1 r0 IuN<s Rrp4 Sr: AI IF ^As Cn .All VI LLIF kAY•,ir4nF NCYT 11.41 -gar [TATIhrl) PANnS -AINT 5 Cn ^.P 1 ^44: +•••^ O1 ^VpnRS %FRVIEF IV SS^ 4'c4 045 -4LSI Ff n T^NEK ^14n V.AS911n1 A l Ie4 [' .I T,, V -•1 Vn,1,_r S4c T.P FnS ac i,5e w ) N^5T�P4 N1:IHYAYTPPI1lKKT 10555 ^4^' N111TIIr Y, YAAY ;'A%f 54^1 I, TICnCK AATT"Y F.^ m 51 ..115 l%TR4.1A, nICKV 11rm I'll TYI FP, JON" 11 n'4nln, PAl' b.4. n1 I,L 1, '4AC I'r4pJ ^n•IYfC, '041ST THE In..S` J�In TINA, TAT 4111 W RANT - FC,IpYCILIATI1- Al TC PEFEaIf'CF II/l6 /!1 DISC ^V'rt °CT FINAL TnTALS PTC 4.1IF .TA It 115 YS 1.10: �Il .1444 711.1 VI 14T 74 1.14$ 6411'4 ES 13 117111 .I it, I" 144.7^ )1.16 44.171..1 1 °4.51 511. T1 414.06 7)4 oP .00.tC 13.In l)n.•) 45.01 llr.i 15.'19 In. ?r 1r.9C 1'1.49 o%.ir 1 n. 7r • • • C� C filo RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE 10/3 10/3 10/3 10/3 10/3 10111 10 /11 10/13 WARRANT A 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 VENDOR Ritz Camera General Telephone Surveyor's Service Associated Engineers Richard Mills Associates Bonadiman- McCain Richard Mills Associated Engineers Bonadiman- McCain • WARRANT REGISTER 82 -1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ACTIVITY ACCOUNT N printing 6 Publications Utilities 49 -23 -24 Capital Equipment 49 -23 -44 Contract Services 49 -23 -28 49 -23 -28 Contract Services 49 -23 -28 Contract Services 49 -23 -28 Contract Services 49 -23 -28 Contract Services 49 -23 -28 Contract Services AMOUNT $ 16.12 22.55 2953.85 2765.91 3129.50 225800.00 253.50 1096.58 17435.15 $253,473.16 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE 10/11/83 WARRANT .% VLNDOR 514 Don Owen h Associates • • WARRANT REGISTER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 81 -2 ACTIVITY ACCOUNT " AMOUNT Contract Services 53 -23 -28 $6210.00 $6210.00 I te • CLAIM FOR D.vM^GE OR INJURY mn- ys�jp�+ -,gw Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed not later than 100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911 •2). Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). S7 Pg e >ZL . oAddress to which Claimant wishes notices sent. - \ WHEN did dcmcg: or injury occur? !N[i„ yi.r , / / /�.% C�`c%c �/Uc'•� CIN.t'Na u/.t/ / WHERE did damage or injury occur? HO'JJ and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? y ,�fjjRK O.t'E d7^ y L`ifiP I .('C,s d l/v7 /ice- .?CC,70 sr 7-71E f.e rrrCiis 'Txe- �.eur/� ✓SN =t f r.. � 1� rf ,f�irn'lJ 'e.rcc Er /O yi !✓n s .F. ✓o r• x Fn our 6,,-' zjnc �►�+N �- ham'/: llt.ri f' /1 Di.erc•r H:T o.v My -e& r Cc/i�.l7siriECO o{ 74 ✓Nrua• WHAT particulcr action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of emoloyees, if known) ydF /:•[ c' •��f�Yt,G� RL"S�/dF'1 i/I L E — 4rt'.t'Ne' Al. /1cr Div NO r- /OENy'f1 _ {' enarE Him Jfrt TF i/�t y�r.rc Ar+,:K /v,rrtau,-A�,punrF'T3ir<c ,ri�criaN' :.vr,oa WHAT mm do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known at 11se time of tike presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed: (Attach estimates at Lil Is, if possible) / \ CG,Ffr,rfi�-.A' l / +c rr/. {RIpnXt lS 1/`&— R —ex.1 It �.{ /�,•/ :. ..r. / s r! c rJ' t_f�I r, nl.. - r9h �p, nca. � S _ S O G Total Amount Claimed: CITY OF�RAKHO CUCA9AMOWA NAMES and oddresses of witnesses, dartors and Hospitals: NOV 07 N3 — 7 9�tAybf41f�1�Z�:iy1�6f8 ' UA" c Ib ?n) CRY OF RANCNO UCAQOWA ADMINISTRATION AN OCT 3103 PH .6911114�f1�2 8*44 CLAP1 AGAINST THR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAI NW!'L OF C',AINANTS: Ray Royster and Ray Royster, Jr. AUU3 °SS OF CLAIDIANTS: 7415 Hellman Avenue, Cucamonga, CA 91730. 'dArINTNG: NO mail or correspondence is to be addressed or delivered to the above- stated address of the claimants. All correspondence is to be directed to the c:. aimants' attorneys, the law firm of ROBERTS 6 MORGAN, P.O. Box 5980, Riverside, California 92517. CWCUPRF.NCF: This is a claim for implied equitable indemnity express indemnity and declaratory relief for an underlying pending lawsuit entitled Eric J. Klock, et al. vs. City of Rancho Cucamonga, et al., County of San Bernardino Superior Court Case Number OCV 30895. The lawsuit was served on these • claimants on September 8, 1983. The underlying action is based on an accident occurring on October 15, 1982, which gives rise to the under- lying lawsuit against these defendants /claimants. The subject accident occurred on Baseline Road, east of Vineyard, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California. GENERAL DF.SCIPPTION This accident arises out of a motor vehicle - bicycle OF CLAIM AVD accident occurring on Baseline Road in the City of DAMAGES: Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California. is This claim is one for eouitable indemnity, implied indemnity and for declortory relief for the apportionment of damages, if any damages are held to answer by these defendants /claimants in the underlying lawsuit. The facts of this accident known to these defendants /claimants at this time are that the City of poncho Cucamonga did construct, design, engineer and maintain Baseline Road east of Vinevarc in the City of Rancho Cucamonga at or about the 1,lta Loma High School parking lot in the area whore the subiect accident 6 Claim Against the City of Rancho Cucamonga Claimants: Ray Royster and Ray Royster, Jr. Pave Two occurred. It is the defendants /claimants belief that the City of Rancho Cucamonga failed to properly construct, design, engineer and maintain the roadway thus creating a dangerous condition of public property. Further, the accident scene was absent of warning devices or traffic control signs or signals which would constitute a safe pattern of traffic control. The lack of these traffic regulatory signs and signals and the aforementioned roadway constituted a dangerous condition. The City of Rancho Cucamonga was either on notice or on constructive notice of these dangerous conditions prior to the subject accident of October 15, 1982. • The damages surroundina this lawsuit are speculative. This is a complaint for personal injuries and no claim or specified demand has teen made on these defendants /claimants at the present time. On the basis of the foregoing liability as expressed in the above paragraphs, these claimants contend that they are entitled to total indemnity and /or equitable contribution from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for damages that may be received by plaintiffs Eric J. Klock and /or tarry Klock, in the underlying lawsuit against these defendants/ claimants. The actual names of the public employees who designed, constructed, maintained or controlled that portion of the roadway as outlined in this claim are unknown at this time to these claimants. DATED: Octob,,r 26, 1983. �J RORER .S F MORCAN R '.JUA RRU Ci4 MORG AN N / • Attorneys fof of fendants/ Claimants, RhY ROYSTER and RAY P,OYSTFR, JR. TI r Copy" me, "o iss C�,2,, (`��'U. �j`j - 0. see w'rxe AMvi rM< LAw N xrNewwen o1Mi f ly AMLKATION FOR ALCONOUC DIVUA04 ILICENSRLS) 1, TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO. ,Deportment of Alcoholic Beverage Cwtrol RECEIPT NO, 1901 Eroodwoy San Bornerclino `n 7-•1-, Boor d. 'ins - ..� _ GEOGRAPHICAL Socrornerdo, Coli }.95818 ilti'll ees • .. • x.w ,... .1, .:.: CODE The underiogned hweby applies fw Date licenses described as follows: Issued Temp. Permit Z. NAMES) OF APPLICANT(S) Applied wrier Sec. SSW( ❑ - Jr ' : ^1,.: .i. .i��1 C.a "• Effective Dote: —' ," Effective Dote: S. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) FEE tic. TYPE E :3.-'D ',1 ♦. Nome of business ...lit I. S. I.N.N. of bu +inen— Number and Street 3/.1 7 City and Zip Code Count' $ .;nc..) 'L :C :.;»n'a L7'03 ':a: r. r: :1� TOTAL -�- onow type or u<ense -- b. Moiling Address (if different from 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? IN 7. Are Premises Inside _ City Limits? t `" Street «emel mnnl 10. Have you ever violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Deportment per• toining to the Act? . j 11. E.ploin a "YES" omwer ro items 9 or 10 on an attachment which shall be deemed port of this application. 12. Applicant ogre.. (a) that any manager employed in on•wb licensed premises will have all the qualification of a R<ensee, and (b) that he .vill not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic beverage Control Act. 17. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of .___. c ------------ _- _'i�3'.-- :2_ ____________ Und« Nrnbr .1 Nrrvrr wrF , .Mw IieNMr ppexl Nlo. eaupl wN r Ali n, n :M p,lv.nf w w N 4 . NM.nh, rT.« N 1 rolne „nd , ,M LrMi^< NMir.l Hlr wM.riM rl m.b IAn de«na. N .lrc.�b A a1 e r rrd.rM N w r .nl rflr;nM Mm �m p,M. ~1 NM'II q: 1 1 M MI I-. Ir w . 11 I .INr ry «iNNm« N Ir.1« N M1 M«NI M Mcl -.a .1, ewv— m. • I ll IMI n. e«N .M rn n. IM «I In M <ryw lv IN rM«IM R-. 1- v6.0 Mil .NIn."N MI Y IN 1 I,b N r:sr P,—.1 N 1— ...111M M.n Ir ... P... der .AA IAf ryeNd .A IM D1.11 -1 1« a ,v*M N Nhed MI 14 1-0,, \r MrM ..,l.l . M. m. ten n. tsWl, ne D«. -I . pN 14. APPLICANT SIGNHERE ____________ ___ __ ___ ________________ '_____, ----------------------------------------------------------- ti APPLICATION 611 TRANS:LROR • STATE OF CALIFORNIA County ol -------------------------------------- Dom ------------------- .-------- UM« N 11 .I Nrlwl .xA .«Nn «MN .i<n.M. Neer. MI.. rvnfn .n. I.r. ill N. ,I M. .N h n M..mIM . w« .1 IM Iry.N 1-p «. IM 1 «.e«n< rM;Iss N M. Mil .11.N I. N11, It, 4 nerN IMn .e M. vn I.n..M W-.l.l ev., .M N • M mli.m .e wIw.n.n . iMn.M .n M. .NN .elect N Mi. pNI..Mn 1�m, rI•IN.A .rw.l« 'n .ern.. \r M. aM.rlw, ifl M.I M. N.ml« .NIrc.Iiwl .r ow r1.n0M n ,wl in.M N ..INIr M. n1^.m .l . Iwn n N M1IIM .n MN.wnl .nNrN vre rlw. Mw .true bn I«. vs IM ..r .n .A..Ir IM x.n.M .p .n I. aw .IM Nn p.w.IlNm .r N <.in .r NNMiN II.In.m. r. n In mr .Neer N IIN.lern n w MIrM w I.W. err o".. N ,n.Nrn, e, nn M. ,N.h. .ppw.. +Nr M .iM.I.... \v .MN M NN4wr. n IN Mw.n .IT N r uvo NMlwr N NN IN.rllnNl IA Namefsl of licensee(,) 11, Sionature(Q of li censee(s) P A n 19. license Number(s) C0 PY e. e. N . 4 e•rrr. •11 ro'i.. a stur w<]t. Yee. IN. ux—ew M..Nr.mr. ".. oeN AMIICATION FOR ALCONOUC BEVERAGE EICENSE(S) I. TYPES) OF LICENSES) FILE NO. 10Department of Alcoholic Beverage Coihol 1901 Broadway RECEIPL O.. '7n�i �'"n - 1CI'IIDIY'a7110 3N j J9 GEOGRAPHICAL Sarramewn, Calif. 95818 The undersigned hereby applies for "" .li i-:.LCZ CODE jG'IS Dote If ..... dumbed or follower Applied under Sec. 24014 C3 Issued Z. NAME(5) OF APPLICANT(S) Temp. Permit Ghe:'," 1 u iXil /OSL Effective Date: Effective Date: ]. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S) FEE LIC. TYPE S 7D0.00 49 CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 -'•'S C'r 2- 28 �. Name of Business Off -hC . - ,.*co— AY IY 5. Location of,Blainess— Number and Street 00;;3 iLley02C: Ave. City and Zip Code County $ _ if1T1 v't.0 Ll: (',.L�OC'"D 9'17,;) LpIl J.ITO. TOTAL "Q�.21 If Prcmians Licensed, ,. / IcJ =I %�� SIL"JD Li; :I1C. �'�����,) 7. Are Premises Inside ",e Show Type of license City Limits? 8. Maibng Addross (if different from 5)— Number and Street J -11 in,.nl 9. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 10. Have you ever violated any al the provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per- " Coining to the Act? f IT. E.plain a "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 an an attachment which shall be deemed part of this applicolion. 12 Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on -tole licensed preni will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not rV.1. or cave or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, I]. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of .4:RI'dlIln __. _ _ ._______pole �0.�)_£3�__- ______- Ynde, —11, u , n pie. ,nn., ene t e. ,M . i •ew •. nppl.� , n•d p. ,A. le, ....Wo do!, eme,..d• u" " ,1 I'1,, 1. "1 p.n and^' µrA.� Nur.el -ur 1A , a,A nd o •1 rA• .. •ppl p,y! ] r1.N n- 'i ,p 1., • neb a c.il",p, ,..r iu plA.p rvA�. AN d,N .venN rp .pplit ew1 . e.• nneo.1 1 .een iM i. rw .An n .,.r., e..a � nd•.. n.oa.• n.rr .1 . �iee. . wiAll .•en ..p1,M^e °Op' de. p. . e.. ,iv p "" _nA ,,w a.r. ....., ,.1., w 1., genN er ..... 1 da,ued •>, n . o.dner Ante „arsons. •a e,p, ee. —0.1 —el-1— . 1i,u n b, .,A.• u. ap.l.mn. .. ,. pN.u. _ee w ,ov,n. wr" Id. APPLICANT J SIGN HERE SC------------------------------------------------------ --- .------ .._..._.._.------------- .___..----------------------- APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR Is STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of ------- _ --------------- _--------------- Date ---------------------------- V.N, .•n•I,r .I 111.1 wolf .N _A... My..Ilxrye..nv l N 1p M • , co•_ N,iln ..d . I .. A. inw . e N el ,p . u ., .enwd IN ry ..... we. MI —AI A,l n., ww"' •n pu I" rvo M wort, —11, .10o N ..... y. in ,p u '.1 6—eW AMI._ .M , e e.dN • ... y•M in pa .4 weew d "'u w ..1 .wA .-0- 1 Y. - a.,N 111 M, 1-n n.N wv. p.M,- p—it. ow .1 . N N 1.141, .e.. ^Nd n • M1w , Mp N•.L,vi ow b, • ..A p AIN —14 cone eossu , NIN .Mil., N nw N dNnud N • , n.4u d 1 -0o.. v ,A.. ,M uenv, ..p war -In o. 1, view dw INn.N _IM NIM.li N ew two—'vent , 16. Nome(,) of licros.0s) 17. Signal.,,(,) of Llcenu e(s) 18. License Numbers) _ — — I N' Rdk4 CrN (�LSi�Ml11YT �w,t d.u6 Le r SeS:J Si[Ui Pcm -Y r_Sa S r�r�L iS loc�+rri, cti it luesr 5 /De of l ue 4 i; i10 r lf"I(c 3 ca'uJeek) re.71OL L Pou!<otiilb ti ub 5rr) 'G'r nl iU /i.ini) 2011C AND AD311CeNr Te) kZifle-2 C'�rV. Ccti "PrAJTbfi iONeD 03 eAsr / C -Z I War /FP 'x Caeun�NL IAN l�ii/iCL i AD Ace NT !- 20 PeA7 efS — NoR7N �iYlG�ecar� �eS iL�ncAi/I ( C-Asr lifemweee dC s� �I Y�tIN� UIM(:'n1114S Gf G� UN AA L i 1 N' Rdk4 CrN (�LSi�Ml11YT �w,t d.u6 Le r SeS:J Si[Ui Pcm -Y r_Sa S r�r�L iS loc�+rri, cti it luesr 5 /De of l ue 4 i; i10 r lf"I(c 3 ca'uJeek) re.71OL L Pou!<otiilb ti ub 5rr) 'G'r nl iU /i.ini) 2011C AND AD311CeNr Te) kZifle-2 C'�rV. Ccti "PrAJTbfi iONeD 03 eAsr / C -Z I War /FP 'x Caeun�NL IAN l�ii/iCL i AD Ace NT !- 20 PeA7 efS — NoR7N �iYlG�ecar� �eS iL�ncAi/I ( C-Asr lifemweee dC • LJ aiarr n�rvarri c. Ci F F DATE: November 16, 1983 U., $ � 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bonds and Agreement for a portion of Tract 9351 submitted by Lewis Homes of California located on the west side of Sapphire between 19th and Banyan The attached resolution is for the acceptance of bonds and agreement to guarantee the construction of certain public improvements in conjunction with the development of Tract 9351 located on the west side of Sapphire between 19th and Banyan. The tract was previously started by Mark III and subsequently purchased by Lewis Homes. The attached bonds are for the remaining items to be constructed: Faithful Performance Bond: $92,500.00 Labor and Material Bond: 546,250.00 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the bonds and agreement from Lewis Homes of California. Resp_%ctfullly submyded. LBfVJM:jaa Attachments iu 01 1 _,^ I ...• . j . 'Y� •� • �YY. i f• /.• , ", max. I,m •� § - y T S ITt ��... • 802OER n .' u.ri! � ..1t2 • .n.lfl titlC� y`c` .1 �'i^ CITY OF Rr1NCi 10 CUCAN10NCA ,�°`;�•1'iJ, ". ENL�INEERI \G C; •, DIVISIO;\ T �m 1' VICINITY NIAP i N -- Pagc RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 -02CR / c '% A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR A PORTION OF TRACT NO. 9351 WHEREAS, the Bonds and Agreement for Tract No. 9351, consisting of 35 lots, is submitted by Lewis Homes of California, Developer, located on the west side of Sapphire between 19th and Banyan. The Final Map was submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 Developer has offered the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution by said City, together with good and sufficient Improvement Security. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and • 2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, ity M-erk Is jad 1� Jon D. Mi a s, ayor 0 /I RRRCMO CUC Yd1 EETT OE ENER T AURE INPROVENERT po f)TRACI 93SI s DarN on I That thls a9reemoft he Bt THESE D0. ,D tni'r'tn the provislnai f the RXv4 AG PEN 1n Coll ^. .ce "' Califc• ^! +• mo r.9 +. a Cuc+ Into, late of 0.111 coo ..dl end enured Act "1 one S city f Co' eid the Det +1111111 f 6Y and lopme ^t SuDdSVislon Ordinances bev cox pora[lon, ¢Dplic+b 1< + munlclD +1 the it we Le C.111 ornle. referred to as the oG Veloper. n11rei oaf ter to at referred h ere in. rter 4tTNE$SE14 certsin de r lily Developer desires to .DD rpved 4 OEREAS, s +10 ondtianallY T NAT. It .t shown on tht an d C 9J51; 1n sat0 onion of Tr+ct x11+1 DropertY tall repuiQem`n tt as . v aye cto I dlvls'oh inorn Itned f C Y n,s IIIto to doroval S¢0911x11 1t � sold de YM[REAS, tp¢ rest Don feau sl 9 Oerellou to De Pet DY sd0 led .,I,I 9<ner a^I in .nd DY suDdivislon I and Be Y l9t a9 re lid by told City be he en Is ner<Dy It n9V, THE0.to, In.,% at +s to con6tbe"- Otd oe+ el op or agrees Gr hereby on Da9e cr ID.t er ¢lop d+te nereof. I. T ill I. love me ht, des • s eau 11111 from the efrecUre of the of twelrG Pontns on tn! date tnls Itper' 1111 effective at rlth'n �-,j City .pprnvin9f of l p+- 'd da 1 t+ the E, Tn is x9111. ncl default on .h eaten - pe In unless lof s.IdLitDDasrhlereinofterDro r<soluUpn This.9reement We .91..a.ntflrit 1nh""Wy Y by said tn9 :1 me 1st been 9r.nud f of time to slon .n eel ension be subP]tted to Pd, 11411il halt the eloper PSuch request s he eaDlr+tlon D11roro t d. l Iel.of. dry' it -+nce, W of less th+n �d st+temenl f [trtuhave the eitte the h sp+11 ne eam9 contain The City a/ In cludln t the City In wr end 9sna11 time. ¢111111 t. 9 rin.1 ner ", eaten Non da! of Lnli; �r IPDlov emeDt seW n9 to the Drovislons t"W. ch+n9e ntlA ..1.11lutrl H9nt to erl lie cast ey If any tubs U st .nda ds. the rill is cons Liu .t ion d isle. hereof. coPD1Y rith eJ.11 + ne an0 to term or nlllectt b the r19nt daurr lid durini A f.11i Dbe tewful spell --t .. 11 the 9ev<loDepent, tpe City be .ni surety nli .... Won, of this A�94e Drovisl ons end/-' . the bereloper t.. cev at lily time t" ecov er from Ineerred. tlY+itio lq ^COs tan + +l� le and 11x0111511 Patel e metered the Gyut.11ont. the 9eveloper sN 11 Dr olstr lc t. Ip +<cord +nce S The Veler pf s+lf derel"Dn<nt cucam en e+[n lot for ret�on ..to, y[nedules, ene fees of the be responsible all De I to er vn I'M .... min is of any cgm.... 6. The olqulred taco at er ons ¢mor alo flict nth [onitEn9i e¢r alnd the owner of re lo[ +t'on, 9r H sY, ym In con 1111 etitfac to p^ of the C Y t the be constructed tYS tem. reDUired to 6 eclfiNtlant of "0 0 SP 1 IP proreme It and St +nderd pr the Standard conform [p 9 /I 0 1). The Devele,c, Is resp ors lble for meeting all camel- clans es tabil,hed by Ina Clly pur,uanl to the Sab *i r l s l on map • act. Cl ty Ord Iances, ono this agreement for the development, and for ilia to l Mena.,, of all Improvements constructed thereunder It II the Imploeeaent „ ac Ce Pted for maintenance by the Clly, and no Improvement security provided heralnmllh tnetl be releesad before such AC,ePlenr. Vnle,s other.$,. provided and eutno111e4 the City. And to the Improvement plan Approved by and an I11_• In the oft ice of the City Engineer. Sal. improvements are tabulated on the Construction and Bond Estimate, hereby Incorporated on page 6 hereof, 11 tahm from the Improvement plans listed thereon by nuube•. the JereloDer shell also be responsible for con,lr'm- kid. of Any transitions or other Incidental mark beyond lee tract boundaries a afford far safety and proper iprface dralmape, Errors or ommissinn, discovered during constructin shall be corrected upon the direction of the City Engineer. Rey ised fork due to said plan modifications shall be ca vared by the provls'ons Of thit +gee ... nl and secured by the surety covering the prig 1.1 planned marks. B. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of mark all ragul.ti.ns listed thereon shall be observed, lti, attention given to safety procedures, control of dust, raise, or other nuisance to the or N, and to proper notification Of pu>l lc utilities and City DePallmehtS. Failure to comply with to is section shall be subject to the penalties provided therefor. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose racks and other door,, Irom Public rights -of -way v m nto or moll in i ng INd development resul lino from work relative • said development. lo. pork 6.1. within ealsling streets shall be diligently pursued to coup L•tion; be City shall have the right to complete any and all wort in the event of unJustilied delay in camplet ton, and to recover all cost and expense Incurred from the Developer and/or his contractor by any awful means. 11. Said Developer shall at all times fail.min9 dee•aa- tlon of the streets And easement' In said fub,divisioo, up to the completion and acceptance of said work or inorovemant by said City Council. give good and adequate warning to the traveling public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said street or easement, and hill protect the traveling public from such defective or dangerous conditions. ' JetiI the Coal lotion of all improvements, herein Iacorporat ed on Page 6 , to be perfarmfd, each of Hid streets not .,,.pill as improvements shall be under the charge of said Developer. Said Developer may Close all or a portion of any street subject to the conditions contained in a temporary street closure permit, issued by the City Engineer, whenever :t Is necessary to protect the publ It during the Construction of the improvements herein agreed to be made. li. P.rk.Oy trees rA,ullad to be planted shall be punted by the Developer alter other Imp rove. ant mare, grading and cleanup ham been imoleted, plant,,, shall be done as provided by Ordinance in accordance with the planting diagram approved by the City Community Development Director, The Developer shalt be responsible for mmintaiii all trees planted In goad health until the end of in' guaranteed 1. ale mane. period, or for one year after p ant lag, mh l shaver Is iota, 1). The Devele,c, Is resp ors lble for meeting all camel- clans es tabil,hed by Ina Clly pur,uanl to the Sab *i r l s l on map • act. Cl ty Ord Iances, ono this agreement for the development, and for ilia to l Mena.,, of all Improvements constructed thereunder It II the Imploeeaent „ ac Ce Pted for maintenance by the Clly, and no Improvement security provided heralnmllh tnetl be releesad before such AC,ePlenr. Vnle,s other.$,. provided and eutno111e4 0 by the City Council of the City. la. This age eement shell not terminate Maintenance guarantee security lllreinafter descr lamp uhe, been released by the City, or until a net agreement together with the required lMpro sea ant security has been submitted to the City py a successor to the herein named, and by resolution of the City Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the improvement secunly therefor has been released. is. The improvement security to be furnished by the Dave toper with in$, get em ant shell consist of the following and ,hall be In a form acceptable by the City Attorney: A. To tenure faithful performance of this agreement. 1. A bona or bonds by one or more duly .rthorlaed c o f Pont. sureties in the form and content Specified by Government Code Section 66199.1, 2, An Improvement Security Instrument In the form and content specified by the City Attorney, g. A deposit with the City of mane, or negotiable bonds of the kind approved for ,enuring :.posit, of public monies. • S. To secure laborers and mrterli : 1. A bond or bonds ay one or more duty i.thell"d corporate sureties In the form and content specified by Gave ..... t Cade Section 66699.1. 2. An Improvement Se "rity Instrument In the form and content specified by the City Attorney, 1. A depotit with City of money or negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing C. A t.sh deposit with the City to guarantee payment by the Developer to the engineer or sufvfyor wrote certificate appears open "• r'• 1 Map for the setting of all boundary, lot corner, and street centerline monuments and for form Ishi ng center i l me tie notes to the City. The amount of the Eno asit may be any amount certified by the mail nee, or surveyor .% acceptable payment in full% or, 11 no slue Is submitted, the cash bond shall be n shown v on the Construction and Bond Estimate contained herein. Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as peace. dull Permits after receipt by the City of the centerline tie notes and written assurance of payment in full Iron the 4191 near or surrey.'. D. The required bonds and the princ 1p.l ....Its thereof are set forth on page 6 of %nit agreement. 16. the Developer warrants that the improvements described In in is agreement shall be free from defects In materials and workmanship. Any and all portions of the imDrave. ments found to be defect the within one (1) year lot loving the data on which the improvements are accepted by the city site ll be 'epatre? .r replaced ay Develop., free of .11 charges to the City, The Developer shall furel sh k maintenance guarantee secuellty In a sum equal to ten percent (laf( of the construction let .at, or 6200.00, whichever Is 9r e a ter, to secure the faithful performance of Developer's obligations as described in this par. - Ar.ph. The maintenance gun shine 5ecurl!y shall .lso secure the faithful performance If the Bevelaper of any obligation of the DeyeloPer to do ipeclfled more with respect to any parkway . malnten ahem .ate .... nt district. Onto the improvements have been accepted and 4 maintenance 906r3nlee security Aft been accepted by the City, the liner Improvement security described In this .d. rim, 0 agreement may be released provided that such release is olherwtse wuu,m uad b, th,e S""'"e'si"" mxm Act add Any And 1, c so le City Ordinance. 17. That the Developer shall take out and maintain su:n p u b l is IIAmi l ItY and Property damage Insu ranee .1 he ii protect him and any contractor 0 suOCOnV actor plrf orming work covered by this Agreement Iron claims for property damages wb l in —ay arise because Of the naldre of the work or from operations u n this agreement, whether such Operations be by himself C, by a,, coot r actor a subcontractor, or anyone directly 0 r inoi r. c 1 employed be said persons, even though such damages be hot cawed by the negligence of the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor anyone employed by said persons. The pup. rc liability and property damage insurance snail list the City + A dd;tanal Insured and directly protect the City, Its officers• ama,'.i and employees, as well +A the Developer, his contracts,, and h,i sVbCOnLraCeOr,, and all Insurance pO llcie5 issied hereunder Shall ,p State. The minimum amounts Of Such InSUrance shall be a follows: A. Contractor's liability Insurance providing bodily Injury or death II0111ty limit% of not less t0. . $300,000 for eacn person and $1,000,000 for min accident or occurrence, and property damage IfaOI- Ity limits of not less than $100,000 for each Acci- dent or occurrence with An aggregate limit of $250,000 for claims which may arise from the ooe�a- tl0ns of the Developer In the performance of the B. Automobile " Insurance coring All rehlcles used in the pArid rmance of this Aareement prov,ding nod,ly injury liability limits of rot lest than 5100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident or occurrence, and or arty damage 11Abll it, Ile i is of hot less than $50,000 for eAIn accident or pebu mane!, with In aggregate of not less than $100,000 which may Anse from the ooerA- tions of the Developer or his Contractor in perform mg the work p,ovided for berGin. I8• That before the execution of this agreement, the Oevelope� shall file with the City a Certificate or "rtlflfateS of Insurance covering the Speclfled insurance. [¢h such certificate Ghall be " Abdo precluding the cancellations, o reduction in coverage of Any policy evidences by Such cerliflcalG, before the expiration Of thirty (30) day, After the CItY Shall here r received notification by registered mail from the insurance carrier, A, evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and Of intent to comply with AAme, the 51bdivider has submitted the following described ,mDrprenenl security, and has alined hie signature hereto: 17 0 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE i Type: Bond Principal Amount: S92,500.00 ' Fame and address of surety: Developers Insurance Company, P., Spa 3313, Anaheim, CA 92803 MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT Type: Bond Principal Amount: S46, 250. 09 i Name and address of surety: same f$ GSM DEPOSIT NONUNEXTATIOp 3 Type: Principal Amount: Marne and address of surety: t /pN NAINTEFAFCR GUARANTEE [ Type; Principal Amount: • ! Name and address of surety: { TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY 1E IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties Hereto Have caused these presents to Ee duly executed and acknonledg,d mith all E{ fP%ea ies regulred Dy lam an the dates at forth opposite their signatures. F Date n r 1. 1 ^93 by 'It JInP05 nY CRI.IevWlA ,Om,elcper E _1sr9 wcu� Au 1 Agent Date by ,Developer gnature note Accepted: City of Rancho Cucampnga, Cal. 0, a A Hunic,W CPrpor atlon By: Mayor Attest: try ti— /Y Approved: . DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED .S. 0 r I adwo Mlaaa- CITT OF NANITID C9G90041114 CONSiNUETIM ESTIMATE EII@OWAVYENT PERMIT FEE SONOULE For Improvement of: A Portion of Tract 9151 Gate: t0 /_a /93 smNpute�r Y: ,nt File 0.eTeren<e: City Ou9. bo. WIT: Does not Include current fee f9r witting persit a pavement deposits. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM G N UNIT UNIT -051 f AYpNT P.C.C. Curb - 12' C.F. P.C.C. Curb - D' M. P.O.C. Curb only 61 C.F. A.C. B!n (S2W min.) a- P.C.C. Sidewalk 6. Orive Apprpatb 0,623 S.F. 2.50 21,57^. Br P.C.C. Crozs Ginter Street EkIAIWon Itmorted Embankment . Preparation D trussed Aggregate Bate U' to iCY) 70,x9 $. F. W A.C. (aver 13W tons) A.C. (900 to 0300 tons) A.O. under 500 to 900 tons) A.C. under 50.'1 toes) Paten A.C. (trebtn) I' thitk A.C. Overby Adjust ust uwer mannole to 9r add Adjust Leto clean out to grade Adjust water P1vez t0 yr ode 6 EA, 75.00 450 Street 51"a S EA. 1000.00 S, 603 Street Signs 3 EA. 200.00 SOO Street frees 160 G. /5.00 7,510 Parkway Landscape and Irrigation 6,160 S.F. 2.75 16,910 Curb Repair Contingent, L.S. '..5. LS, 10, .W C'*e- I C , CONSTRUCTION COST 183.20a.W _ __ _ CONTINGENCY COSTS 0 32n, DO TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 9l 52A W FAITNNL PERFORMANCE SURETY iIW%) 92,SW W LABOR AND MATERIAL SECURITY (50s) a250.W ENGINEERING INSPECTIOR FEE 4 22a1 AR •RESTORATION /DELINEATION LASH DEPOSIT 1 D0400 IREF'UNOeOLE _ MDNUNENIATIOn SURETY (CASK) _ uPUrtnanl to City of RWW Cueamaga MunlCiP61 Code, Title 1, Chapter 1,05, a6"t,D, San Bernardino County code Titles, 0.01,11 1.5, A 1.0 resmrn inn /deiireaUpn deposit shall be made Witty tO Ssseaote of n En9lneenn9 Contlruttlpn Permit. S 6 C'*e- I C , 0 • — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �tcwnrq� STAFF REPORT' DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for 9833 Highland Avenue submitted by Joe and Maria Dias Mr. and Mrs. Dias, property owners, have applied for a building permit to construct a house on the property located at 9833 Highland Avenue. As a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit, City Council Ordinance No. 58 requires the installation of public improvements. To guarantee the installation of the off -site improvements, Mr, and Mrs. Dias have submitted an Improvement Agreement and Bonds in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $5,000.00 Labor & Material Bond: $2,500.00 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council accept the Bonds and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept the attached resolution and improvement agreement on behalf of the City. Respectfully dC H: Jav( Attachments • y n i) 0 0 ILH D L ' . ,I r7 "T 17 u- of-- t tin - rm.m.-M-11 7 7 L Itt 4 CITY 01: RANCI 10 CUCAMONGA E, ENGINEERING DIVISION C,___ 1977 VICANITV NIAP�� N_ pig RESOLUTION NO. 14- 16 -10CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR 9833 HIGHLAND AVENUE 'WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, !as for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on October 27, 1983, by Joe and Maria Dias as developers, for the improvement of riont -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally ioca'z" en, the South side of Highland Avenue between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue; 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; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is . hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon o, Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren 14. Wasserman, C ityne rc jaa E �r CITT OF RANCHO CUCAal IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR 9833 HIGHLAND AVENUE Si,;Ie "it'll Souse KND'A ALL NEN Ay THESE PRE;EN15: That this agreenent is made and entared into. in Cpnfo' -"Ce with the Crn,,Sio,S a' the MVnIL,Cll Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. State of Cali}q rota, a municipal Corpora Lion, hereinafter referr- ed to as the City, by and between Salo City and 3os,Dn Diaz hereinafter referre "_ to aS the Developer, THAT, Wilt,: n-,, >'w Developer desires to devcloo certain real DrCperty in said city located at WHEREAS, said City has established certa,+ re du'. re *enlS to be at by said Developer a5 prerequisite to granting 1- flna� approval; and 'A'd EREAS, the ea2cvtion of this agreemant and pq St'n,, of imgrove'veht SeCJri ty as hereinafter cited, and approved Dy the City dtorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior comol.a,pn of Said requirements for the pgrvaSe of Securing said aDI11vai, NO'A, THERE %ORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follgas; 1. The Developer hereby agrees to cor.st�.Ct at developer's eaoense all improvements deScrlbed on page s hereof wlU,n i2 months from the date hereof. Y. This anree ment shall be effective on the date of the resplvH on of the Council of said city approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on thq day follow- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exien' Sion of time has been granted by said City as Hereinafter Dro,,s- ed, 3. The leve)ooer may request additional time in which to Complete the provision; of this agreement, in writing net less than 30 days prior ,I the default date, and including a Statement of Circum Stances If necessity for additional time, 1, cons oera. ti., of such request, the City reserves the right to review the pro,, Sion, hereof, tnc)iiding consV VC ;ion zt andartl S, cos: estimate, and srff,C,e,C, of the Improvement security, and to rCgj, -e adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial Channe5 tnereln. a. It the Developer fails or neglects to CpmDly with the provisions of this agr eeTen t, the City Snail have the right at any time to cause said Crovisiphs to be completed by any III,- fu) means, and th er °Upon to recover from said Developer andl,, bit Surety the full cost Intl expense incurred in so doing. 5. Construction Dermits shall be nbLained by the Devel- oper froi the office of the flty Engineer prior to start of any work witb,n the Duo tic rtnht.Af -way, and the deve toper shall Lnndvrt SUCK wore in fell Cohn Iian,w with the requ l ati,,, Ca ntI i "i ;ne re ln. Non- r.Dmhliad,, may result in StOOPtmq 0 the wort oy the "Ity• and as,e,5en't If the penalties DrpV lAe d. 6. Popli; r,Ib'.nf -way improvement work required small be :n m•, t r gctnd .n con19r m a n ce w,t'n approved Improvemnnt Ai In s, St to H in S r1, ion s, lI St,I dord Drviwi a 3 and any sped al art n na r e n'.', ton rot 1, f, e n5t r,i C t'� d n Shall InC I It 1, 1•iy trantltinnt an ,III other in C,lertai war• deemed neeess ary for drainage pr Public safety, Erro•z or om515s,nnt discovered dufiny 'rmstruc- 6 � • C J . .� U Lion sha11 be corrected upon the direction or the Clt/ in 9, near. Rev`Sao work aue to sa td plan no C if i C a i . . . Shall covered by the or" is ions of this agreement and Seca red by ,n.. surety Covering the Original planned vOrrs. 7. We rx done vithln aa•istiIg streets shall be diligert- ly pursued to comoletion; the n it shall have right to complete any and all work in the event of unlus4if 'eb daisy , completion, and to recover all Cost and eloenae incurred fr OI the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful Trans. A Thr Developer shall be re S00nS ij ie for rnO lacOment, relocations, or removal 0 atty - - of an it ^gat ion vats' SyStem 1n con I i c t with the red iI red work to the sat l S r a,tia.: .. the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be re s oansible for rpm oval of all loose rock and other de or it fro., the public right -of-iv y. 10. The Del elsee, shall plant and as i nt Ain Darkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director, 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to gear Altai camp let on If the terms of this a9reeaent shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The or•a_ Cipal amount of said improvement security shall not be less than the amount shoen; • C J . .� U L J Approved: City Att rney DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED 3 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: Principal Amount: $5. 007. CD lame an'd address of surety: MATERIAL AND LABOR Type: Principal Amount: 52,500.00 neme mnd Adarc;: af cur =_ty: J CASH DEPOSIT MONUMEMTATION ` Type: Pr inc:p a Amau ot: Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY { i IN NITRESS HEREOF. the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledge with all formalities required law on the date[$ set forth opposite their signatures. yby Date �G"Z(O^ A by /X'-.- Letd oevelaper 1 v signature ,0£_ �• �I AS • rioted n Date by �%i1n T/,e, 8� hlL ] - -. Ddvelaoer y — �sign-aattur,- 1 rn tee Accepted: City of Rancho Cucamonga, California A Municipal Corporation Mayor L J Approved: City Att rney DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED 3 C' `J . r. l� ( CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA J CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEOOLE For !mprovement of; 9833 41ahland Avee,,e Oate; 9115193 Camputea by: . Mart to File Be r ereoce: City Dag. No. TA- NOTE: Oyes trot include current fee for writing Permit or pavement deposits, CONOTRUCTivri C 057, ITEM VAAi��r u N1T UNIT COST S A401`T P.C.C. Curb - I2' C.F. P.C.C. Cure - 8• C.F, 192 L.F. 6.00 51151.70 P.C.C. Curb only 6- C.F. A.C. Berm (S2OO min.) 25 L.F. 4.00 ICO.CO a• P.C.C. Sidewalk 763 S.F. 1.75 13 - =.00 6' Drive Apo rpach 150 S.F. 2.50 375.`9 S' P.C.C. Cross Gutter Street Excavation Imported Embankment Preparation of Subgrade Crushed Aggregate Base (per in. Nick) A.C. (over 1300 tons) A.L. (900 to 1300 tons) A.C, (under 600 to 900 tons) A.C. (under $00 tons) 1920 S.F. .55 1056.010 Patch B.C. (trench) I- thick A.C. Overlay 860 S.F. .30 253.00 • Adjust sewer manhole to grade Adjust sewer clean out to grade Adjust water valves to grade Street Lights Street Signs Street Trees Parkway Landscape and Irrigation P.C.C. Ditch L.S. 400,00 Guard Panel 11 L.F. 25.00 275,00 CONSTRUCTION COST 4,960,70 CONTINGENCY COSTS .0. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION _ 4,950.00 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SURETY (100 %) 5,000.00 LABOR AND MATERIAL SECURITY (50%) 2,500,00 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE 250,00 -RESTORATION /DELINEATION CASH OEPO'.!T -0- (REFUN0ABLE) MOWMENTATION SURETY (CASH) -0- •Pursuant to City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.08, adopting San Bern4rdino County Code Titles, Chapters 1 -5, a cash restoration /delineation deposit shall be made prior to issuance of ah Engineering Construction permit. -4. C' `J • _ RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 -04CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the benefit to the City of participating in the cost of the work proposed by Cooperative Agreement No. AG83 -64 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approves the execution of Cooperative Agreement No. AG83 -64 and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement on its behalf and transmit to the California Department of Transportation, District 08 for processing. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk jaa • ,� 7 Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor Y � f OB- 56d -30 -5 .5 • 08352 - 261201 19th St. at .Archibald Ave. Distri ^.t Agrrr.t. No. THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY RECITALS (1) STATE and CITY contemplate installing traffic • control signal system, safety lighting and roadway improvements at the intersection of Archibald Avenue with State Highway Route.30 (19th Street), referred to herein as "PROJECT ", and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which such systems are to be installed, financed and maintained. SECTION I STATE AGREES: (1) To provide plans and specifications and all necessary construction engineering services for the PROJECT and to bear STATE'S share of the expense thereof, as shown on Exhibits A and D, nttnched and made a part of this Agreement. (2) To construct the PROTECT by contr•ect in aocordnnce with the plans and specifications of STATE. E1 (3) To pay an amount equal to 501 of signal- related construction costs and STATE'S share of roadwork costs as shown on Exhibits A and B; but in no event shall STATE'S total obligation for construction costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of $74,000; provided that STATE may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorisye a greater amount. (4) To maintain and operate the entire traffic control signal system and safety lighting as installed and pay an amount equal to 501 of the total costs. SECTION II CITY ASREES: (1) To deposit with STATE prior to award of a construction contract for PROJECT, the amount of $65,000, which figure represents CITY'S estimated share of the expense of preparation of plans and Specifications, construction engineering, and construction costs requlreei to complete PROJECT, as shown on Exhibits A and 8. In no event shall CITY's total obligation for said costs under this Agreement exceed the amount of $72,600; provided that CITY may, at its sole discretion, in writing, authorize a greater amount. (2) CITY'S share of the construction costs shall be an amount equal to 50% of signal- related construction costs plus rocdw,)r' ✓. costs, as indicated on Exhibits A and B. (3) CITY'S share of the expense of preparing plans and spreificr:tions, shall br an amount, equal to 20' of CITY'S share of thn nctucl final construct-ion cost. -2- (4) CITY'S share of the expense of construction • engineering shall be an amount equal to 17% of CITY'S share of the actual final construction cost, (5) To reimburse STATE for CITY'S proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and operation of said traffic control signal system and safety lighting, such share to be an amount equal to 50;. of the total cost. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ( 1 ) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. • (2) STATE shall not award a contract for the work until after receipt of CITY'S deposit required in Section II(1). (3) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold STATF, harmless from any liability unposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any wort, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this agreemr,nt. • -3- (4) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof • shall be responsible ror any dimape or liability occurring by _ reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this Agreement. (5) Should any portion of the PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds all applicable procedures and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply notwith- standing other provisions of this Agreement. (G) After opening of bids CITY'S estimate of cost will be revised based on actual bid prices. CITY'S required deposit under Section II(1) above will be increased or decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase or decrease is less than 31,000 no refund or demand for additional deposit will be made until final accounting. (7) After opening bids for the PROJECT and if bids indicate a cost overrun of no more. than 107, of the estimate will occur, STATE may award the contract. (8) If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost overrun exceedinr, 109 of the estimate will occur, STATE. and CITY 511,111 endeavor to agree upon nn alternative course of action. • -4- (9) Prior to advertising for bids for the PROJECT, CITY • may terminate this Agreement in writing, provided that CITY pays STATE for all costs incurred by STATE. (10) If termination of this Agreement is by mutual agreement, STATE will bear 501 and CITY will bear 501, of all costs incurred prior to termination. (11) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to all materials, equipment and appurtenances installed will be jointly shared in the ratio of 500„ STATE and 50`, CITY. (12) If existing public and /or private utilities conflict with the construction of the PROJECT, CITY will make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for Lheir protec- tion, relocation or removal. CITY will inspect the protection, • relocation or removal of such utilities. If there are costs of such protection, reloction or removal which the STATE and CITY must le Pally pay, STATE and CITY will share in the cost of said protection, relocation or removal in the amount of 501, STATE and 500. CITY. r 1 U (13) The co-t of any engineering or maintenance referred to herein shall include all direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable to such work, applied in accordance with STATE'S standard accounting procc• ^.ures. However, STATE'S share is accounted for in i stetr.+idr; account and is not shown sepnrntely on each project's cost, breakdown. _5_ (14) That execution of this Agreement by CTTY grants to STATE the right to enter upon CITY -owned lands to construct the PROJECT referred to herein. (15) That this Agreement shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT by STATE and CITY or on January 1, 1989, whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership and maintenance clauses shall remain in effect until terminated, in writing, by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFOR!;IA Department of Transportation LEO TROMBATORE Director of Transportation By Dist t _ rict Direcor • i -6- CITY OF RAil C90 CUCAt10BGA By _ Mayor Attest; _ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM DATE NOY 0 8 1983 BY �« /C,Y OPNEY FOR WCNO CUCAMONGA, CALUORTA • • n LA EXHIBIT "A" Use $66,000 for Agreement yl ESTIMATE OF COST DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST CITY'S SHARE STATE'S SHARE Construction Signal - Related $ 70,198 $35,099 $35,099 Non - signal- Related 17,402 6,207 11,()95 Subtotal $ 87,500 $41,306 $46,194 Preliminary Engineering (20' of Const.) 17,500 8,261 9,239 Overhead Assess. on P.E. (57 "n of P.E.) 9,975 4,709 5,266 Construction Engineering (171 of Const.) 14,875 7,022 7,853 Overhead Assess. on C.E. (541Z of C.E.) 8,033 3,792 4,241 Utilities 2,000 1,000 1,000 Totals $139,883 $66,090 $73,793 Use $66,000 for Agreement yl i i is K ROaDWCQY, PAID BY CITY 19` —h (ROuiE 30) C �- I� - - "- .+ n I ARcHiBALD kvE . 0 • J — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r JCAM STAFF REPORT ci F DATE: November 16, 1983 19i; TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Kral), Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Request for Improvement Extension Agreement and Improvement Security forTracts 11663 and 12019 - Marlborough Development Corporation - located on the east side of Archibald, south of Church Marlborough Development Corporation, developer of Tracts 11663 and 12019, has submitted Improvement Extension Agreements to request a one -year extension for the construction of off -site improvements. Bonds in the following amounts are on file in the City Clerk's office: Tract 11663 Tract 12019 Faithful Performance Bond $28,000 5112,300 Labor and Material Bond 514,000 $ 56,150 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving said Improvement Extension Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. Respectfully submittedi L BH :,8aa Attachments • RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 --09LR 1S0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND iP',r'ROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 11663 AND 12019 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Extension Agreement executed on November 16, 1983 by Marlborough Development, as Developer, for the impruvenenL of public right -of -way adjacent to real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of Church Street: and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Extension Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as *: and WHEREAS, said Improvement Extension 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 Extension Agreement and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren I•f. Wasserman, City CIe rT: jaa Jon D. Mike I s, ayor • ./ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 11663 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the City of Rancho Cuc mnonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Marlborough Development referred to as the Developer, NITHESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS said Developer entered Into an improvement agreement with the City a5 1 reo,i,ile to fc<ganGe of nu nninno prrnua, and WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of the said improvement agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it Is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as follows: 1. The completion date 0! thw terms of the said Improvement agreement is hereby extended by a period of twelve (12) months from the date of expiration of the said agreement. 2. Increase in improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The required bond and the additional principal mounts thereof are set forth on the attached sheet. 4. All other terms and conditions of the said improvement agreement shall . remain the same. As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to comply with same, the Developer has submitted the below described improvement security, and has affixed his signature hereto: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE DOING Description; Bond Additional Principal Amount; None Surety: Fremont Indemnity Co. Address: Los Angeles, California IMITERIAL AND LABOR BOND Description: Bond Additional Principal Amount: None Surety: Fremont Indemnity Co. Address: Los Angeles, California CASH DEPOSIT MOHRIENTING MONO I— L-1 Additional Cash Deposit: No Additional MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND Principal Amount: 12,000.00 to be posted prior to acceptance of the project by the City. ........ r ......................... u« n.... ...... «u.............,........... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPER CALIFOPNIA, a municipal Corporation MARLBORO" DEVELOP" CORPORATION BY: _ pY� �>mf YF !. — TT.�Ti1s. arm— ' —��Pa��/ . rrl/ Y 6 no'j�j Y�VCe_P1J�sl dent Attest: Lauren A; aaise%men,7lty lert I APFROVED AS TO FORM MOTE: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE RUST BE NOTARIZED I put NOy O MIM N � I Wbp pxNpit W /PM 7 • I V BF CUCAMDMGA IMPROVEMENT EXTENS ION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 12019 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement Is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the City of Rancho Cycamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Marlborough Development referred to as the Developer, MITHESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS said Developer entered into an improvement agreement with the City as a requisite to issuance of buildings Permits, and WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of the said Improvement agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as follows: 1. The completion date of the terms of the said Improvement agreement is hereby extended by a period of twelve (12) months from the date of expiration of the said agreement, 2. Increase In improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be approved by the City Attorney. J. The required bond and the additional principal amounts thereof are set forth on the attached sheet. A, All other terms and conditions of the said Improvement agreement shall remain the same, • As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of Intent to comply with sane, the Developer has submitted the below described improvement security, and has affixed his signature hereto: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND Description: Bond Additional Principal Amount: None Surety: Fremont Indemnity Co. Address: Los Angeles, California MATERIAL AND LABOR BOND Description: Bond Additional Principal Mount: None Surety: Fremont Indemnity Co. Address: Los Angeles, California CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTING BOND Additional Cash Deposit: No Additional MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND r PtheCitl +Amounh $I1,2J0.00 To be oost.A prior to acceptance .. th¢ project b the City. ........................... u ..................... • • .r• na..aoa..u.m. CITV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPER CALIFORNIA, a mumr.,p.l corporation MARLBOROUGM.QEVI OPME CORPORATION Ay: —V on i e s, aim yor au yrn €s l cee�Plepgdent Attest: --� .-CW-ic Da ores M. O'Brien, Secretary APPROVED AS IO fOAM Lauren M. Wasiermn, rty C errk NOTE: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZE mR MONO 0 n � nn anwmr rc• lupmtwvarMA wham CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1983 70: city Council and City Manager 19" FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Intent to Vacate the East ,'West Alley located between 8th Street and Acacia Street, East of Cottage Avenue Mr. Mayhew, owner of the property located at the northwest corner of Acacia Street and Cottage Avenue, has requested that the above described 20 foot alley be vacated in order to provide additional property for his project, Parcel Mao 8179. Parcel Map 8179 was tentatively approved on October 12, 1983 by the Planning Commission. The tentative approval included a recommendation to vacate the east /west alley north of Tentative Parcel Map 8179. The alley is unpaved and does not provide access to any properties. The existing dwellings to the north have access from Cottage Avenue and 8th Street. Area property owners will receive a Notice of Public Hearing and the alley will be posted prior to the public hearing date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the date of Public Hearing on December 21, 1983 for the vacation of the above described alley. Respectfully subyitted, LUr.BK:jaa Attachments �t��l • • 9 �R[Ntl xgr�fl wMr L y w DWELL /NGS ly ba,wR�N.Y.•Y._ mc�ssro Y ^rwnry� \.} ^7 a 2 � PARCEL / II`` SCALE /',WI 1 f\1 b •c NSA" PARCEL MAP NO. 8179 IN THE E/TY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA O[VFLOPFN SINNrN4 I MLxVSFO P'aM1S/q y <O /S /J. /1./S K, u. /! WO SI�O tUIs. I11 rr0.-Rl P'IN(LN' /f SyVprVISMVIS MN YU MFONQ(O mByfrf. Nf{fOwy. Nf[WOS nIw rra ulwT Of Jw /fN.W.xMNJ. fOW1 JM/F tY 4l /RNN /I IOUxOIM bT q IwNartfP S4OVrS.W, x! /H LOYI.ib IK LTMp.Y4YlNI MV(.N.NfT r2I u. • 8N SIREEF �R[Ntl xgr�fl wMr L y w DWELL /NGS ly ba,wR�N.Y.•Y._ mc�ssro Y ^rwnry� \.} ^7 a 2 � PARCEL / II`` SCALE /',WI 1 f\1 b . xff i RI I\\ _ —�• fXl$T pESfHVOI�Yx VAEA 4T j ffar M1•f RIM�IgI RN Ix1 unurI !OYm~s rf xrlfN !l([MN Iry INnM( . r Lwow INry RwT rril, is i{xitM lil yN ^f l VIVW, YI/ lu r w a M "Sfr L. IM rIl MI Nrl w uNf 'Y, ti V EET / eY l fN6 /NEErt w•b �WT�•f IIa I•11 fqf fu IIu LA .1 R l 4 N r, k0 WZ 2 Y 4$ _ L EffNO — HMrff I' fµryN RrIT1 rrNM VIIRf uxf Hrc11 I(VI w•pAf •YN. H In+11 of xOT' IN Ra ONfJ J.glxTmy IWf N/ fN HINNfI f. I :W w u. e W PARCEL 2 I�\ rra runYr fwrrr/ III x= 1Z - rw \1 /VM /NMOVFOI �) rq ACACIA GTREE! . xff i RI I\\ _ —�• fXl$T pESfHVOI�Yx VAEA 4T j ffar M1•f RIM�IgI RN Ix1 unurI !OYm~s rf xrlfN !l([MN Iry INnM( . r Lwow INry RwT rril, is i{xitM lil yN ^f l VIVW, YI/ lu r w a M "Sfr L. IM rIl MI Nrl w uNf 'Y, ti V EET / eY l fN6 /NEErt w•b �WT�•f IIa I•11 fqf fu IIu LA .1 R l 4 N r, k0 WZ 2 Y 4$ _ L EffNO — HMrff I' fµryN RrIT1 rrNM VIIRf uxf Hrc11 I(VI w•pAf •YN. H In+11 of xOT' IN Ra ONfJ J.glxTmy IWf N/ fN HINNfI f. I RESOL0T10N N0. 11- 16_OBL>t OF THE CITY CP`IFORNI P, I'L THE C III BERNAROTNO, STC ENS Of • TIoCOU%I, OF N TO VACATE THE A RESOLD ACACIA '1 CUCN'IONGA, ITS INTENTISTREET AND DECLARING of Rancho Cucamon9a as LOCATED NVEf1UEN 8TN Council of the City to Proceed under the City hereby elects also known as the BE IT RESOLVED by Code, City council Ni9hways o fol \ows: �: that ChhD Streets and Tlum of ciare- its irate t °east 'a tne cac S-,tj t Vacation tpct of Q That the City be On 8th onSMaP¢ Which isg aft ched hereto TI Z st the eas as ci Ly star gala de aippa hereof • ednesdaY, th tenter office ott cottage ti L °Cityanl by reference m Counc it hereby io s ep ar orniounas ytf ort the Thatath7.30tP.M.. cho Cucamonga 1983, the PiSP °� ce sary ion resent marked for pres r 3: of D ce at 91a118as. they °SSedt CiLYt street cause notices of ted day grad T loca hear inin9 wh sh al t the pure °, e O five deter treet Pure° the City Street pot inihehea in9, n °tom whin shall n the • or P 4' �cuouslY along days b hall bee DoSte Che felloJ 10�VACATE baqe �CllotA t0 be e90LOe acaleesath1a`at ree them he 9ht a11 NOTICE Of NEPRING eserva Jr. Lions On f„ De aPart no" nthis Chasal one inch sub] d t to the r a copy less shall be letter in9 vacation ties on recor City C1 STREET "• sub a %'Sting utili lotion and the published I shall sign Lh �s all °cans¢ t0 be SECTION 5: 1, for same 5n Then , any. d exceptions, The Mayor Clerk sh at ear least City City pia. Ca r�o an and the City heari ublish Califor 6: shall attest' °hesof L9eneralf Qr Citya of Rancho Cucamon9a, 10 days a newspapercu lated in th Rapoitor nia and EXHIBIT "A" That portion of the 20 foot East /West alley lying Easterly of the Northerly prolongation of the Westerly property line of Lot 18 of the Lucas Subdivison as recorded in Map Book 19, Page 8, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California. .J 0 • 7 ri° i1 iF ° 'Ih � g �0 � _ l v �i—i\ u "oO �1° ;1 t � ✓ Y —« : _� �.a' ■ ' _ -1u t3 o ■ " / ' ■ h ■b p p ■ 0sw ■\Q . c— 9 1 ' ■ ,°^ ■ 0 ACACIA STREET TO BE VACATED CITY OF RA \CI IO CUCAMINGA tit EXH IBIT "A" ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP J G g 5 I 2 _ p m U o Q 3 2 6 S 4 3 POr l-0 4 q 4 5 OK O a 17 13 6 2 9 16 30 12 ) 10 IS z w I I 14 (17 m to IP 13 U ira• ' : I a ° w u vw P l 2 Ia I F c ,1 V -029 - ' 'w - -8rh.o 3v r O J J I Q O Ic . . G g 5 I 2 _ p m U o Q 3 2 6 S 4 3 POr l-0 4 q 4 5 OK O a 17 13 6 2 9 16 30 12 ) 10 IS z w I I 14 (17 m to IP 13 U ira• ' : I a ° w u vw P l 2 Ia I F c ,1 ' : I a ° w u vw P l 2 Ia I F c ,1 EXHBIT "B" • E Reserving and excepting unto, Cucamonga County Water District and General Telephone Company all the areas described in Exhibit "A" as easement for public utility purposes. J AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT CARNELIAN STREET AND LEMON AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1983 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Lawrence S. Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer, with the 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 Carnelian Street and Lemon Avenue, hereinafter referred to as "Project ". 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 9 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 City 1. Review of project scope. 2. Obtain from City: a. Pertinent design criteria for traffic signal design; b. Available street improvement plans, topography, utility information and plan sheets. and special provisions or cue 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 construct - tion costs prior to advertising for competitive bids. 3. Plans and specification shall be suitable for approval by City. 4. Furnish original plans, specifications and bidding forms to City. TASK, C. Construction Phase Services Enaineer 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 dollars (42,000) for Tasks A and B. Task C shall be paid on a time and materials basis at fifty dollars ($50.00) per hour and a mileage rate of twenty -five cents (25<) per mile. City shall pay the engineer the prorata share of the fixed fee of work completed as determined by the City upon billing once each month at a regular City Council meeting. • 11 havt the right to audit the statement and remove from any item with which City is in disagreement, which item thereafter reviewed with the engineer. After full review, lake the final decision, r shall begin the work to be performed within five (S) days .- ailing by City to engineer of a Notice to Proceed and shall fitly prosecute same and submit plans to City for first plan within 30 calendar days thereafter, WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Engineer have executed this agreement the date first above written. City of Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Lawrence S. Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer -- nov o a loa4 `'�� IrIW /till ere s[r n;R 1AACHO (QUM k. U4TCR414 r, • LJ STAFF REPORT 4 O, y.. GATE: November 16, 1983 F ,.� w; TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Approval of Final Tract Map No. 12305, a two lot condominium development on the north side of 19th Street and the east side of Hellman Avenue and acceptance of bonds and agreement for off -site improvements submitted by Charles Roy Construction, Inc. The subject tract located on the east side of Hellman Avenue and north of 19th Street is submitted by Charles Roy Construction, Inc. for consideration of Alta Loma Woods, a condominium development. The improvement agreement and security have been submitted by Charles Roy Construction, Inc, to guarantee the installation of off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $24,000.00 Labor & Material Bond: $12,000.00 Letters of approval have been received from Cucamonga County Water District and Alta Loma School District. RECOMIENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of improvement agreement and security and sign the Final Map. Respectfully submitted LBH: J.4• as Attachments JAG RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 -06CR ',': • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12305 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12305, consisting of 2 lots, submitted by Charles Roy Construction, Inc., Subdivider, located the east side of Hellman 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 fo'.Tows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is • approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same an behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and 3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and AGOPTFO this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon 0. Mike s, Mayor ATTEST: is Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk jaa C Cc TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12305 m TIYi crtr of FMKW 4urafMlM! - !nw ! rivo+n rnoRww a FYQL s w F!llll NM W. f)M,.N 1. H/Y WV SIMR14141 L01 R 0 p\KF 11, CU[a1tNf1 WIIiRIY MIPLYT141. Y ILKJYr qM FYOIp1 at M\ mYITY %Mt1 MIYMJNO� Yell 0. CY1NSMf. FOR conmulwluw weva+cs m n mr.4..w .�n...rtn wrsmn-al-I nn ��+. irw 1O) ••• .• 4Ttt! I I '.iMY 1 : wl ' Ins • mnwn.... ti ,a R:� i •-+ ! � • vyClN�tt V A -11.'i • a_ + .....,._____ i ..H. t .N I, .nfryAA .. _.tom -nFtll ��•..�_� r.K4 •f;.R N(lW Tl\{ _M[Tq TK \L TILT RRYN yT T The Alta Loma School District hereby certifies that the capacity for 35.4 students will be provided within 24 months of the completion of the above project. This certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any suc- cessor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and regulations without priority points. The commitment of this capacity shall expire 90 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that 90 day period shall validate such commitment. Very truly yours, _ j V- Y('d ,-' Floyd M. Stork Administrator • Personnel and Support Services 7h cc: Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga Alta Loma School District r� Ig '3 ' �1,AM1tU1VGA ',4• y LBSSP•PINbseI�fl+�E ?I. Post Office ISO. 370 • Alta Loma, California 91701 7141987.0766 a LGorf,Ur,llY LL ' 1 ��83 JOHN E. WMURTRY ^ T Pta s FLOYD TO M. M. STORK 5 6 1 tr 718191101111i2111a213141 hnonnrvsuPPart s.mm Established 1085 f2 Oc Oh r 17. 1983 a.ACTNELSON — Date bmm.aa S.Mr.a BOARD OF TRUSTEES MILLY STRAIN ROBERT S. FROST C.M'.I.WSSP.Qat Pml.ata ROBERT Yt, TANC-EMkN MRS. LIZ GALLARINI LETTER OF "f<T'IF ICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY MRS. SANDRA A, OERLY JOHN C. BOOK For Residential Construction within the Alta Loma School District. DEVELOPER Charles Roy Construction TRACT NUMBER 12305 LOCATION Northeast corner of 19th and Hellman NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS• 59 single family condominium units . ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE September 1984 Gentlemen: The Alta Loma School District hereby certifies that the capacity for 35.4 students will be provided within 24 months of the completion of the above project. This certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any suc- cessor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and regulations without priority points. The commitment of this capacity shall expire 90 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that 90 day period shall validate such commitment. Very truly yours, _ j V- Y('d ,-' Floyd M. Stork Administrator • Personnel and Support Services 7h cc: Planning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga C ` r,,..r,..d.., _ FRANK LESINSKY . 5. x. C.v,a Me. FUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LLOYD W. MICHAEL EARLE R. ANDERSON ROBERT NEeFELD VICTOR A. CHERSAK, JR.. r,—d-1 BEVERLY E. SRADEN November 1, 1983 �-j''' .J r .. . riCI1J L:i.ASluif,,., City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering, Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Gentlemen: Alta Loma Woods Associates II, Developer of Tract No. 12305, situated in Rancho Cucamonga, has deposited with this District • a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance Bond, and a Utilities Improvement Agreement for both water and sewer. 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 WATER I DISSfjTRICT ly J' Is L'. Cline, Jr. Assistant Civil. Engineer bf L CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR KNOW ALL MEN By THESE PRESENTS, That ithi5 agreement is made and entered into. In conformance with the provisions Of the Sub:lvis inn Map Act of the Slate Of California, and of the applicable Ordlnan ces of the City of Rancho C,r,.dnga, C ai pbrnia, A corporation, by and between said City, hereinafter referreo to d> ..e :It" and fl.Pl -,YP 'hill( {54TLtil,S II _ Ate/ ,ff0 / >ANr HfR fNr� ` berllndrt PP, r`ee ",.—y we apt r. WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop certain real property in said City 11 shorn .1 the conditionally ipp"net s to dl v lL ld r. a own s Zc >::. `tap 'q. IDOS and WHEREAS, said City has established certain re,u- omants to be It by said 0e r e l aver as pr er epul s cad to approval of told s.bdlnsiam generally 10, ate, at tae :vh, comxr if „ ilman Annecy waaw NOW, THEREFORE, It Is hereby agreed by Bald City end by said Derei oper 15 follows: 1. The oeveloper hereby agrees to 1.1,,ruct at 0,velrod r'% .apses, all improvements described on Page 6 he, . of within twelve months from the effective date hereof, p. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the 111ol etlpn of the CpunclI of said City approving this d greement. This agreement shall be in default on the day fol low. Ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless An alter. Lion of time has been granted by laid City at hereinafter p,Pv,c. ed, 1. The 0e>N OpPr may request an eR ensSOn Of time to complete [hP terms hereof. Such request shall be Auba(tted td th! an City In writing not less than 30 days before the expiration date herenl, d shall contain A statement of circumstances veto ..eating the eatce,J.h of time The City %hall have the right to review the pr orislpns of this agreement, 116.4lhg the ConWeltIan standards, cost estimate, and nacre ..m.he secur lty, and to require adjustments therein If any %sb,t.nll❑ change has pccurre: during the term hereof, A. If the oeveloper Niis or neglects to "MDly mite the prOViLions of this dgreemenl, the City Shall have the I,,t It any time to cause said proalsidns to be at by any lawful lnenrul lId She ^dpon re[p.er 1`11- Led RevPloper and /or his surety eapens0 Incurred. 5, The Driveler., shell provide altered water service to ¢acct I.t of said dove lot...t 1n accordance with the requlatlont, L[na Ail'es, and fees Of the Evlawnr,l County III., 1IIIrlet. 6, 1" jev,ldbcr 'I'll be 1111c,Llhle for replace,.", relp[atlnn. or e ... vaI of any comopn,nl of any Irf igat5oo pater :ys tr* In [peel les in cn nttl'.ctl In or Improvements to tin sail sr ac non of the City Lng, nePr and the owner of such Voter system. -t- Ingots and Cpmn /Ijnd. P.M. p y. Improvements required to be constructed shall conform to the Standard Drawings and Standard Specifications of the City, and to the Ieprovement Plan aoprovea by hi oe f;la in the office of the City Engineer. Said Improvements are calculated an the Construction and Bond Estimate, hereby incorporated an page 6 hereof, as true, nom the improvement Dians listed thereon by mots er. The Developer at it olio C! rG3,on,iblc for COn1INC- tion of any transition, or other incidental work beyond the tract bound arias as needed for safety sod proper surface drainage. Errors or ommissions discovered during cch%tructin %hall be Corrected upon the direction of the City Engineer, Revised .ork due to said plan modifications shall be Covered by the provision, of this agreement and secured by the Surety covering the original planned works. B. Const... tlnn permits shall be obtained by the, Developer from the office of the City Engineer prior to start Of work; all regulations listed thereon she I be obsefvtd, with attention glean to safety prbtld..... CO nlrol Of dust, n0131, of other nuisance to the area, and to proper notification of Public utilities and City Departments, Failure to Comply with te13 section Shall be subject to the penalties provided therefor. 9, The Developer shalt be responsible for removal of all loose roots and other debris from public rights -of -wry within • or adjoining as to development resulting from .ork relutve to Said develop... t. lo. Rork done within .iiting streets shall be diligently pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work In the event of unjustified delay In completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. It. Said Developer shall at all times following dedica. Ilan of the streets and easements In Said Subldiwision, up to the completion and acceptance of said work or Improvement by said City Council, give good and adequate warning to the traveling oval lc of each and every dangerous Condition existent in sold Street or easement, and will protect the traveling public from aU., defeCtive or dangerous conditions. Until the completion of all improvements, herein Incorporated an Page d , to be performed, tun of suit Street% not accepted as 1.pro va«ntt shall be under the charge of said Developer. Said Developer may close all or 1 portion of any street subject to the conditions Contained in a ,coop 1. fir «t closure permit, issued by the City Engineer, whenever It it necessary to Protect the P ubllc during the construction of the Improvements herein agreed to he Bade. 12. Park.., trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Developer after other Improvement won, grading and cleanup has been completed. Planting Shall be done H Provided by 0rdinance in accordance with the planting diagram approved by the City community Development Director. The Developer shall be respanllble for maintaining all trees punted In good health until the end of the guaranteed on l ntenance period, or for one year after of ant l ng, eh ,chewer is later. _ 13. The Developer Is respurObIO for meeting all Condl. dons sit ab l i shed by the illy pursuant to the SubdI v is ion _ -g- ��i w nw- BB.�— Map Act, City Drdi Ances, and this agreement for the development, ahe maintenance of all 1..... enlnts .0.i in. C t!] thereunder until the Improvement Is acrettwd -- the City, and no Improvement security ....lend elnwith snail be released before Such acceptance Unless otherwise provided an] authori,ted by the City Council of the City. 14. This agreement shall not le r de idAte until the maintenance 9ueran[ee security have l defter described has be+n re leas ea by the City, or until A new agreement together with tee required improvement security has been submitted to the City by a ,Uccestdr to the herein named, and by resolution of the City Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the Improvement security therefor has been released. 15. The improvement security to 6e furnished by tee Developer with this agreement shall Consist of the following and shall be in A form acceptance by the City Attorney: Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as proce- dure permits after receipt by the City of the centerlln, tie hoer, And written assurance of payment an toll from the engineer 01 surveyor. D. the re O.Irea bonds and the prinelpal Amounts thereof are set forth on page 6 of this agreement, 16. The Developer warrant& that the Improvrients aesaibed in this agreement shall be free from defects in materials and warsm ens nip• Any Una ell D11tlpnl of the Laorgre- ments found to be lefgc tive within one 111 yur following the data on which the Improrementl ore accepted by the City shall be repaired or replaced by Developer free of all charges to the • III, The Developer shall furnish A mPntenaaCe guarantee lec Urlty In A Lwm equal to led portent (10%) of the Construction .J ri :) L2 A. To secure faithful performance of this Agreement. 1. A bond or bonds by one or more duly authorise! corporate sureties in the form and contact specified by hover nment Code Section 66499.:. 3, An Improvement Secorlty Instrument In the `orn and Content specified by the City Attorney. • I. A deposlt with the City of money or negotiaole bonds of the bind approved for secur(eg deposits of public addles. e. 1p secure laborers and maters almar! t. A bona mr bonds by one or more duly authorlaed ro :poste I..Ities In the Form add cCnt.rt Specified by Government Code Section 66499. :, E. An Improvement Security InSt ... ent In the mere and Content specified by the City Att... ey. B. A deposit with City of money or negat4a1''e bonds of the A1nd approved for securing C, A In deposit with the City to guarantee paynect by the oevel ar to the ±ngineer or surveyor .hose Car till Cate upon the rino Map for the setting of 111 boundary, lot corner, and street centerllne aonuments And for furnishing eentertine tie notes to the City. The amount of the deposit may be any amount certified by the engineer or surve for as Acceptable payment in fullt or, no value It submitted, the ,an bond sh All Ls as Shp wn ' on the Construction And Bond Estimete contained here In. Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as proce- dure permits after receipt by the City of the centerlln, tie hoer, And written assurance of payment an toll from the engineer 01 surveyor. D. the re O.Irea bonds and the prinelpal Amounts thereof are set forth on page 6 of this agreement, 16. The Developer warrant& that the Improvrients aesaibed in this agreement shall be free from defects in materials and warsm ens nip• Any Una ell D11tlpnl of the Laorgre- ments found to be lefgc tive within one 111 yur following the data on which the Improrementl ore accepted by the City shall be repaired or replaced by Developer free of all charges to the • III, The Developer shall furnish A mPntenaaCe guarantee lec Urlty In A Lwm equal to led portent (10%) of the Construction .J ri :) L2 0 r. I adm. �5a i <1ae s 1101,110, wlicleyer is greater, to secure the faithfil p[rf.r..m ce Of Developar'a op llgat'.ne As d<scn pad in this pare graph. The mai"t.mAnce guarantee security shall also secure the fait MUI serf D.. once by the Devel.,a, of any rb l lg at ion of the oIVCIOp<f t0 d0 SpeCl( ad more with r sye<t t0 any partway mai h[lnanf! a.... ... alit, ift, once the improvemenh have bell act toted and A .... tt..... qu Grantee security has been accepted by the City, the other Improvement security described in t ^Is agreement may be re leued p, video that Such release it other• se authorized by the Subdivition Map Act and any applicable City Ordinance. 1.1. That the Developer Shall take out and maintain Incl. Public Ilabl 11 ty and property damage insurance as shall PfotAC: him and any contractor of subcont,.ct.r w,f...... v.,A cove^<d by this agreement from claims for property damages which arse because of the nature of lne w rt or from operations hills, this agreement, whethe, such operations be by himself or by anv contract., or subcontractor, or anyone al—,tly or indirectly employed by said persons, even though such damages be not cause] by the negligence of ant Developer or any contractor o• aubc.mI,.cto, or anyone employed by said o .... If. Tile pub!': • Ilability and property damage Insurance mall list the City n addltonal Insured and directly Protect the City. Its officers, agents and employees, As well ai the 04velo0lr, his COntratt. ^S and his subcontractors, and all lasurance oolieies lathed hereund <, shall NO fist,. The mirlmum amounts Of such insvro^ce shall be As follows: A. Contractor's liability Insurance orpv'dinq bpd "y injury or death liability limits of not 1151 111 $]00,000 for each oars on and S1, 000, 000 for ee:e accident or Occurrence, and property damage liabil. Ity limits of not less than $100,000 for each acct. dart or occurrence with A n aggregate Il.it S25C, 000 for claims which may Arise from the Opera• ti on% of the Developer in the DerlO rm on ce of the wort herein provided, B. Automobile liability 'n,urarca covering all vehicles used in the performance Of this agr <ecent providing bodily injury liability limits Of not less than 1200,000 for each person and $100,000 for each accident or occurrence, and property danag< Ilability limits of not lets than S50,000 for each accident or occurrence, with an aggr,q,t. of not less than 1100,000 which may arts, from the opera- lions of the Developer or his Contractor in performing the wort Provided for here'", 19, That before the execution of this agreement, the Developer sha'I rile with the City A certlficete or certificates OfOf Insurnr.e coven nq the specified Ina wante. Each such ificate shall bear In endorsement precluding t"e cancellation,, of r.dh,ti.n In cOva,z,e of any policy avld<nc <s by such certinute, before the e.,11.0.n of thirty (301 days alter the the 11 have received motif vtlon by real stored mail tram t "e insurance urn el, As evidence of nnderst,rulnq the proe'sipnt contained herein, and of Intent to tartly m IN Adno. its $ubd1 v1 der has Aubmi it Ad the • /olln "In q Jai, led irp,p,emint fr,urit , and has if Axed his gra slture herein: 0 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE ' Type: Pr+nc,bat Amo unt 5:4 „pp Name and address of Aurety: MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT - Type: Principal Amount: S1:,CC0 Name and address of surety: DASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTATION • type: Principal Amounl:SI.CDO Name and address df surely: MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE TYpe: Prinnpa; Amount: Name and Address p( surety: • TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN vITYESS REPEOF, the parties hereto have causel Ness prn eats to be duly executed and acknnwlzdg ed ntn all (ormalf tl [$ r u red by 14. On the dales Set (.,in Opp051te t"ir 1 signatures. pate 3( Y [ 7 I,u % ,per eloper _ _ g tore 0RMtLES M. R[M. iLv—.1 Partner n Ited Date By ,Oeve'ro per g na tore anted Accepted; City Of Rancho Cucamonga, Cal I forn+a A Municipal COrPpratlph Is, Mayor Attest:. Approved: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED •S. • Litt aF MRCNO CUC.VNAN6A COILSiMIM ESTIHATE ENCRMCN[Ri PEEMPHT FEE SEHEPAE For Ioprpk t at; TRACY WWI 12105 Mee: 0� •B �ted by; 1�y Ftle Re eeente: [Sty Oy9• Ro, Mitt book not IMluda current See for yRMN "re" 9r pavement deposits. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTI:MTE bits UAN r 1nIT UNIT COST MIT P.C,C. Cure • 12' C.F. 17 IF 7.2$ 268.25 P,C.C, Cure - e' C.F. 89 V 6100 51. F.C.C. Curb only 6' C,F, 104 W 5150 572 A.C, lank (5200 -1.. 617 IF 4,50 2866.50 A• P.C.C. Sid .Ik 1089 SF 1.15 M5 ✓5 G' Drlse App,oach 1812 SF l• P.C.C, cross Gotter Stnet EAcaratich 2.50 4580 1e4ored CM.A ant preparation as Suhprade CrutnN Agpralatt Fake (per in. thick) A.C. (aye, 1110 ter)) A.C. p00 1300 , to tons) A.C. urger 500 to 900 tons) A.C. (ewer $00 toot) 95 T Patch A.C. {trtncn) GO 5700 1• thick A.C. Overlay 5925 SF 10 1178.70 Adluat toyer oumhnie to 9,ade 1 G 250 250 Adlust Sauer than out to grade 1 PA W1ult ualer I.N's to 150 ISO grade Street L19htt 2 FA 5trcet Signs Street Treak 1000 1000 PN Day Landscape and IrriptlOn Pamoalk V 2119.70 ReflMtm l FA 15 15 CS? 10 V 25 500 Cattle bas In 1 EA 1200 1200 CONSTRUCTION COST Zia ". 90 COHtloGj CS COSTS 2)4," 1070. CONSTRUCTION 21, 694, 5o fAITHFM PERFOASW2E SURETY (1001) 74 „ppb LABOR MM MATERIAL SERRITI ($%1 1, 0$ EMIKERING IRSPECTIOG, FEE IL,Sg•yg MICStORATISVOCIMEA *ION CASH OEPOSir mm (REFUNDABLE) "MAIMENTATION SUAEII (CASH) 1000 -Pursuant t0 City of Rancho Cau"A Municipal Cale, title is Chapter E,OB. adapting San &rnar0lnp County Code Titin. Chapter 1.5, a eakA rttoretionldalineatlon ilepolit shall be wen brio, 0 Istuanct or w fntf a iaq CantrMttan pafett. •6• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Cx STAFF REPORT FDATE: November 16, 1983 City Manager and Cf ty Council Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer �� BY: Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: Request to Solicit Bids for "Citywide Concrete Repair Annual Maintenance Contract" Based on past experience, repair of the City's various concrete structures has proven cost effective if completed by private contractors. The problem though, has been soliciting competitive bids. In order to receive proposals, the size of the contract must be substantial. This requires lengthy delays in accumulating enough work and then the formal bid process which can take up to two months by itself. In that City liability is affected (example, sidewalk repair), it is suggested the City solicit an annual contract. The proposed contract (see attached), is based on unit cost and is similar to the City's current street tree and aspahlt contracts which have proven quite • effective. The advantage to the system will be, 1.) faster response to citizen complaints with corresponding reduced liability exposure, 2.) reduced staff time in formulating one time contracts, and finally, 3.) a lower unit cost than if completed by City labor forces. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Engineering Division to solicit bids for "Citywide Concrete Repair Annual Maintenance Contract ". Respectfully submitted A LBH:DL:bc I Atla6hmeots ��J CONTRACT PROPOSAL Concrete Repair THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: The undersigned bidder declares that he has carefully examined the nature of the proposed work, that he has examined the special provisions and specifications, and read the accompanying instruction to bidders, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this proposal is accepted, to furnish all material and do all the work required to complete the said work in accordance with the Special Provisions and Specifications, in the time and manner prescribed for the unit cost set forth in the schedule on the following proposal, ITEM I CURB AND GUTTER ITEM I TYPE CITY PRICE PER LINEAR FOOT STO # A B" Curb 301 Existing Construct New Down Across b Face Total Gutter 302 Across Existing Construct New ota Down C " Curb Face ota w/24" Gutter 303 Across Remove Existing 2 Constru t New Down D 121, Curb Face bta w/24" Gutter Across Existing Construct New Down 6( TOTAL DOWN ITEM li DRIVE APPROACH* 'TEM fi TYPE CITY PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT STD # Residential 305 Total Across Existing New Total Down CommerEiM Total Industrial 306 Across Existing Construct New Total Down Alley 307 a Approach Across Existing New Total Down TOTAL DOWN *Price to include returns, sidewalk to be completed per Item IV .H ITEM IV SIDEWALK, RAMP AND TRANSITIONS • SIDEWALKS EM e TYPE CITY PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT ' IV STD d Across Existing Construct New Down b" Depth 310 & Total 307 Across Existing Construct New Down • 306 Across Remove Existing New Down ITEM III SPANDREL AND CROSS GUTTER • ITEM III TYPE Y PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT STU M N Lro55 Juts iota[ Gutter Across IRemove Existing Construct New Down 8 Spandrel 308 Total Across Existing New Down • • �q RAMP -ITP e6 TYPE CITY PRIG PER S�UARE- 'ODi -- IV STD d D Ramp 1 Total Across Existing New Total Down TRANSITION ITEM 0 TYPE -CITY PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT - - -- -- IV STD N E Transition 311 Total Across Existing onstruct • New T- Down 49 r„ , TOTAL DOWN • is ITEM V LABOR, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL Labor Item V A Job Classification Hourly Rate Supervision Working oreman Laborer Equipment B Type Hourly Rate Jack Hammer/ ompressor Concrete Pump* *Price to Include Set up 6 Take Down Costs .lw Material • mein r C Type Cost Cubic Yard Crushed Aggregate/Slag Base Class Transit Mix Concrete* * Cubic Yard Rate based on full truck delivery CONTRACT PROPOSAL COST SUM ATION Accumulative Totals from Multiply Proceeding Adjustment Item @ Description Pages Factor Sub -Total I Curb & Gutter $ X - iI Drive Approach 5 X - III Spandrel & Gutter $ X = IV Sidewalk, Ramp & Trans. 5 X = • V Labor, Equipment & Materials Rates $ GRAND TOTAL NUMBERS GRAND TOTAL (WORDS) Signature of Bidder: By: Phone Date: . AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation, County of San Bernardino, State of Californa, hereinafter called the City, and hereinafter called the ContracLor. WITNESSETH: FIRST: That the Contractor, in consideration of the promises of the City to pay, hereby agrees to furnish all materials, tools, equipment, and labor necessary to perform and complete, in a good and workmanlike manner, the items of work described in these Contract Documents, all in accordance with the specifications and standard drawings of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Said specifications, and the proposal of the Contractor, which is also on file in the office of the City Engineer, are hereby referred to and made a part of this contract in like manner and with the same force and effect as if incorporated herein. SECOND: That is is further agreed that all meaterial, tools, equipment, and labor shall be furnished and work performed and completed within the time as required or indicated by said specifications, under the direction and to the satisfartion of the City Engineer, and the Contractor hereby expressly agrees to meet, observe, perform and follow every term and requirement of the • specifications. THIRD: That it is further agreed that in the event said Contractor fails to furnish tools, equipment, or labor in the necessary quantitiy or quality, or fails to prosecute the work or any part contemplated by this contract in a diligent and workmanlike manner, the City Engineer shall make verbal or written demand upon the contractor. If said Cuntractor after receipt of demand from the City Engineer so to do, fails to prosecute said work in a dilignet and workmanlike manner within the time specified by the City Engineer the City may exclude the Contractor from the premises or any portion thereof, and take possession and complete the job as deemed best by the City. In the procuring of the completion of said work, or the portion thereof the City shall charge against the Contractor, and may deduct from any money due, or the Contractor may be compelled to pay the City the amount of said charge, or the portion thereof unsatisfied. FOURTH: That the Contractor agrees to "_c,ir the work of construction contemplated and provided for in this contract within 10 days after receipt by contractor of contract repair list by the City Engineer. FIFTH: Time is declared to be of the essence of this contract, and should the Contractor fail to complete the work required in a timely fashion the City Engineer may exclude the Contractor from the premises, or any portion thereof, together with all materials and equipment thereon, and may complete the work in the manner provided in paragraph "THIRD ". 10 F -1 . SIXTH: That the Contractor agrees to save, keep and bear harmless the City and its officers and agents from all damages, costs or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise because of any infringement or alleged infringement of the patent rights of any person, firm, or corporation in consequence of the use in or about said work of any article or material supplied or installed under this contract, which article or material was fuin; shed by the wntraetor. SEVENTH: That it is further agreed that the City shall not be held liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening to the works referred to in this contract prior to the completion and acceptance of the same. EIGHTH: The Notice Inviting Bids, the Instruction to Bidders, and the Proposal are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. NINTH: That the City agrees, in consideration of the performance of this contract, to pay to contractor as follows: The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer a written estimate of the total amount of work done. The City Engineer will review the estimate and approve it or notify the Contractor of any exception. The City shall upon acceptance by the City Council, issue payment to the Contractor. No such payment or estimate shall be required to be made when in the judgement o.' the Engineer the work is not proceeding in accordance with • provisions of the contract. No such estimate or payment shall be construed to be an acceptance of any defective work or improper materials. The Contractor shall be paid in accordance with the payment processing of the City, It is understood that any delay in the preparation, approval and payment of these demands will not constitute a breach of contract on the City, TENTH: It is further understood and agreed between the parties hereto as follows: 1. That the quantities are unknown and that all of the work contemplated by this contract must be completed in all respects in accordance with the specifications. 2. That the Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of this contract, or of his right, title, or interest, without she previous consent in writing of the City Council. If the Contractor shall, without such previous written consent, assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of this contract, or of his right, title or interest therein, or lose or be deprived of the same by operation of the bankruptcy laws or insolvency laws, or in any other manner whatsoever, then and in any such event this contract may be revoked and annulled by the City Council at their option and in their absolute discretion, and if so revoked or annulled, the City shall thereupon be • relieved and discharged from any and all liabilities and obligations F -2 rl • arising out of the same to the Contractor and /or his assignee, trustee or transferee; and no right shall be acquired by any such assignee, trustee or transferee, or any one claiming under them or any of them, either at law or in equity, to make or assert any claim or demand whatever against the City, whether for monies due or to become due under this contract, or otherwise whosoever. 3. That the words "City Council ", "Engineer ", or "City Engineer ", and "Contractor ", when used in this contract, and /or bonds accompanying the same, have the same meaning as when used in the specifications and as defined in the specifications. 4. That this contract shall be binding upon the City, its successors or assigns, and upon the Contractor, his executors or administrators. ELEVENTH: That the Contractor agrees, pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, to pay not less than the general prevailing rate cf per diem wages and not less than the general prevaiing rate of per diem wages for legal holidays and overtime work, for each craft or type of workman needed to execute the work under this agreement, as ascertained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, said provisions to be applicable to pay for all workmen employed by the Contractor for work under this agreement, Said rate and scale are on file at the City Offices, and copies may be obtained. TWELFTH: This Contract shall be for a period of six (6) months commencing on • the 2nd day of January, 1984, and ending the 30th day of June, 1984, unless terminated or extended as provided. The City reserves the right of option to extend this contract from year to year commencing on the first (1st) day of July ofeach fiscal year. In no event shall this contract be extended beyond the 30th day of June, 1981. THIRTEENTH: In the event this contract be extended, compensation shall be as definced the the "NINTH" paragraph adjusted as follows: The City reserves the right to negotiate adjustment of unit cost with the contractor at the beginning of each fiscal year. The unit cost shall not be adjusted in excess of the change in consumer price index for the Los Angeles - Long Beach Metropolitan Statistical Area as calculated from April 1st through March 31st of the previous fiscal year. EXCEPT as determined by the City Engineer as follows: Where labor benefits are increased in the contractors labor agreement /contract in excess of the index and /or where prevailing wages are increased in current publication of the CalTrans General Prevailing Wage Rates in excess of the index and /or where material cost are increased uniformly in the area commonly known as the West -End, San Bernardino County, in excess of the index and /or where equipment rental rates are increased uniformly within the sphere of the City in excess of the index. Adjusted cost shall be effective July 15t of each successive fiscal year • througn the term of the ron.tract unless terminated as provided herein. F -3 • If the index is discontinued or revised during the term such other governmental index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the index had not be discontinued or revised. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said City of Rancho Cucamonga has, by order of its City Council caused these presents to be subscribed by the Mayor and the Seal of said City to be affixed and attested by the City Clerk, and the said Contractor has subscribed his name hereto the day and year first above written. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Mayor of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: City C erK, City of Rancho Cucamonga CONTRACTOR: . Approved as to form and exenction City Attorney, City or Rancho Cucamonga • F -3 >1i E • i1 L J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: City Council and 'City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer CvCAMOyc P F 19L I SUBJECT: Amending Map for Final Tract Map No. 11350 submitted by Lowy Development Corporation (formerly Lesney) located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Base Line Road Tract Map No. 11350 was previously approved on October 21, 1983 by City Council and presently is under construction. The developer has conducted market studies and found that the smaller units have low demand and has requested permission to eliminate the smaller building plan thereby changing some lot lines. This requires an amended map now submitted for approval. The Planning Commission approved this request at their meeting of November 9, 1983. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Engineer to sign the Amended Map of Final Tract Map No. 11350 on behalf of the City. Respectfully submitted, LBVLM:jaa Attachments h � ri n LJ RESOLUTION NO. 41 '4.-- J6 -o.'FR /43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDED MAP OF FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350 WHEREAS, the Amended Map of Tract No. 11350 consisting of 114 townhouses submitted by Lowy Development Corporation (formerly Lesney), Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Base Line Road 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, all conditions and requirements established as Prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract remain in full force and affect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: That said Amended Map be and the same is approved and the City Engineer is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. 'Wasserman, City Clerk jaa 1 Jon D. Mike s, Mayor r RAC r i. 0. 11350 us¢litaw iilvi[vne[n m s TI. a°wrs�_ ° �scaa°pm n [M.M[gx.w.oll[lIA1])6 [w. e[.Nn tbl • A IGALLlO VUT GEY!'L �K sT[1P)'s grta • .. �..n..�.•���ry,..y�..... �.. ' e LOMITa ONIVE T." 89 - ^r8 M: ;ate %.!`. 1Y•10 74,73 32 'i 4i 4 •f All it » 11 Is I .y at 31 f) » 1,. 21 >) >J [• xa x. ii I1 i 3 1 12 13 14 I! .. as .... as » iI 1 �i a• In fa m v n n w n.�. °h .^ . .�... w r i1 ^101 Ia w a 11 a so i r C� � 1a ; .. .�i' t �h • Z i�in n i I E s - •11. 113 111 111 10 IA ;q a+ F. • `s • s x I • 1 — LINE O� I It NOTE f 0 • 11 U_J 11T11 / ' T `V ., STAFF REPORT�' �ovcr 1 11 DATE: November 16, 1983 uS TO: City Council and City Manager ia7; FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Letter of Credit Red,ction 4th Street Storm Brain - located on the north side of 4th Street 2300' west of Etiwanda Avenue DEVELOPER: Etiwanda Investment Company (Pic -N -Save) 4209 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA Letter of Credit (Storm Drain) $352,000.00 The 4th Str -et Storm Drain has been constructed in accordance with approved plans and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements and authorize the release of 5352,000.000 from the Letter of Credit from Security Pacific National Bank, holding $176,000 for six months as guarantee of Labor and Materials. Respec fully submitte LBH:b 7 W • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer 0� CvC,tnrp,� y rz > SUBJECT: Acceptance of a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for CUP 81 -03 for construction of a median island on Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue (Miller's outpost) The attached resolution is for the acceptance of a lien agreement to defer and guaranteee construction of a median island both on Foothill Blvd. and Archibald Ave. along the frontage of Miller's Outpost. RECOWIENDATION It is recommended that City rouncil approve the attached resolution accepting the lien agreement submitted by Miller's Outpost. Respectfully submitted, LBHI JM• as Attachments RESOLUTION NO. I1- 16 -05CR e'tf. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM DAVID AND DENYSE MILLER FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -03 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 81 -03, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard submitted by David and Denyse Miller was approved on April 22, 1981; and WHEREAS, Installation of a median island established as a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit has been met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement by David and Denyse Miller, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does accept said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. 'Wasserman, City Clerk j as 9 71;2 Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor . RECORDING REPUESTEO By and WHEN RECORDED NAIL T0: WHEREAS, the Developer's desire to postpone construction of such lmprpaements until A later date, as determined by the City; and WREREAS, the CIL, It !,ratable to auth postponement PrnvlJ ?d tl,lt the Di,Veloolr enters into this Agreement rllulring the Developer to constrdct tale Improvemen lt, at no IiPeote to .no ,ity, After demand to do In by the City, .M1Kh tall Agreement th,l1 aid, provide that the lily may conetvuct said Improyeeentt if ter ^.ovolooer fall% or ne Ol.Cls to do to that the City 0411 nave a 1'. en upon the •Mal L,doerly hlrolnditlr deterlbed as t ^cw•it, for the 0 er+ln o er's oerformpnle, and any 110 AYment due CI" CLEAe CITY CE RAHCNO CUCAMONGA C'JCAUONGA, CPLIEORYiP 91730 REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEU AGREEMENT —ECP 91.11 1 TwIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into t'It day o 19 by and between D ,.i A. Miller b and end rife, and trip E: oaxRaes. trc., a CAlsfoatna wrinrataon (fors rly Wnnn as It b Dss eaawtitq, Ind. (he'e',nafter referred to as -0evel0per`), and the CITY On RA%CHO CUCAMONGA, CALIi0AN1A, a Municipal corpol.tlon (Hereinafter • .red " as 'City'), p'ovides es fol laws: WHEREAS, as a general conditl.. precedent to the 't III II. of A bultding Permit for tomAencial developwart, the Eity renu lres the conttrvctio`, of missing off-silo street impravpmentt including 112 Iands Oped median island on Archibald 4ve1a1 and Iandtcaoing for the eeis[in, Island on nndthitl 91vd. ad,41ent to the property t0 be dlreloped; end WHEREAS, the Developer's desire to postpone construction of such lmprpaements until A later date, as determined by the City; and WREREAS, the CIL, It !,ratable to auth postponement PrnvlJ ?d tl,lt the Di,Veloolr enters into this Agreement rllulring the Developer to constrdct tale Improvemen lt, at no IiPeote to .no ,ity, After demand to do In by the City, .M1Kh tall Agreement th,l1 aid, provide that the lily may conetvuct said Improyeeentt if ter ^.ovolooer fall% or ne Ol.Cls to do to that the City 0411 nave a 1'. en upon the •Mal L,doerly hlrolnditlr deterlbed as t ^cw•it, for the 0 er+ln o er's oerformpnle, and any 110 AYment due 0 Y O A, T - E AEE DO E. Tia vaA T I E5 AGP EE: I. The Ofvi,�Oper hereby agrees that they will Inet a I ofr.Nt'e sleet Imc,Qve *enta me l ua :IT 112 lama- aPed men: an 151 and do Archibald Av true and tandtcaoing for the <.,at i -g island on apo;n:ll Dl vd, In accordance and compl l ante with all tool It able ordinances •e5ol,,;•ons, rules and re,ul atian$ of :4e In eyf e<t at Me time of ;ne In sl a l t at Ian, Sala : -P, clements shall be !natal'ed upon and elong Archibald Av "je end � c d I'i I III d. 2, The Inc t a l la t 10n Of Said ImproviiTeme the 11 Oe co -,p i ±tee no later than one (1) Year following written notice to • {'e Developer f,.. the City to commence In s t a l l at l on of to, I ame. Instal let,,, of Se II :more vT a ntt to all be at no e.pente to In, City, 1. In the event the Developer fall or refuse to ca -D1111 the last al l at l on of I la Improvements In a ti ne I Tar e , ,Ity nay at any time thereafter, upon giving the Developer tor Elan notice of Its Iotenll0n to do S0, enter alto the property nerelnafte• e1111ibee and complete said Improvements and recpt er alt costs of c.walet,.o incurred by the City from the Developer. a, To to c are the performance by the :... .,. +f the ten< and cpneitlont Of this Agreement and to secure the ,'ifIt to CIt, or any r'+ndt wet cn may be eI,,Idld by Cl ty In ..moWin, sale Imp rdveme nit upon default by the OpWOOer 'Irwin ler, the Dave leper it et n these eten t rant berg, I,, F• 1 y Ir a tit 4 tell and conaev to en. Ill io— It•04Si�nq �E.`YGe��p prope.;y SItIa l e! In the CI t Of Fa n t ht iJC amo n a, County Of San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit: parcels D thru 10 of Parent Map 6226 a recorded In Nrcel Mae Bpal P2 pages 5. 5 4 'I retards of Sae Bern +Cache COVntY, St dte O�CeTPerne LM_ _7 `I Ll • i. in.5 cohl,anct ,S ,n tr I,t, n..I, a r, for the oull", eel c r, efa aoov e. 6, xr.r, trier e!are, n the l cper mall a,tl,II y per •e•* al; pr the acts and to ngi by them t0 be ]one ones• ;• I S en t, then toll con veya^ce Shall he o,d, othe r u, s t, 1t •f ^sin full 1 err: en.ct no al, visa :ti 5•;''' eP r ^e aoa Verted ail ^5 *O.tv ie no fur r 1 props -t. a :he .0� ; "t9 oh "9a t, o+i >! the ra•t lei .,rneei nice tn'e•e :u i ^Ill he car er ned hr the orev Il>ni of the CIyIl a State of Cal,!ornisi and am oth, app l,caa le $tat'to. 5"t, +g to mar t lg e$ on real or0rI ty. " t!,ii Aoreeaent Shall be h, nd,n9 upon inel: ''n51. -e the atnf!,t ! ^.t ^ :'S, Ori• eEeln la5fre: ,l -5. 5'. c e l SS a II and a5 S'gn5 of Ia:h 0f :he airl llS he ra t0. B. Lo the extent required to give effect o• +Is A3- eement as a mart,ag4 the to -a 'oerlt0:er^ Shell as no r t g a go r and th! city zha 11 O! the "mortgagee- as those tells ere used :+ the lne Clvll cads dl the S; ate of Cal if am la and any other statute Oertainmg IC marts q¢5 on real property. 9. If legal act, on S carmen I'd to enforce any of the ,11,11fons of this a9leer en t, to recover any z •hicn the Cl ty ,5 ent, :l¢d 10 re c.. e^ (rem Ih! ve l0 air Ite- sumo, 0^ t0 Porec lose txe mar tgag! c ea ted hereby ,e then the preva l l ln9 awry Shat' he int it l ed to ecolor costs and wan aa, o^e`I¢ attorney, fees as Snail be alerted by the Court. 10. Devia D. al, 11er aM mores M. Miller, IusGal and vtfe, on e oxhi arid . P gaftee, : n pW. debar hand, as cc:elg, er. ahe - ^ 1,111, —, nd agrc trust M cost of mthe obligat,ma of N. thrmr Nell ad baxi and paid for L, earn o: tFan in tl,e lot on, {!: xn•�,` a9 -s: Damd D. natter ad l>syze Y. Malter - xztt,ty peremt I1ZI P",sea, Inc. - Nlrty P'rosnc (1011. U 11. "tharq tmtalr d In this fgteelen! to the cmtrery lotc'it^: .ounni q, Gb torsi colagatam of the w,eldper `emoved, stall mt exo.M an +cwt reuse to 'limy-Fase Dollars (515.001 tares the areal fdatege of m -ra Lf II121 of tM laadscapd median island to A; tllaMld Avenue ard tIe Il.naal ford. of . enlists.,, selerd On FoaNl:l &vlruard M,Im,t it, -,a prgcrty to end dezl p i (hecresrefter referred to as -Mapshun oeralq> =r `_trynx" Mach Masseur Devil per tJeii-nee Nall to increased as of the date the Clty denarus Nat tae fdvdjcper tvstrai the n,prcvments ry,i hereunder f- Adjuetmen t Mte-1 as foilrsn: the !,,Soon Dteelopei Frye, Yell nullapllM W a fraction, the boreadanttor of Nish is t>k awnx figure for 1W henN of Ne data of this Agroaent as pihllshcs9 in the Masted States Department of turn, Bureau of [ator Statastlte, PevasM minvaor Pram there for Ursa, wage Fames aet Clerlul Markers, LOSS A:geles /Wrn Iv:acb NaMln aaetrgnlltan Area, All it. (1961 -100) IM rod the nuRreto[ of Mld, at ehe ew ands[ for the —0 an Mach the Idluet- -nt wee occurs. . ^v.�._—•hi ....a..u.+. «.n..r u. ..... .. ......n _... .�r�ne..�..wwnn... n,�+FawaM AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT CARNELIAN STREET AND LEMON AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1983 between the City of Ranch, Cucamonga, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Lawrence L. Eisenhart, C,orsulcing Engineer, with the 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 Carnelian Street and Lemon Avenue, hereinafter referred to as "Project ". WHEREAS, it is beneficial to City to have under contract an engineering firm which can immediately perform required services far City for a predetermined lump sum fee; and, WHEREAS, Engineer has specialized knowledge, training and exoerience 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 City 1. Review of project scope. 2. Obtain from City: a. Pertinent design criteria for traffic signal design; b. Available street improvement plans, topography, utility information and plan sheets, 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 construct - tion costs prior to advertising for competitive bids. ;. Plans and specification 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, aivertise for bids, and perform construction management and inspection services. Ili. City shall reimburse engineer for services performed a lump sum fee of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for Tasks A and B. Task C shall be paid on a time and materials basis at fifty dollars ($50.00) per hour and a mileage rate of twenty -five cents (250 per mile. City shall pay the engineer the prorata share of the fixed fee of work completed as determined by the City upon billing once each month at a regular City Council meeting. /J 7 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 review, 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 of Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Lawrence S. Eisenhart, Consulting Engineer BAa NOV 0 / lgR7 V r -- lf BY //Y" cur AROPNEr FOR URCNO OXAMOKk MIFOR414 MEMORANDUM V� ell v�cy a l�i v III F _ Y DATE; November 16, 1983 T0: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager SUBJECT: Employee Development and Training Program In the current budget funds are available to begin an employee training and development program. Authorization is requested to use the firm of Ross -Lewis 8 Associates on a monthly basis for the remainder of the fiscal year. Cost for the program is $7,000. The purpose of the program is to provide employees management ,development, improved service to the public, and to enhance the ways in which our management team and employees work to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth by the City Council. LMW:baa 9 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician ,22°CtF/Mp�,C c, c > � x F N> 1977 SUBJECT: Intent to Change Street Names of Pepper Court to Culpepper Court and Pepper Street to Culpepper Street and setting the public hearing for December 21, 1983 The Foothill Fire District has requested that the street names of Pepper Street and Pepper Court in Tract 12184 and Tract 9423, respectively, be changed to Culpepper Street and Culpepper Court. Tract 12184 is located on the east side of Beryl Avenue and south of Base Line with Tract 9423 being located directly west on Beryl Avenue. As you can see on the attached map, Pepper runs diagonally along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and also east -w"t or. the s^uth side of Base Line. To have Pepper Court and Pepper Street also running off Beryl Avenue is confusing. Tract 12184 is being built at this time and Tract 9423 is a custom lot tract with no houses existing. Therefore, very little inconvenience would be caused by such a change. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the date of public hearing on December 21, 1983. Re ly ubmi ed, end /sip /ctful LBH K:jaa _. Attachments • • RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 -IICR � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE NAME OF PEPPER COURT TO CULPEPPER COURT AND PEPPER STREET TO CULPEPPER STREET WHEREAS, it has been found that a certain street name has been used, which conflicts with street names that are .iot in the same alignment; and WHEREAS, emergency services personnel need to be able to determine street locations without hesitation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declares its intention to change the street name of Pepper Court within Tract No 9423 to Culpepper Court. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby fixes Wednesday, the 21st day of December, 1983, at 7:30 pm in the Lion's Park Community Center Building, located at 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed street name change. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor shall sign this resolution and • the City Clerk attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause same to be published 15 days after its passage, at lease once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario,, Crna and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The City shall cause notices to be posted consipicously along the line of the street and owners of all property along said street shall be notified by mail at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City ClerF jaa ---Ton D. Mike s, Mayor Y. CITY OF RANCIIO CUCANIONGA a ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP un Ask title; A N P,Fe FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT P. O. Box 35 6623 Amethyst Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701 (714) 987 -2535 Paul Rougeau R 3 Senior Civil Engineer Rancho Cucamonga City Hall A'UG P.O. Box 807 ` Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ully OF B.4NC110 CCCAMONe "d Dear Mr. Rougeau: ENSIMEEMNG DN!510'1 Your tract map no. 12184 has brought to our attention a perplexing situation in street naming. Sheet 3 of this map shows a "Pepper Street" approximately 64 feet north of an existing "Pepper Court ". Our present map book shows "Pepper Street" already existing, running northeast - southwest parallel to the railroad tracks, from Church St. to Lion, and again • from Kirkwood Ave. to Layton Ave. The new Pepper Street does not fit into the existing Pepper Street at all, since the new street runs east -west, and the house numbers overlap with the northeast- southwest numbers. There is still time, is there not, to alter the new Pepper Street's name to Pepperwood Ave., Culpepper Court, Pepper Tree Lane, or any other choice? Our Dispatch Center advises us that the computer will not accept the new Pepper Street as you have it on map no. 12184. Therefore tie have serious trouble! Thank you for your attention to this matter. We shall await whatever alterations you are able to make. Yours truly, j Lloyd B. Almond Battalion Chief • Taal cc: Michael Vairin .. o wcA trq all y�y��> 1977 September 6, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA New Jon D. >likela C +.nr..,+),rr Charles J. Ruquet 11 James C. Final Riehard NI, Dahl Phillip D. Sehlosser Lloyd B. Almand, Battalicn Chief Foothill Fire Protection District P. 0. Box 35 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 RE: Pepper Street (Tract No. 12184) Dear Chief Almand, Thank you for your inquiry into the apparent misnaming of Pepper Street on Tract No. 12184. Staff has reviewed the street continuity of Pepper Street and we are perplexed as you. We can find no logical reasoning for Pepper Street having an east - west flow (east of Amethyst) then northeast - southwest, west of Amethyst (following the spur line tracks). • If logic were to prevail, the northeast - southwest portion should be ctianged and Tract No. 12184 remain as is. However, we concur that Pepper Street of Tract No. 12184 should be changedand we further postulate that Pepper Court should be changed. Both Pepper Street of Tract No. 12184 and Pepper Court of Tract 9423 will be changed to Culpepper Street and Culpepper Court respectively. If there is any problem with this, please contact us immediately. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PAUL A. ROUGEAU Senior Civil Engineer PAR:jaa cc: Richard Jaxon 9320 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 RANCRO CUCAMONOA. CALIFORNIA 91730 • (7111909d991 ORDINANCE NO ",j' • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TITLE 17, DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP, REPEALING THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE, AND REPEALING TITLE 17 AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and all amendments thereto, are hereby repealed. SECTION 2: The following sections of the San Bernardino County Code, previously adopted by reference, are hereby repealed: (a) 61.021 through 61.029C, inclusive; (b) 61.0210 through 61.0219P, inclusive; (c) 61.0220 through 61.0223, inclusive. • SECTION 3: The following chapters of the San Bernardino County Code, previouslyy saopted by reference, are hereby repealed in their entirety: (a) Chapter 3. Subdivision Code; (b) Chapter 4. Mobilehome Parks. SECTION 4: Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby repealed, with the exception of Chapter 17.16, Condominium Conversions, which shall be renumbered as Chapter 17.22. SECTION 5: The following sections of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code are hereby repealed: (a) 1.08.090. Director Review; (b) 1.08.150 through 1.08.170, inclusive. Home Occupations; (c) 1.08.180 through 1.08.190, inclusive. Pyramidal Zoning. E SECTION 6: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Tit —Te—TT thereto to read as follows: .- (:�7 ....... .. page attached hereto as Exhih it ment district map' The develop t tCo¢de is 1 SECTION 7: Deane Chat �fn� at d fin the 1pte cil finds the olican i n an is hereby e City plan n Sus g uent and Po any p °te nog a bsegs 0 Plan goals ion 13 the General t adeQuatelY c0V finds that t to Div city of implementation Env mD m�tis al 1Furthe remPhe C�tort is cregu ��ode P °SP a�ificallY, the l Plan 68 of thecPublic 4.Sao Ces adverse ent al envir° ^roe "tat oats the suPPler 6 Section 211 d in any 9 or Chapter ropp5e ions to No substantial changes ire mador Yevas Council. P.• respect to Policies which w0 ro]ect is being E1R. hale. occurred B' o substcan stances changes whch the P n o]ect has becom= • undertake on the Pr information the City Lobe No new inform a Page C. ble. this Ordinance and teen (1 of avails shall osign a least (1(zlt within news The Mayor a newsDape an SECTION 9: advertisemc de Section ¢ Dail Re ort C , d ' alifornia 1p a Government once In th Ontario, shall cause ursuant at leastin city ° published P its passage the California' day afte�irculation PpflRancb0 Cucamonga, 1983. s November, general the City 2nd day of circulated 1^ and A00PTEB this PASSED, APPROVED, AYEs: NOES: ABSENT: AlTEsI City er 1.aurNasserman, keP 19 Jon D. Mike s, MaY or J DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT G%JCAA40 Qiq .� m November 16, 1983 1977 ~ City Council and City Manager Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 15 FOR TRACTS 12237, 12237 -1 AND 12237 -2 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 Attached for City Council approval is a resolution ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 15 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tracts 12237, 12237 -1 and 12237 -2 located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between Hillside Road and the north city limits. Woodland Pacific Development, Inc., developer of Tracts 12237, 12237 -1 and 12237 -2 has been notified of the public hearing by mail. The attached resolution also approves the Engineer's Report which was tentatively approved by Resolution No. 83 -172 on October 19, 1983. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 15 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and approving the Engineer's Report. Respectfully submjtted, L B}y'BK : j as Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 11- 16 -03CR ' , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 15 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S- REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12217. 12237 -1 AND 12237 -2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 19th day of October 1983, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 83 -173 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation No. 15 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 83 -173 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement ", was duly and legally posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning real property Proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 83 -173 according to the names and addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the annexation to the District and the ordering of the work, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. E3 -173 be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: ue it rurther resolved that the assessments and method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. SECTION 4: Be it finally resolved that said assessments shall not is begin unti aT fter 60 percent of said tracts have been occupied. • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for ANNEXATION NO. 15 to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for TRACTS 12237. 12237 -1 AND 12237 -2 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. General Description This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tracts 12237, 12237 -1 and 12237 -2 as well as on the lots directly abutting the landscaped areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed tracts are shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the City of . Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans for Tracts 12237, 12237 -1 and 12237 -2. The plans and specifications for the landscaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission. Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto. SECTION 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Rased on historical data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (E.30) per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (including Annexation No. 15 comprised of 25,300 square feet of landscaped area) is shown below: Total Annual Maintenance Cost b.30 X 402,307 square feet $120,692.10 • Per Lot Annual Assessment $120,692,10 = $46.37 ots Per Lot Monthly Assessment $46.37 = $3.36 T—m-onths Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner maintenance. SECTION 5, Assessment Diagram A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby incorporated within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment • Improvement for Annexation No. 15 is found to be of general bene �it to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each parcel. The City Council will hold a public hearing in June 1984, to determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the 1982/83 fiscal year which are to be recovered through assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. 9 SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adapts resolution instituting proceedings. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's Report, 3. City Council adopts_ Resolution of Intention to Annex to District and sets public hearing date. 4. City Council condUL Ls public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings. 5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council. 6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments. i � ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 15 r' Vu TRACT 12237, F` CITY OF RA \CV{O CICiW10 \GA A 12237 S -1 and ENGINEERING DIVISION � r VICINITY MAP moo„ �.. l J L J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner oslc�atoh �i 1977 SUBJECT; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MODI FICAT ?ON OF OPERATIONS VUF C N IT NAL USE PERMIT - BOARS HEAD ABSTRACT: The applicant has requested that the conditions of modification revising CUP 78 -03, the Boars Head establishment located within the Rancho Plaza center at the northwest Corner of Carnelian and 19th Street, be amended; in particular, the condition concerning the hours of operation. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of September 28, 1983, held a public hearing to consider the potential revocation or modification to the operating conditions for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03. After conducting the said public hearing, a motion was made to modify the conditions of approval to: 1. Limit the current operating hours of 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. to 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. This is consistent with the Cowision's policy of limiting the operating hours of neighborhood commercial establishments to 11 P.M. in order to reduce noise disturbances to surrounding residential neighborhoods; 2. Require the installation of noise attenuating materials to existing walls, doors, and ceilings in order to reduce the interior noise levels and exterior noise levels created by indoor activities. This would be accomplished thrn,igh a comprehensive sound analysis of the building which would be conducted by a licensed sound engineer. This analysis would be reviewed and approved by Planning Division staff in order to determine the appropriate sound attenuating materials /devices; 3. Require annual review of the Conditional Use Permit before the Planning Commission to determine conformance with the conditions of approval and ongoing compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood; 4. Require that the dinner menu and serving of dinner would continue for the life of the CUP approval. c�� 0 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Appeal - uUP 78 -03 - BOARS HEAD November 16, 1983 Page 2 Attached is the Planning Commission staff report which fully outlines the issues and alternatives the Commission considered in their modification to the conditions.of approval for CUP 78 -03. Also attached is a copy of the Commission Resolution listing the findings for modification and an excerpt of the minutes of September 28, 1983. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the Modification of CUP 78 -03 by (1) limiting the hours of operation from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m.; (2) the requirement for installation of proper noise attenuating materials to the Boars Head establishment in order to reduce noise levels to the surroundin residential neighborhood; (3) require annual review of the CUP; and ?4) require that the dinner menu and serving of dinner would be continued for the life of the CUP approval. Resp @ctfully submitted, Rick /omez City Planner (RG; jr Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report - September 28, 1983 Planning Commission Resolution Planning Commission Minutes - January 26, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes - October 27, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 1983 Appeal letter from Applicant Dated October 10, 1983 Correspondence from Concerned Citizens n / ti • • J r TTV nc AANr TIC% PITT' A WIVCA STAFF REPORT? y F SEW Z ICY DATE: September 28, 1983 -- iy;; —' TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITIONS N TIONAL USE PERMIT 8- - BOARS HEAD - ASSIRACT: This is a review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission on August 24, 1983, directed the Planning Division staff to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and set a public hearing within 30 days in order to review complaints. The Planning Commission last heard this item on January 26, 1983, when a performance report was presented by the Planning Division staff regarding the applicant's conformance to the modified conditions of approval. At that rime, the Commission considered: 1. The construction of a noise attenuation wall along the westerly property line. 2. Impeded access to the northwest parking facility. 3. Installation of speed bumps. 4. Preparation and implementation of a dinner menu. To date, construction of the sound attenuation wall has been completed, the access to the northwest parking facility has been blocked, and speed bumps have been placed in the parking lot. However the preparation of a dinner menu has not been implemented. In addition, accoustical paneling, as proposed by the applicant to be placed on the rear door in conjunction with condition 6 (sound analysis and installation of attenuating material), has not been installed. ANALYSIS: The City Planning Division has again received complaints from three adjacent residential property owners asking the Commission to consider modifications to the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Boars Head by limiting the hours of operation to 10 p.m. Their complaint is primarily focused on the parking lot between 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. It is during these late and early morning hours that the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78 -03 /BOARS HEAD September 28, 1983 Page 2 neighborhood noise levels are significantly reduced. It would take only a loud conversation or the starting of an engine to again raise the neighborhood noise level significantly. The Commission can consider two options of action to take this evening: A. Revoke the Conditional Use Permit. This would remove the bar and entertainment facility if the Commission found that the bar and entertainment uses caused disturbances which could not be mitigated to an a ^ceptable level compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. B. Again modify the conditions of approval in order to mitigate these disturbances. The following is a list of mitigation measures which the Commission may want to consider in modifying the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Limit the hours of operation to a more restrictive time. One of the major complaints is noise and disturbances created by patrons leaving the facility in early morning hours. This restriction would be in keeping with Commission policy to limit the hours of operation for neighborhood commercial • establishments to 11 p.m, in order to reduce the instances of noise disturbances to surrounding residential neighborhoods. E 2. Require the installation Of noise attenuating materials to existing walls, doors, and ceilings, in order to reduce the interior noise levels. This could be accomplished through a comprehensive sound analysis of the building which could be conducted by a sound engineer in order to determine the appropriate sound insulation and /or interior noise level attenuating devices. 3. Require annual review of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission to determine conformance with the conditions of approval and its ongoing compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. Require the implementation of a dinner menu within sixty (60) days from the Commission's action to modify the Conditional Use Permit. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in he Dai y Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices mailed to surrounTing property owners. Staff has discussed potential mitigation with the homeowners in the area as well as the business owners. %r 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78- 03 /80ARS HEAD September 28, 1983 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and consider all material and testimony presented. Staff has provided two Resolutions which reflect the two options available to the Commission. ctfully submitted, . . I Planner Attachments: Original Resolution - 78 -40 Resolution of Modification 82 -98 Minutes - January 26, 1983 Minutes - October 27, 1983 Correspondence from Adjacent Property Owners Resolution of Modification Resolution of Revocation �C RESOLUTION NO. 78 -40 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CL'CAMONGA PLANNINC CC!DfISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF CUP 78 -03 - HONE - TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT 14ITII RELATM gA Fa%11,I1IES AND MUSICAL F.NTERTAIN^IENT WITHIN' A PROPOSED NEIGH- BORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TH STREET IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 5th day of December, 1978, a complete appliention was filed for review on the above described property; and MIEREAS, on the 27th day of December, 1978. the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, IHERF.FORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SFCTION 1: That the following findings have been made: r 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and landscaping and setbacks are pro- vided which are compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. f 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of pavement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. 3. There will not be an adverse effect upon abutting pro- perty. 4. In requiring the conditions in the report, the Commission deems such requirements to be the minimum necessary to prote t the health, safety and general welfare. 5. This project will not be objectionable nor detrimental to existing, uses permitted In the zone district in which this project is located. 6. Tln!: project will not be contrary to the objectives of the proposed Master Plan and will net be in conflict -Itll the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. That tiro Pl inning Commission .sets the following conditions on t I W hbove' descr ibed project: 1. Drvolaper shnll oomply with tim latest adopted Uniform RniW (act Cod., , Uniform Acdhmhical Code, Uniform Plumbing Cod", eat in nnl Electric Code and all other applicable codes. C • 2. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at this time. 3. All signing shall be in conformance with the adopted uniform signing program. 4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. 5. The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with Planning Commission review after 24 months of operation at which time the Commission may add or delete conditions. 6. Bar and entertainment facilities must be used in conjunc- tion with the restaurant usage. 7. The applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF December 1978 PLANNING CC:�MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA : a Herron Rempel, Chairma 'TICST �' .'t1lL Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK L1Y, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of December, 1978. AYES: CO.01155IONFRS: DAM., TOLSTOY, GARCM, RENPCI. NOES: C("pC1 ISSION1Tds: NOU, ADSfINT: COl CIISSLOl:CRS: JONES 1 )6 J • RESOLUTION 82 -98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOAR'S HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Planning Commission determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and to conduct a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances and bring the use in accord with the intent and purpose of the neighborhood shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are added to those already in effect per Resolution 78 -40: • 2. Periodic policing of the parking lot by the management of the business should be done on a nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances from patrons. 3. Block access to the northwest parking area from the main parking area by placing large trees and planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to this area from the rear driveway during evening hours. 4. A sound attenuation wall shall be built on the three properties adjacent to the northwest parking area of the center. The precise height, location and construction materials shall be determind through the development of a precise development plan, which shall be prepared by the shopping center owner and reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Such improvements shall consider the use of sound attenuation material as well as some additional landscaping between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as possible and installatiion, with the cooperation of all property owners and before the January 26, 1982 meeting scheduled by the Commission. 5. Speed bumps shall be placed throughout the center. /N Resolution No. 8( �. Page 2 • 6. An analysis of the building shall be conducted to determine the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if needed. 7. The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except in the event of an emergency. 8. The northwest parking area shall not be used by Boar's Head patrons or employees and shall be appropriately posted. 9. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission on January 26, 1983, for a report on the performance of the establishment. 10. The business shall alter its operation to include restaurant usage and food service during the evening hours. This is required to meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of this action. • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. PLANNING CDZMI$SLON OF THSCXY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Sion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th Jay of October, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, King, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None SRESOLUTION 83 -117 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR THE BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOARS HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND CARNELIAN WHEREAS, on the 24th day of August, 1983, the Planning Commission determined a need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and to conduct a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of September, 1983, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for Condition — aT —Use Permit 78 -03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances associated with the use which are not in accord with the intent and purposes of the neighborhood commercial shopping district. Therefore the following conditions are added to those conditions already in effect per Resolutions 78 -40 and 82 -98. • 1. The hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. 2. Noise attenuating materials shall be installed to existing walls, doors, and ceilings, in order to reduce the interior noise levels. The applicant shall prepare a comprehensive sound analysis of the building, conducted by a licensed sound engineer in order to determine the appropriate sound insulation and /or sound attenuating devices. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 3. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission. 4. A dinner menu and serving of dinner has become effective September 27, 1983 and shall continue fr the life of this approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF September, 1983. ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S L. stout, Gnalrmdn ATTEST: . Secretary of the P ann� ing Commiss • n U Resolution 83 -117 �- Page 2 - I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23th day of September, 1983, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE C) qr l � - • ai*0x J. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOAR'S HEAD Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended that the commission take public input on this item. Cnairman King announcid that the public was invited to comment. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that the block wall required at the previous meeting had been worthwhile and the noise has been down approximately 90 percent. He attributed this decline in noise partly to the block wall, however stated that it could also be declining as it does in the winter months but increases in the summer. Mr. Futrell complimented Mr. Arcinage on his concern and efforts in working out these problems. He further stated that the parking lot corner has not been completely closed off and people were still parking back there. He also stated that he hoped this problem would serve as an indication to the Commission what kinds of problems are associates with placing a use such as this in a residential area. Michael Vairin stated he would like to report what had been observed when the establishment was inspected prior to this evening's meeting. He stated that the block wall requirement had been accomplished as well as the planters which were required and a chain on the north entrance which has also been put in • place. Further, it was assumed that this chain is being put up during evening hours, which is the requirement of the condition. Doug Gorges, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission stating that the reason the chain has not been put up is because a second tree still has to be put in place and reflectors have been ordered to be placed on the chain but have not yet arrived. rrLrther, that he would not like to have a chain across that area without some type of reflectors because of liability. Further, that he had not observed cars parking in that area. Vice - Chairman Hempel advised that phosphorescent paint might be used in lieu of reflectors. Larry Arcinage addressed the Commission stating that he sent copies of letters distributed to his employees regarding the patrolling of the parking lot to eliminate noise and also to keep Boar's Head patrons from parking in the rear parking area. Further, that he would have no control over patrons of other establishments in the center. Commissioner Stout stated that he was quite skeptical that Mr. Arcinage would be successful and complimented him and the shopping center owner on working out these problems with the members of the community. Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 26, 1983 I r" ; L L L Commissioner Barker expressed his appreciation for the good faith Mr. Arcinage demonstrated in going about as far as any businessman could be expected to go to solve problems. H. PLANNED COMMUNITY 81 -01 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Review and final consideration of the Terra Vista Planned Community text and final Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of approximately 1300 acres and is bounded by Base Line and Foothill Boulevard on the north and south, and by Rochester and Haven on the east and west. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report to the Commission stating that staff was seeking final comment from the Commission on the proposed planned community and a recommendation to the City Council dealing with the final certification of the EIR and the planned community text. Mr. Vairin further stated that an addendum had been prepared to this report which stated that a reduction in the amount of parkland and greeniraya had taken place since the orignal plan, due to the applicant's use of the Foran Bill. The applicant had chosen to provide the minimum amount of parkland dedication of public open space. Further, the Commission originally spoke in terms of a 60 -a0 percent ratio split betwoon public and private; however, under the provisions of the current plan (since the passage of the Foran Bill) the ratio of overall open space requirement had been reduced to approximately 42 acres of public open space and 13 acres reserved for private, a ratio of 77 percent public and 23 percent private. Mr. Vairin requested the Commission make a specific recommendation in the Resolution to the Citv Council regardng the parkland dedication issue. In regard to the Foran Bill, Mr. Vairin explained that the Bill states that "a planned development shall be eligible to receive credit "; however, the amount of credit is to be determined by the legislative body at the time specific development proposals are being reviewed. Also, any other conditions the Commission wished changed should be included in the Resolution. Chairman King asked for the number of acreage which would be provided under the 77 percent to 23 percent ratio split. Mr. Vairin replied that it was 42.6 acres of public open space and 13.2 acres reserved for private in the form of credit for a total of 55.8 acres, the minimum amount according to the Foran Bill. He also explained that this figure was derived from the calculation of the estimated number of people contained in the planned community. Chairman King asked how many acres would be provided if the applicant chose to provide the minimum amount under the Foran Bill. Mr. Vairin replied the minimum would be 55.0. Planning Commission Minutes .. l9 -16- January 26, 1983 • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 1982 Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior Planner • CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME 17XTENSION FOR PARCEL MAPS 6863 AND 6726 Motion: :.loved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. • PUBLIC HEARINGS: R. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMrr 78 -03 - BOARS HEAD - This is a review of potential mouifica UOns to the Conuittons of Approval, which are intended to resolve the complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plava located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that the measures listed in the Staff Report were not intended to be all inclusive solutions to the problems; however, were intended to serve as a basis on which the Commission could act. Chairman Kin, opened the public hearing. • Frank Britton, Attorney representing the applicant, 399 W. Mission, Pomona, California. addressed the Commission stating that most of the conditions being placed on the establishment by the staff were meritorious, helpful and most of them highly approved by the ownership; however, the present ownership acquired the business on June 15, 1982 and could not be responsible for problems which existed prior to that date. Further, that the applicant was not aware that the original Conditional Use Permit i:liicated that the establishment would be a full dinner house, however had purchased the business with that intention in mind and are now in the process of training personnel and working up a suitable menu. In response to the Planning condition regarding periodic policing of the outside area by security personnel, Mr. Britton stated that this was already in effect. Also, a security guard had been placed by the front door who would be policing the outdoor area, seeing that all doors remain closed, verifying that no minors enter, and prohibiting any person coming into the establishment under the influence of alcohol. In response to condition number three regarding blocking the entire northwest corner of the parking lot, Mr. Britton stated that this had already been approved by both the owner of the center and the applicant. With regard to the eond•'tion requiring a five foot planter, he stated that this was something that would have to be accomplished with the owner of the center; however, suggested that the Commission might desire to wait and see if the blocking of the parking lot would alleviate the problem. The requirement for speedbumps had been approved by the owner of the center and Mr. Britton indicated that these would soon be installed. Further, that heavy insulation and stripping would be installed around the rear door in an effort to soften any sound escaping. Also, the applicant was agreeable to the condition requiring review at any time by the Commission; however, the business could not continue to operate under the condition requiring a reduction in • business hours. Chairmen Bing asked Mr. Britton if he could give the Commission the percentage of business that is done between the hours of 12 a.m. and 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Britton replied that he would not be able to provide that information; however, Mr. Arcinage might. Larry Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, one of the owners of the establishment, addressed the Commission and replied that approximately 68 ?6 of the establishment's business was generated between those hours; thus, it would be economically unfeasible to curtail the business hours as suggested by staff in the Resolution. Commissioner Stout asked if dinner is currently being served at the Boars Head. Mr. ,Arcinage replied that it is not currently being served; however, a cook had recently been hired and that the establishment is currently training personnel and creating a full dinner menu which would be served between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. Commissioner AlcNiel asked Mr. Arcinage when lie expects to have the dinner menu randy to go into eff—t .Mr. Arcinage replied that they had anticipated to begin in November, however not being able to find a suitable cook had delayed those plans. A new cook had recently been hired Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 27, 1982 I(. f• and now he anticipated they would begin serving dinner in approximately two to six months. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Arcinage if he was made aware of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit when he purchased the Boars (lead in 1982. Sir. Arcinage replied that he was not and this was the second restaurant bought from the same person. As the first restaurant purchased in Upland has only served lunch for the past nine years, he felt that there were no problems. Doug Gorgen, 7333 °cffiman, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was agreeable to blocking off the northwest parking lot as suggested by staff; however, did not want to do the planting of the slope area suggested by staff as he felt it would not solve any problems. Further, that a wood fence had been placed behind the houses of the surrounding property owners, but the solution might be to put up a block wall. Also, he was agreeable to the installation of speedbumps in the parking lot. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was suggesting that a noise attenuation block wall should be built at the rear of the residential property, with the property owners' permission. Mr. Gorgen replied that he was and this would be much better than requiring more landscaping. Commission Barker asked how high would the wall be? Mr. Gorgen replied that he would suggest that it be 6 to 61 /2feet high. Commissioner Barker asked if there would be any problems with that from an engineering point of view? Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the ultimate design would have to be analyzed from an engineering and sound attenuation viewpoint. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was intending to place the noise attenuation wall at the top of the hill with the property owners' consent. Mr. Gorgen replied that he would be agreeable to placing the wall on the properties which are exoosed to their parking lot; however, this would have to be with the consent of the property owners. Niel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that most of the problem was with the noise in the pur!dng lot late at night and not just noise coming from inside the building. Further, that it was unfortunate that the owner of the business could not curtail his hours of operation b"ause a business should not be allowed to operate until 2 a.m. in an residential area. lion Iltascock, an adjacent shopowner located at 6636 Carnelian, addressed the Conmisson stator, 111,11, while he could not attest to the noise problems at 2 a.m., he has occasionally worked at his business Until 10 or 11 p.m. and had never been bothered by 46 planning (,emission Minutes 3 October 27, 1,38" 1 �1 noise comin; from the Boars Head. Further, that since the Boars Head has been under new ownership there has been an improvement especially with the litter in the parking lot, which had previously been a problem. There were no further comments end the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to address the issue of curtailment of hours which staff had suggested in the Resolution because he was in favor of limiting the hours. Further, that when a use such as this was approved and allowed to operate in a residential area, it should be understood by the applicant that this use would not be the same as it would be in a C -2 area on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner M¢Niel stated that the majority of the problems seem to be created from the back parking area and the back door and asked Doug Gorgen if he could completely Close off the back parking lot. Mr. Gorgen replied that he could close it off completely, but there might be a problem with fire access. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that it could be chained, which could be removed during an emergency. Commissioner McYiel then stated that if the back parking lot was completely blocked off and it was strictly enforced that the rear doors remained closed he did not think the • problem would continue and this might be the solution. Further, that probably as much noise is generated from the Bob's Restaurant as the Boars Head, therefore had no objections to the current operating hours. 760 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed W5 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened 9 Chairman King stated that he agreed that the general usage within the area which is located should have some strict conditions placed on it to make it as amenable as possible with the surrounding area. Further, that based on the comments this evening, it appeared that the problems stem primarily from, or as a result of, the parking area behind the establishment. Also, that maybe an appropriate way to deal with the issue since there is a new ownership involved would be to pass all the conditions as recommended by staff with the exception of the condition dealing with the hours of operation. Chairman King stated that he was aware that the major grievance of the adjacent residents was the hours of operation; however felt that the problem of hours of operation in conjunction with the parking situation was what made the two uses inconsistent. Further, that he would be agreeable to passing the remaining conditions, chaimn; off the rear perking area, allowing the hours of operation to remain as they currently arc, and requiring the Conditional Use Permit to come before the Commission for review in two months. lie stated that in this way the Commission would not be acting in a precipitous fashion in limiting the hours to 12 a.m. when all of the coirpluints are generated from the rear parking arcs. Also, if it appeared that the complaints tire not mitigated by the chaining off of the rear parking area, it would be back before the Commission and further action would be taken. Planning, Commission Minutes d October 27, 1982 1 1 V r r Commissioner Barker stated that he would have to agree with Commissioner Stout in that this is a use that borders on incompatibility and it is very difficult to place a use of this type, unless it was a restaurant, that close to a residential area. Further, that if it appeared that he would lose the vote on whether the permit is brought back to the Commission in sixty days rather than argue for an earlier closing time, he would like to amend the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall so that some relief would be provided for the surrounding residents. . Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with the amendment of the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall. Further, that the wall could not be just a plain block wail but a wall with some type of deadening in it. Also, it should be a rough textured surface or be planted with some type of vine. He also agreed with Chairman King that the Conditional Use Permit should come back before the Commission in sixty days. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to suggest that this approval be personal to Mr..Arcinage because he may be willing to make a good effort to solve the issues at hand, but should he desire to sell the business, a new owner may not. Commissioner Barker stated that he was stilt concerned with the 2 a.m. closing time in a residential area when it is fifteen to twenty feet from someone's back yard. Commissioner Mcyiel stated that he felt it was both unfortunate and unfair that the new owner is in this situation since he has made some headway and put forth some effort in making this a more compatible situation. Further, that this owner was being subjected to penalties based on what happened prior to his purchase of the business and judgment should be made on what this man does with the property. Motion: :+loved by die Niel, seconded by King, carried, to modify the Conditional Use Permit to include Conditions 2, 3, and 5 through 11 as recommended by staff. Condition 10 would require review by the Commission in two months. Also to be added to the Conditions wouid be the requirement of a block sound attenuating wall and detailed plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Chairman King asked if the two months time period would bring the CUP back for Commission review at the first meeting in January. Jack l,am, Community Development Director, stated that it would but the Commission might take into consideration that the -first meeting in January may not give enough time for the negotiation of agreements with the property owners on the construction of the wall, the wall construction, or time to see if the wall does much good to alleviate the sound. Commisioner AcNiel amended his motion regarding Condition 10 requiring review of the CUP by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 20, 1983. <AYI ?S; COMNUSSIONCRS: McNiel, Kin', Hempel ,ypi45: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSIINT; CO,IIMISSIONMIS: None 9 Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 27, 1582 • Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No on this project because they felt the hours to be incompatible with the adjacent area. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like it made clear that if he receives one complaint or personally saw that the Conditions were not being complied with, he would not hesitate to bring this item back before the Commission before the agreed time limit. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised the audience that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days of this meeting and that staff could be contacted for further information. Commissioner McNiel stated that he may have made an unpopular decision to some people tonight; however, would also like to go on record as saying he also would not hesitate to bring the CUP back before the Commission if a complaint is received. Chairman King recognized Edith Bartholomew, 5999 Napa, Rancho Cucamonga, who wished to address the Commission. Ms. Bartholomew stated that she agreed with Commissioners Barker and Stout in that the hours of 2 a.m. are later than any other businesfin the surruunding area and too late for a residential area. Further, that she was totally against the sale of alcoholic beverages in a residential area. s�a�t C. • mvisfon of z.z acres of land into 2 parcels within the R -1 zone Ei Plan), located at the northwest corner of Summit and East Avenues. • Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. - A Commissioner Rempel asked it the area of local streets had been looked into with regard to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to know where they are going to alleviate the need for dedication of roadway at the side or back of this property in the future. .',It. Rougeau replied that future .;edication was not anticipated because the future streets would be installed so that the lotting patterns in a larger development would be developed to provide for the interior streets to be away from the border of this project. Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the shortcomings the Etiwan of the Specific Plan is that it does not lay out many of the streets, making it very difficult in approving parcel maps in ea Specific Plan area. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Cary Sanderson, 9597 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that his client was in agreement with the conditions of both the Planning and Engineering Divisions. In response to the existing streets, Mr. Sanderson commented thnt East Avenue and Summit ;venue realignments should not have any affect on this parcel. There were no further public comments and the ,public hearing was closed Planning Commission Minutes G October 27, 1992 , C � a f ■ 0 , PUBLIC HEARINGS C. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITION$ FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOARS HEAD - This is a review of potential operational modifications to the conditions of approval which are intended to resolve complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street, Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Larry Arci.^.ege, owner of the Boars Head, addressed the Commission advising that his establishment began serving dinner as of September 27, 1983. He stated that he was not sure what this would do to help with the noise problem as it would bring more people to the restaurant. He further stated that this is the third time he has been before the Planning Commission and considered it a form of harassment. He advised that the shopping center owners have spent In excess of $12,000 trying to comply with the City's requirements to alleviate neighbor complaints. he pointed out that some of the complaints registered with the sheriff's department state problems with 17 and 18 year old kids in the parking lot. He advised that these are not patrons of the • Boars Head and could be Bob's Big Boy patrons, over which the Boars Head would have no control. He further stated that many noise problems associated with the shopping center parking Lot are not entirely originated by Boars Head customers and that many of the problems, such as racing around the parking lot, are caused by people driving in off of Carnelian. He additionally stated that the complaint of bottles being thrown against fences and into back yards cannot be attributed to the Boars Head since they do not allow gontainers to leave the premises. He stated that most of the complaints come from one family, the Futrells, and suggested that possibly their religious beliefs play a large part in their complaints. Mr. Arcinage further stated that 60 to 70 percent of his business is generated between the hours of 11 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. and that if his hours are cut back, he could not economically keep his establishment open. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that the Conditional Use Permit was granted with the restaurant as the primary use and the bar an ancillary use. Judy Adams; 6611 Topaz, addressed the Commission in support of the Boars Head. She advised that she lives directly behind the Boars Head and has not been bothered by the noise problems since Mr. Arcinage took possession. She stated that if occasionally noise becomes a problem, she calls and the employees are quick to alleviate the disturbance, She pointed out that Bob's Big Boy remains open until i a.m. and agreed that not all of the noise can be attributed tc the Boars Head, 9 Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 28, 1983 )l ' Douglas Moore addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that the problem originates in that the Conditional Use Permit was granted for a restaurant which has not materialized. He suggested that if the use was to be a restaurant, it should be a restaurant'. however, if it is going to be a bar, it should be in an area compatible with this type of use. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that while it may appear that he 13 the only one complaining, he is actually the spokesman for many of his neighbors. 11e stated that the problem with the Boars Head is the hours it is open and that being open until 1:30 or 2 a.m. is too late for a residential area when people have to get up and go to work in the morning. He suggested 10 p.m. as a compatible closing time. He commanded Mr. Arcinage'a attitude in trying to work out problems with the neighborhood, but stated that the use is just not compatible. Mr. Futrell submitted a letter from Bonnie Worrell, an adjacent neighborhor, to the Commission which voiced her opposition to the Boars Head based on neighborhood incompatibility. Gene Collins addressed the Commission stating that he has been working with the Boars Head on the sound problem. He advised that the back door is being replaced and a sound proof door is being installed and that he wanted the Commission to know that they are aware of and a" working on the noise problem. Laura Ford addressed the Commission in opposition to the Boars Head stating that this is not a compatible use in a residential neighborhood. Gayle Dyke addressed the Commission in opposition stating that the hours of the Boars Head are uncompati'cle with a residential area. June Rice addressed the Commission stating that a bar should not be allowed in this area, however, a restaurant would be compatible. A resident at 6671 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that he has had a back yard full of beer bottles and has had people come to his door asking to use his telephone after being in a fight in the parking lot. He suggested that the Conditional Use Permit should be for a restaurant, not a bar with rowdy patrons. Larry Arcinage, Boars Head owner, addressed the Commission stating that limiting the hours of operation to 10 p.m. is not good business practice. He pointed out that Bob's Big Boy is open until 1 a.m. and that he should also be allowed to remain open until that time. He stated that his business contributes to the City's tax bane and that forcing the Boars Head to close will leave a half empty shopping center, which could create even more problems for adjacent residents. Chairman Stout closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes .3- September 28, 1983 Commissioner McNiel stated that when he knew this item was coming before the Commission again, he visited the parking lot of the Boars Head around closing time. He stated that there was activity in the parking lot between 1:20 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. and that by 1:45 a.m. the parking lot was empty. He pointed out that Bob's was also closing at this time. He also stated that he observed Otte car driving behind the Boars Head and when he investigated, found that the chain had been removed. He further stated that he realized that limiting the hours may be the guillotine for, the establishment unless they change their method of operation, however, did not see any other way. He advised that he would not like to be a neighbor of the Boars Head. Commissioner Barker stated that when this item came before the Coo¢aission several months ago it was a use which bordered on incompatibility, however the Commission was satisfied that the owner of the property had made satisfactory efforts to mitigate problems. He further stated that there are certain characteristics which are incompatible with residential areas and that this use does not blend and is not working. He pointed out that the Conditional Use Permit was issued for a restaurant and they only began a dinner menu last evening. He recommended that the Commission require the Boars Head to be a functional restaurant with a dinner menu require a more compatible closing time or to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and require the establishm_nt to close and be removed from the area. Commissioner Hempel advised that he was the only Commissioner remaining of the original Commission which approved the CUP for this project. He stated that the approval of the permit was based on the Boars Head being a restaurant similar to the one in Upland. He further stated that he realized that Mr. Arcinage and Mr. Gorgen have done everying they can think of to mitigate the problems and the noise disturbances can be mitigated inside the building, however the outside noise is much more difficult to control and realized that some of the parking lot noise is attributable to Bob's Big Boy. Further, he was in favor of limiting the hours to those more compatible with a residential area. Commissioner Juarez stated that people are bothered by noise all over, however, they do not all complain to the City. She further stated that this business establishment is Mr. Areinage's livelihood and she realized that something has to be done to mitigate disturbances, however felt the hours and days of operation were fine. Chairman Stout stated that he agreed with Commissioner Barker in that this use is not compatible with a residential area and realized the Mr, Arcinage has tried everything possible to mitigate the disturbances. However, his preference would be to limit the hours of operation to 11 p.m. He further stated that he realizes this will mean a loss of capital to Mr. Arcinage, however, could not see any other way to make this use compatible with nearby residences. Commissioner Barker asked if there was a way to insure that the dinner menu would continue to be in force, Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 28, 1983 I� C � • Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the condition 4 could be amended to read that the dinner menu and the serving of dinner was effective on September 27, 1983 and world be required to continue for the life of the approval. Commissioner Barker stated he would like to be assured that the establishment will not stop serving dinner after this hearing has ended and recommended that this language be added. Commissioner Barker referred to condition 2 of the modifying resolution and asked if the sound analysis would be reviewed by a third party. Mr. Comes replied that staff would review the analysis and suggested that language could be added for assurance. Commissioner Barker recommended _ha_t this language he added. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, carried, to adopt Resolution 83-117 modifying Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 by limiting the hours of operation to 11 p.m., requiring the installation of sound attenuating materials to existing interior walls and doors, the requirement of a Sound analysis to be done by a licensed sound engineer which is to be reviewed and approved by staff, annual review by the Planning Commission, and language added to assure that the dinner menu and serving of dinner will continue for the life of the approval. • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, MCNIEL, HEMPEL, STOUT NOES; COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Juarez stated her reason for voting no was that she did not feel it necessary to limit the hours ce- days of operation, as previously stated, • • • • s 8:15 - Planning Commission Recessed 8:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened • • • 0 • D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -18 - HOWARD - The revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for First Assembly of God Church for the development of a 9400 square foot building on 5.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - APN 201- 381 -01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. • Planning Commission Minutes .5- September 28, 1983 1 i ;, Attention Rick Gomez; city planner, ,, 1 - .Ae are writtina this letter in regards to the, Boars Head Bar.7e do nod want a bar in any residential'•, �(: ^; "�•'�,�• area in Alta Loma. '?a think you should cut the hours to 10:00 or better still close it up all together. :.r,,. i_;:ti.: Thank You, •'��c..�[�. ..'.l .�`� �~. it '•(�... C7'!! c Ci LN -� isYIY!'�•LV '-O''eY�66 /icrr 4r+sa , Gc C ©,,,,ct, I G f3 °i7C/ 7 E J!' ."•�.L..._ �1 C" r64L', ►�'n4S ,F:ua eoc� 4) 117 I ��t.0 ))1'` -a. I�j is we I�:c... -t..: '�:.• •n�3C' yip =,i �L, ;ice �.'G iN • r. ell, n daXL Q2fA L.o,,,R Qr�t9j R I -h} L4N',.n, CA - `I 1'70 z,r y SA J 82s i a.Lca. AV,,. 19,-. Q Av, d coua , CA 9 9 o r c' ' >.� �{:Y.ir�io LsldifM <r %tit. Si%/�i7 I' l , uz2Li t 7—at, r l G)9(Gt �i 9/70 / i / ml Syr;��ti; )�,4 lw October 10, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 baseline Road Alt. Loma, CA 91701 Attn: Lauren Wasserman, Cit, Clerk Re: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION TO OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PELAIT 78 -03 Dear Mr. Wasserman: Enclosed You will find a check in the amount of $126.00 which represents the fee :or filing an appeal. The appeal is being made to schedule a hearing before the City Council. I would like to schedule a hearing by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 28, 1983, to modify the hours of operation of the be.rrs Head Restaurant in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The reason for this appeal is that the decision made by the Planning Commission was wrong as it did not have all the facts surrounding this matter. There is only one family directly behind the Boars Head that has constantly made complaints. This family's views are not shared by the oth,•r families living on this block. One Planning Commissioner, Mrs. Juarez, did take a poll of the neighbors directly behind the es- tablishment and her findings are the same as I have stared above. Would you please inform me of the date when a public hearing will be he W by the City Council. Thank you for the courtesv that you have extended in this matter. .,i ncv oly, R�6�E6i1 "s0 wwil, OCT 1�= vii �gi5p�3� �� p�1Q��r"tsq+l� i i 1Y 4 K '�i.+t ;Iwiillk:_i:aJtSl3iti Cctoter e3, :3t3 Dear o_rse T..:i0'ztG:r is in ra5ard to the ,.oawb:e c.*.aaZe of hcu�-0 of the &...36 b_ ..ntil six mcnthe .loo, I considered rgself a .e viar ;ntro n of the wsrs g,:.d. I can bon: stly state t *.at there la: ve b =.et. tie. =.t +¢oa leaving the care l:ecd t.�t I ::rye found the porxi::g lot tc be 'site chaotic. I `VJVn w :t :..ss• :d laud boi�ater:•z patr.rs uciag Ircf.uad ls•tuaZo. brew ::C! bear r-ag ,:r :cud t:.s .rAaE urea, aqueali..Z is ti. en of tsit :••rs, act ;.1::in obra: :ous. c:t cf t:.is oa, =viour seers to come about in the tot scr - -r mont!.s. 1 -a-.t admit teat ;t•ere irve beet tiaea 1,00;1* f:ave rar ::ed thci. no: In t..s _••,n '.Pic: ...d ts*n cnainid off. I h •:a teen folic•.icg the articles in t;-.e %•. :rapa7w, und out of _ 1 �,id the .wars Send s visit t..ia mast '.•sokEnd. .:ceerdi:;; to t•itat 1 it -v' bee: .. J" :!L rrcof dcar wac to ::ave bee:: i:stull�d. '.:ell, in My opir Luc, '_f t.,!- d.cr itre. been in. t4llcd b; t.is owner cf t.:e satablisamont, a 'rva t,..an.l :aa :.,usic �s no laud t:.rt I s!a'_d hear it over in ta,a Vcns Cho,: ic,; C_n4r x'.era : ,.,r :cd ...y :ar. I xrtainl, feel sorr. for tae poor residents scrro:mdine t..c do..rs Snd. I co,. a... -otl, sae t_ :: t conditions :a vs imyrev +d in t' ^o ?r.:in;; lo'. to a r::'.i -un, '-.ever, 1 ,4roor ly feel there is :till a nor-.our rreblem here. zn1.'i ±ice 1 :.oee .ay a•..t us bier. of some ht11, in this situat•on. I a.^ s ;cn.ing cbjtctzvelj, .ud ..o- eatl.. . �rtlsr tc arCn.mous sue t0 I..ra6l pc r- GScra. i �,,.�� e1 -�^ti• 'e`er -'.. ,. LL'M -`-�� CEO . if �l a L4'�e 7� V �P txti 7,,f R e, f ls.�c�21. -�,. E- .��(,� L4�,,{- .(,t��- �.-.., ��- ,fl�La�_'. 7��- �- -•--- ��%- .'��tj• l4/•- b'L'�Q _ '. '�p-�I ,,�./,..... �,�t J/Y\tt•t -l.Q. �.�1 �.. (.� -CTx� t' 1 _' _ . /Yr -�•,1. �1 --1LL �','''.�Ya `1.0'Nl. �L.i- Q.- C <u.c -x.L eT �.•'Y14-'✓ -� �; V L-- nX�..•� -c-s�� G,' .�a '" Y •- _ _�'�,� r y �� `� `F -•z¢� E -.� � ul l-Q.�. ,fed- ."�,.`" • �... i IF C.e- �v�'ti.e� .�.- �n.c -emu .n.v� �� 42�""d 77q — u) o--R� l 7 ^^ v.-., `-C. -c� TG..r. -L��'1 d3 C-'i-- c.- r•- +��..( ^�c�'l. �r, Lc,.p .,c.c-i, its .��- �•-�/� .2 -c< c�.�� .,y� LC`-lRt+lU. -.� e4N4 C E..t. ell LCLM�jO,t- i»�� \( - /�I � ,Q,Qu -fD ,�i.•L. �-• � � tilt -.•,r � �C� �� O &, q f`/ c7�u �-La �l� ... �d tpr� _cz G4..... _ tLKi �n..t -/�� Ca`.PC?<<P c� -�-� -d 1�,.� -/i. ��,t.,..•d- ��: 4;+. -t.� 'OL f+ . cc� nz«2t Zc Ze., Ays- �� t`�'�3 — I.Kf�'Ai ��• -�._._ � ,cam. -mot ^�' c 2 E 3 - - j - �wr��� y� ntrr -�.c�� ,oc..� `�. u.•�..Q�Q GUx.ctc. i7u �yli� t�i�,✓ 6!3S- i ir,� il,te2� k C0- u-ttF Ixodo z�93- 7( / �c r Ltd. Go2Ub' C�� �s / DO C;.e-'/,•"(G�GeMLL r Ll 2 C- - , i. C'- ('c�(��7.. -rL.c` �2- o-�✓ia'_G //� .'l�cn -LL -e- -c Lee -_.._. ._ .ILL GL•Fy R — i i , i GT ..C`C' . 13 C'� /Lca•nrLC r� �iw� -rte < /' -- -- - � Cc �-�..L�< / S /L.0 ,. LGO /."C�: / /7B -CLt (•� [t. i -- - IS- - Iii' - n �LC<uz._ fo e. .. ... !G4L✓� 1(' A3 S- .- irLL f•L(t. iCK K� - �A.L.ai r[t)Z Z['�I �,�<� ��y.r �. � �Ci .t it LB .U-lC ��p/ C+ /� -,CsL .'JL �.J !.'t ir..� �: .) .s- :?- (( [:: ✓'Lii� C�71L�ra.�— /�iysa� �1�. �LLc��1•L` : �!r �e � !:� /7� .CL.�� per- 1=3 . . � 7f � cm it.. /� .X tc7�cl. lL-t�-C s.✓ O- aJ'z" L j. 1 /,L+•�-f G� - �%L.:...� �C�`� --- .. _ i �Q.Qe..Q � ►Q.�e..c Gl- i1��t" �. _(,.`- ..t�s- ^..-:a .Cl,� ��•� I . r • ( , re (i C4• if jp /ti•t 5f' C4 ii7o t f aid Y" 7zo r/ "Gh T �`<' J./Cl✓.v //1agJ,`/L�L�aI��X� vCc�. / �3�> ,QFr�:h.Z !.v yj�! i+e�•- Y� � lL.i, i ' tc.+�- E l t Ile �• � CGfdh.U:rIT'r cfVf10�!�ryt fEPi� • 2'� AM AUG 2J lga3 Awl," �%2 � : 718(9(ID(II(12(I 2 3 PM ! �' LO / / -LAG G..s�.z...�•C� `�.0 r',�p 44 oti !Z[QL Gl.sr1,CL /..�G'lwiG�/ G�Gr G .! L"C� ��!- '11.a.c n'YL• ff4 ...F -rs[cC i[[- -C ' -G • /-o cl�� iii � ' • �' fLl f4 �/ ll ��� /%i�l�l. ;L�ly�l ! z . 1 L ![. �.,L.eD/ -. L i�s,G,/J].t."T' —G�/l. rry ��r/ _Ift. CC� •L)� Liyf —,t. � %'wr'-M Q_,16_24' -.0 (X f,.[C•/ GY /!f ./1-fs!•.E�cC.. O C[.�KCfI� Lp /hiOt`.0 l'�!L[,, �/ /`L:rLJ �✓7 <[-4rCln�L'� L!yC 2L•Yt.J [Y.(1CG .c� l � / G4 z3 %Lt"' 0 • 7 vaa ��n CwamU� MEMORANDUM' , F lid 1917 DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: Members of City Council an Ci y Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93 -0 AND ZONE CHANGE 83 -03 On November 8, 1983 we received a letter from Douglas Gorgen, Carnelian Investments, requesting that the hearing date for the appeal on General Plan Amendment 83 -04 and Zone Change 83 -03 be rescheduled to a later date. They are currently in the process of working with a consultant to prepare material for presentation at the appeal hearing, and are asking you for continuance. Staff is recommending that this Item be continued to the December 7, 1983 City Council meeting. RG /kep h C. DOUGLAS GONO[N •TO /M[r q )Aw ee )1 LA,1M [l1AN Av"N x AIlA IOMA CA 11)01 nw unem November 7, 1983 .Li,ilJ,pn!Tv;;rprpp�A���2 pEPT, NOV 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AM FM COXMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7�8�9�IO�1t�12�1i2�3i4i5�6 PLANNING DIVISION A 9320 aseline Rd., Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re: Carnelian Investments Appeal of Planning Commission Decision General Plan Amendment 83-04 Zone Change 83 -03 September 28, 1983, Meeting Dear Mr. Vairin: Although I have not recieved official notice of the hearing date for the annAal of the Planning Commission action as set forth _ above, it is my understanding that the appeal hearing will be November 16, 1983. ;Is are presently in the process of working with a consultant to prepare some material for presentation at the appeal hearing, however, un£ortunatley the material will not be ready by the November 16th hearing date. Therefore, we request that the hear- ing date for the appeal be reschedulled for a later date, or be continued to a later date if that is the correct procedure. We have spent a great deal of time and money on this general plan amendment and wish to be able to present to the City Council material that is very relevant to the request. If there is a problem with reschedullinq or continuing the hearing date, please contact me. Either the first or second City Council hearing date in December would be acceptable. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your) truly, (.rfQ�,� C. Douglas. cjorgen, Pa tner Carnelian vestment CDGtvr • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 16, 1983 TO: Members of the 'City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner C,UCANJOI, ' o u., 1977 1 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING GENERAL .LAIN __C�- ._`.n .. A - AND ZONE CHANGE 83-03 - ARNELIAN request -to amend the General Plan Land use Element rom Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) and a change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (Mulit- Family) on approximately 7.9 acres of land located on the south side of Highland Avenue, between Jasper and Carnelian Streets - APN 201- 214 -08. SUMMARY: The applicant has requested an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny General Plan Amendment 83 -04 A and Zone Change 83 -03, a request to increase the allowable density for approximately 7.9 acres of land located on the south side of Highland Avenue between Jasper and Carnelian Streets. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 28, 1983, held a public hearing to consider such request and found that the request was not consistent with the current land use policy of the General Plan and therefore denied the General P'.en amendment and accompanying zone change request. The Commission's decision to deny the General Plan amendment request and zone change was hased mainly on the fact that the increase in density would not provide the proper transition of residential densities in the area as described in the General Plan land use goals and policies. The Planning Commission felt that the present designation of low residential (2 -4 du /ac) provided a proper land use pattern which would be compatible with the surrounding single family character. Attached is the Planning Commission the General Plan policies and goals Also attached is a copy of the findings for denial and an excerpt September 23, 1983. staff report which fully outlines which are applicable in this case. Commission Resolution listing the of the minutes from the meeting of Ill is 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Appeal - GPA 83- 04A1ZC 83 -03 November 16, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends denial of these requests based on the findings contained within their applicable Resolutions. Resp ctfully submitted, Rick Gomez City lP Tanner RG: jr Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Reports - September 28, 1983 Planning Commission Resolutions Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 1983 Appeal Letter From Applicant Dated October 10, 1983 1' n • • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 28, 1983 xy � �F F .Z 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, .Assnciate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -04 A - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan from Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7.9 acres of land located on the south side of Highland Avenue between Jasper and Carnelian Streets - APN 201 - 214 -08. h. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 83 -03 - CARNELIAN INVESTMENT - A resquest for a change of zone from R-1-8,500 TO R -3 (Multiple Family) on 7.9 acres of land located on the south side of Highland Avenue between Jasper and Carnelian Streets - APN 201 - 214 -08. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reques To change the General Plan Land Use Plan from Low Resitedden: tial (2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac). To change the City zoning map from R -1 -8500 to R -3 (Multiple Family Residential). B. Location: South side of Highland Avenue between Jasper and Carnelian 0. Parcel Size: 7.9 acres E. Existing Zoning: R -1 -8500 F. Existing Land Use: Vacant, undeveloped G. Surroundin Land Use and Zoninr�: North - Residentia , R- i -061&o South - Residential, R -1 -8500 East - Vacant, undeveloped, R -1 -8500 West - Vacant, undeveloped, R -1 -8500 PLANNIIIG COMMISSIOI fAFF REPORT GPA 83 -04 A - ZC 83 -03 /CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS September 28, 1983 Page 2 N. Genera) Plan Designations: North - Low Resi3ential (2 -4 du /ac) South - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) East - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) West - Low Residential (2 -4 du /ac) I. Site Characteristics: Generally a flat site Sloping gently in a southerly direction; no structures; some low growing weeds and grasses. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: The analysis of an amendment to the Land Use Plan generaiTy focuses upon surrounding land use compatibility, General Plan land use goals and policies, and potential environmental impacts. This site already has an approved tract map for a custom subdivision of 29 lots (Tract 9659) serviced by four cul -de -sac streets and Jasper Street. The planning area affected is developed or planned as a single • family residential area serviced by retail uses located at the corners of 19th Street and Carnelian Street. Planning in the area and along the subject site is sensitive due to its proximity to the Foothill Freeway corridor. B. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The General Plan describes Low, low Medium, an Me ium Residential in the following way: Low (Z -4 dwelling units gross acre). The low density residential classi f icatiotWr2haracteri zed by single family homes. The density is appropriate where the traditional neighborhood character of detached single family units prevails and where the level of services including roads, shopping and recreation are not sufficient to justify a higher density. Low Medium (4 -8 dwelling units per gross acre). The low- medium category is characterized by residential densities somewhat greater than the low density residential group. With gross densities averaging between 5 -8 dwelling units Der acre, considerably more housing types may be used, including typical single family, single family zero lot line, duplex, and under certain conditions, up to 4 -6 townhouse -type units. This category would be appropriate within low density areas to encourage greater housing diversity without changing the single family character of the surrounding residential character. 1 w. • PLANNI`IG COMMISSI( STAFF REPORT GPA 83 -04 A - ZC 6..-03 /CARNELIA.4 INVESTMENTS September 28, 1983 Page 3 Medium (4 -14 dwelling units per gross acre). The medium density residential classification allows a range of living accommodations ranging from conventional single family units and mobile homes to townhouses. Building intensity at the lower end of the density range would be appropriate adjacent to low and very low density residential areas. Housing types would dill be characterized primarily by detached housing units. Building intensity at the higher end of the range is more appropriate adjacent to parks and other open spaces along transit routes and major and secondary thoroughfares, and near activity centers such as recreational centers, libraries, shopping centers and entertainment areas. Development of this level of intensity would normally be semi- detached or attached units. i Medium density residential also serves as a buffer between low density residential areas and areas of higher density, and commercial activities and areas of griater traffic and noise levels. • Medium residential densities shall be designated, wherever possible, along transit routes and thoroughfares and near activity centers such as recreational areas, libraries, shopping centers and entertainment areas. Development should be designed to allow densities of at least 8 dwelling units per gross acre within 1,000 feet of a transit corridor. This ensures that residents are within a comfortable walking distance from public transit and that there will be a sufficient number of people along the corridor to support transit. C. Reasons for Re uested Action; The applicant has submitted a et er outlining the purpose for the land use plan and zone change (Exhibit "B "). The primary reasons for the requested change are the site's proximity to the Route 30 freeway right -of -way and the location of the proposed freeway on -ramp. D. Issues For Consideration: o The applicant proposes a completely enclosed project that would not connect with the existing single family residential area. Is this desirable or should all land uses in the area relate to each other? o Should the City's P.D. process be used to develop this parcel and if so, should the City postpone the request for a • zone change? i PLANNING COMMISSIO( fAFF REPORT GPA 83 -04 A - ZC 83 -03 /CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS September 28, 1983 Page 4 o Will an increase in density to Medium Residential set a precedent for other sites situated along the Route 30 corridor and if so, is this the land use the City wo,ild recommend as a buffer between the Route 30 freeway and single family units? o The General Plan calls for medium density residential to serve as a buffer between low density residential areas and areas of greater traffic and noise levels. E. Impacts of Proposed General Plan Amendment: The major planning impact of an increase in density for the subject property is the potential for the new density range to set a precedent for all of the properties in Rancho Cucamonga along the Route 30 corridor that are similarly planned for Low Residential, and face the same problems associated with development projects along the proposed freeway corridor. While the General Plan does state that Medium Residential serves as a buffer between Low density residential areas and • areas of greater traffic and noise levels in many areas of the City, the existing Land Use Map does not reflect this policy. If the amendment is approved, other property owners with similarly planned, zoned, and undeveloped land may use this decision as justification for increases in density on their property. The net result will be an increase in the population of the City living north of the proposed Route 30 freeway along the freeway corridor, and a significant change in land use characteristics reflecting an increase in density along the corridor. Therefore, the major impact of this amendment is one of policy and possible precedent within the Route 30 corridor, On -site impacts of the requested amendment include an increase in resident population and an increase in localized traffic on Highland Avenue. Environmental impacts are not significant and are analyzed in Section "F ". F. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the initial Study has been complete by the app icant, Staff has completed the environmental checklist (Part II of the Initial Study) and found no sinnificant adverse environmental impacts attributable to the proposed amendment. While no significant environmental impacts are expected, the proposed land use change would have 19 the following impacts: �' J is PLANNING COMMISSIq 7AFF REPORT GPA 83 -04 A - ZC a-03 /CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS September 28, 1983 Page 5 o On -site dwelling unit and population density will double dwelling units and population in the planning area will increase. o The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the land use as called for in the existing General Plan, but is inconsistent with the currently planned density range for the area. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of this amendment, it is suggested that issuance of a Negative Declaration be recommended to the City Council. Iii. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Following are the findings required to be made or approf vaiof this amendment. A. The amendment does not conflict with the land use policies of the General Plan. B. The amendment promotes the goals of the Land Use Element. C. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent propoerties. • The Commission must examine and decide whether the amendment from Low Residential to Medium Residential would promote the land use goals ani purposes of the General Plan and whether this amendment would be materially detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts as listed in "C" above. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in TThe Dai y eport newspaper, the property posted, and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a pub is hearing and receive all public input on this matter. If the Commission finds that the requested amendment and zone change are consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, a recommendation to amend the General Plan Land Use Plan should be forwarded to the City Council. If these findings cannot be met to the Commission's satisfaction, a recommendation of denial to the City Council would he appropriate, Ressleectfully bmitted, Rick me City lanner PLANNING COMMISSION TAFF REPORT GPA 83 -04 A - ZC 83 -03/CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS September 28, 1983 Page 6 • Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - Letter from Applicant Initial Study Resolution - General Plan Amendment (Denying) Resolution - General Plan Amendment (Approving) • 19 f � L' J • I* attachment . a 53 -04 A attachment "h" r C. DOUGLAS GORGEN ATTORNEY AT LAW TWO HELLMAN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONOA, CALIFORNIA 917aa TELEPHONE (114) 95743" June 28, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION r. - 0.07 RA N C40y CUCAMONGA, CA, 91701 Re: Request for General Plan Amendment /Zone Change SWC Carnelian Ave. 8 Highland Ave. Carnelian Investments- -Owner Gentlemen: We are requesting a general plan amendment and zone change for the property we own located between Carnelian Ave. and Jasper south of Highland Ave. abutting the future Rte. 30 freeway right - of -way. The property is approximately seven (7) acres in size and is currently general planned and zoned for low density resi- dential housing (R -1 8,500) lots. The property is vacant and is relatively flat, surrounded by vacant property on the east, west, and south, with undeveloped R -1 8,500 lots on the north above Highland Avenue. The vacant property to the south is the future Rte. 3n freeway right -of -way abutting the entire south boundary of the property. At the time the freeway is developed, the west on -ramp to the freeway will adjoin the property's southern boundary for almost the entire length of the property. It is for the reason of the location of the freeway right -of -way and the freeway on -ramp that we request the general plan amendment and zone change to medium density residential (4 -14 units). More specifically, our reasons are as follows: 1. The existing zoning of R -I 8,500 will result in a resi- dential development with numerous short cul -de -sacs and 14 of the possible 29 lots with their back yards exposed tc the on- rs,::p of the freeway. Even with a screen wall and landscaping, there will be noise problems and a very un- attractive situation for the respective homeowners. Motor- ists on the freeway will be viewing the City as a series of residential backyards. 2. From an economic standpoint, there are a combination of problems that make the property difficult to develop with the existing zoning. The homes along the freeway (', the tract) will be difficult to sell and will bring Page 2 !!� CC a lower price, while at the same time, these homes will be more expensive to build. With screen walls, sound insula- tion, double paned windows, and landscaping to make the homes more compatible with the freeway location, the cost of these homes will be increased. Also, there is a require- ment to install a link of the master plan of drainage that runs the entire length of the property. The freeway loca- tion has made this necessary, and it adds to the cost of developing the property. A possible solution would be to develop very inexpensive homes on the property. It would be impractical, with the restraints caused by the freeway, to hope to sell the same level of quality home that presently exists in the tracts to the north. The g -ne.ral plan amendment and zone change would allow a develop- ment that would have the following advantages to all parties involved: 1. A better planned and more attractive development could be built that would act as a buffer between the freeway and the low density homes to the north. 2. The medium density development would provide the City with more affordable housing. There exists in close proxim- ity to the property medium density development and four shopping centers at the intersection of 19th Street and Carnelian Avenue. 3. The project would be completely enclosed and self -con- tained between Highland Ave. and the freeway on the north and south; and between Carnelian Ave, and Jasper St. on the east and west. The development would not adjoin or connect with any existing or future low density development around it. The property is more or less an island along the freeway between major streets, 4. Economically, the medium density development could justify the cost of buffering the residents of the development from the freeway. A medium density project along a major freeway on -ramp in the City would be very rentable. This type of development has been used in other areas and is successful and acceptable to renters. Also, the development could better afford the cost of installing the necessary drainage system through the property. 5 A medium density project would be a more appropriate development for the freeway exposed property, and a more attractive place for the residents of the development in which to live, There would be an all around better atmo- sphere and street scene for the neighbors of the property. As a buffer to the freeway, the image of the City visible from the freeway would be enhanced. The City should not Page 3 If allow what has become an eyesore elsewhere along freeway corridors, a long series of exposed residential backyards. For the above reasons, we respectfully request the general plan amendment and zone change. If additional or supplemental inforr.- ation is necessary, we will be happy to supply it. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. COG: yr F-1 L 0 �4 . ResoectFully, C. Doug! as ,_n, Part r Carnelian inu�stments CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee throuah the denart. =..ant where Eire project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of thesInitial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. 0 PROJECT TITLE: CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: C. DOUGLAS GORGEN 6632 Carnelian Avenue, Alta Loma. Ca. 91701 (714) 987 -6328 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: I -1 4K i►.I �r 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:_ Proposed use of the oroaerty would he for medium d ns_j_[v use_ -L4 -14y,p,iis Der acre1 1 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: The n,_„ area Of the Draoert proposing any specific = trac'u es at tnis time. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ONTOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDI *7G PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? MR I -2 Li • C 4L WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground _ contours? X 2. Create a substantial Change in existing _ noise or vibration? X 3 Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 9. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X S. Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CCRTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the DeveloRmenn Review Cc ,m§ttee. Date June 28, 1983—Signature ✓i 11 ree-1 C. oug as rgen • Title General Partn Carnel an Investments �+ RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION "NOT APPLICABLE The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cuca:..o: ^a Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOT.`.` -S, 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date prcposed to begin construction: �. Earliest date of occupancy: Model 4 and 4 of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range 9 I -4 w( RESOLUTION NO. 83 -119 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -04A - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS, TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL (2 -4 OU /AC) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -14 OU /AC) ON APPROXIMATELY 7.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN JASPER AND CARNELIAN STREETS - APN 201 - 214 -08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 1983 to consider General Plan Amendment 83 -04A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard and considered all public testimony regarding the amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission denies General Plan Amendment 83 -04A based on the following findings: A. The amendment does not conform with the residential land use policies of the General Plan. B. The amendment does not promote the goals of the Land Use Element. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1983. PLAN. NG 1MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA / Dennis L. Stout, unairman ATTEST: 'J Vic. t�C. GI Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of September, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE I � c c RESOLUTION NO. 83 -120 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ZONE CHANGE 83 -03 - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS TO A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R -1 -8500 TO R -3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY) ON 7.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN JASPER AND CARNELIAN STREETS - APN 201 - 214 -08 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on September 28, 1983 to consider Zone Change 83 -03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard and considered all public testimony regarding the zone change. NO'W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission denies Zone Change 83 -03 based on the following findings: A. The Zone Change does not conform with the residential land use policies of the General Plan. C. The Zone Change does not promote the goals of the Land Use Element. • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1983. PLA N COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 1, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23th day of September, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONER'): BARKER, JUAREZ. REIIPEL, STOUT HOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ')NONE l J C C • E. VARIANCE 83 -04 - ROBERTS - A request to reduce the front, rear, and side yard setbacks on a , square foot lot in the R -3 zone located at the northeast corner of Amethyst and Monte Vista, 6969 Amethyst - APN 202- 131 -04. Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Charles Roberts, 6969 Amethyst, addressed the Commission stating that he agreed to the conditions of approval for his project. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that the window on the north elevation should be moved to the west side to protect the privacy of the adjacent homeowner. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Variance 83 -04 with the above revision. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, JUAREZ, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE + : + . It F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -04 A - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A request to amend the Genera an Lan Use an rom Low s Reidentiai(2 -4 du /ac) to Medium Residential (4 -14 du /ac) on approximately 7 acres of land in the R -1 -8500 zone (R -3 pending) located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201- 214 -08. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 83 -03 - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A change of zone rom R- - 5 0 to R- Mu tip a ami y Residentia on approximately 7 acres of land located on the south side of Highland, between Jasper and Carnelian - APN 201 - 214 -08. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Doug Gorgon, 7333 Hellman, addressed the Commission advising that there is no project proposed for this location at this time and the request is for a change in the land use and zoning. He stated that this location is a designated Route 30 corridor and Caltrans has begun buying property in this area for the freeway. He pointed out that in the future this property will not be located in a quiet residential area, but on one of the heaviest 40 Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 28, 1983 C C traveled intersections in the City. He referred to the General Plan goals and • policies which recommends medium density as a buffer between low and high density or areas of greater traffic or noise levels and stated that this request is in keeping with those goals. He stated that he did not know of any major thoroughfare in the City which would have more need for a buffer than a freeway corridor. In reference to the General Plan which states that development should be designed to allow at least eight dwelling units per gross acre within 1000 feet of the freeway corridor, and stated that this project is within a few hundred feet of the transit corridor. Mr. Gorgen stated that a study had been conducted on this property which reflected that R -1 lots could be constructed at that location, however would be undesirable, would be unsellable and the only way to market the lots would be to place a very iuw pi-ice on them, which would bring property values down in the area. He further stated that he did not feel that in the City's planning process, it was their intention to line the freeway corridor with backyards hanging over the freeway. Mr. Gorgen further stated that this project would require screening and buffering with landscaping, however it would be difficult to screen single family lots due to the grade of the freeway on ramp. He pointed out that of the 29 lots almost half of them have back yards exposed to the freeway and 90 percent of the lots are within one lot of the freeway. Mr. Gorgen presented a conceptual plan to the Commission which is proposed for this location. He suggested that this might be preferrable to the nearby residents than single family homes. The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the project: • Dave Headly, 6474 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he checked the master plan before purchasing his home and found that it was in an area of single family residences, He expressed concern with what would happen if the amendment and zone change were approved and this applicant decided to sell his property before development and also his concern with the construction of HUD projects in the City. He referred to Mr. Gorgen's comments regarding the freeway and stated that the freeway will be a long time to completion. He stated that he would prefer lower priced single family homes to apartments or condominiums. He pointed out that there would have to be at least one point of access for the project which would probably be on Highland, which already is experiencing traffic problems. He disagreed that this project would not contribute to the noise or services to the area and stated that the City does not need any more apartments. Chris Day, 6429 Jasper, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to Mr. Gorgen's statement regarding the low quality single family homes that would have to be built at this location and stated that he doubted that the Planning Commission would approve such a project. He suggested that Mr. Gorgen's motives were profit- oriented in that he would not make as much money from the sale of the single family lots which are in keeping with the land use plan. Additionally, this is not consistent with the neighborhood use and might set a precedent for the community. He further stated that those who relied on the master plan when they purchased their homes hope that they can continue to rely on the master plan to not be changed to suit the profit motives of developers. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 28, 1983 Bill Cox, 6487 Cameo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed his opinion that the only people who would move into apartments adjacent to the freeway would be those interested in government subsidized apartments. Donald Nicholson, 8575 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he didn't put much credence in an applicant who first informs the Commission that there is riot project for this location, then produces artist's renderings of what he was proposing. He disagreed that the only low priced homes could be constructed along the freeway and citing the 57 Freeway as an example. Estella Medley, 6474 Jasper Street,Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with impacts of condomin Nmis and apartments on city streets and police and fire protection. Cheryl Haro, 8353 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga stated concerns with impacts on schools due to multi - family units. She also expressed concern with increased crime. Jay Johnson, 6321 Via Serena, Rancho Cucamonga, disagreed that "shabby" housing is the only type that will be constructed along the freeway. Frank Ike, 6491 Jasper Street, and Tom Reingrover, 6487 Sard Street, Rancho Cucamonga, both reaffirmed the comments of those who spoke before them and requested the Commission to deny the request. . Dennis Martin, 8313 Orange, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with the number of apartment and condominium projects being approved in the City and their impacts on increasing the crime rate. He suggested that single family areas be retained as single family areas. Douglas Moore, 8339 Garden, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns that the purpose of the General Plan is being undermined and expressed hope that this project would not set the pattern for future growth in the City, Bill Ungles, 6375 Sapphire, stated concerns with what is happening to the adopted General Plan. He reaffirmend the comments that multi - family projects do not mix with single family homes and did not want them in his neighborhood. Chris Sheradon, 6450 Cameo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he checked the master plan carefully before purchasing his home to make sure it was in a single family area and requested that the single family atmosphere be maintained. Majorie Day, attorney representing an adjacent property owner, urged the Commission on his behalf to deny the request. Dick Nelson, 6320 Holly Oak Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated concerns with traffic and safety of school chilJren walking down Jasper. He stated his opinion that the applicant did not show sufficient need to rezone the property or to amend the General Plan. He further stated that the proposed freeway was is Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 28, 1983 C C shown on the General Plan and if at the time of adoption it was thought multi - family units were appropriate at that location, they would have been placed there. Bruce Lutz, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that in his opinion only single family homes should be placed with single family homes. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Mc9iel stated that Mr. Gorgen may have painted a rather bleak scenario, but those who addressed the Commission in opposition were no less guilty in their presentation of the other side of the coin. He pointed out that if only single family homes were placed next to single family homes, the City would only have single family homes; there has to be some sort of a buffer. He advised that most freeways don't traverse back yards, they traverse higner density or commercial areas. He further stated that the audience may not want to hear this, but this proposal does work. Commissioner 3arker advised that the General Plan is a living document which must be monitored by both the City and the public and is subject to change. However, the previous Commission had been aware of the freeway corridor before the General Plan was adopted. He stated that there are enough provisions for higher density housing in other areas of the City and considered the General Plan Amendment and zone change inappropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that the General Plan is not cast in concrete and was never intended to be; it's a plan that could be amended with what is happening at the time. He advised that when the City adopted the General ^'.an four years ago, it thought these were the best designations at that time; however, the City was not scrutinized lot by lot but on a general basis. He pointed out that as the City changes, changes may be needed in the Plan. Further, at the time of the General Plan the freeway issue was very uncertain, however the State has begun to move forward in its plans and the freeway will be a reality in some form in the near future. He stated that when the freeway is developed it would be difficult to find a person who desires a lot on the freeway. Commissioner Juarez stated that she didn't know if the freeway would ever become a reality, therefore recommended that the General Plan amendment and zone change be denied. Chairman Stout stated that apartments and condominiums are necessary to provide ho,ising affordable to the average person. Regarding the number of apartments and condominium units approved in the City, Chairman Stout advised that the City has bean very careful in placing them in areas where they will have as little impact as possible on existing residential. on the issue of this project, he stated that it is on the southern edge of a residential area that runs all the sway to Foothill and is imcompatible with anything in the area. Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 28, 1983 C � Commissioner Rempel addressed the issue of schools and advised that the City has no authority over schools or the number of students, however the City has established a policy that does not allow residential development to take place until they have the approval of the school districts. He further stated his concern with the stratification of the City by income levels and expressed his opinion that low income people also deserve a view and a nice place to live. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to deny General 21an Amendment 83 -04 A, Carnelian Investments. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Juarez, carried, to deny Zone Change 83 -03, Carnelian Investments. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE H. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -04 8 - SYCAMORE INVESTMENTS - A request to amend the General I" Land Use Pan from UTTICQ to Neighborhood Commercial on 5.44 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202- 181 -27. I. ENVIRO:{"lE!iTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 83 -04 8 - SYCAtORE INVESTMENTS - A change o zone -from - (Administrative ro ess�1) to -1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on 5.44 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Base Line - APN 202 - 181 -27. Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing, Jack Tarr, representing Sycamore Investments, addressed the Commission stating his request is not for elimination of a policy but to focus in on a specific request. He stated that the major difference between the present zone and proposed zone is an increase in the allowable retail uses and does not intensify the area. He introduced Nelson Wheeler of Coldweil Banker who has done a market study on the area. Nelson Wheeler, 9820 Redding Way, Upland, addressed the Commission stating that the property has been marketed for two years and very few users have been interested in this site, preferring to be located along the Foothill Boulevard 49 Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 28, 1983 C. DOUGLAS GonG[N • "" ATTO..El AT LAW CITY OF RANCHO V `AMN`LGN AVENUE ADMINI CUCAMONGA ALTA LOMA CA 91701 STRATTON ..,..�.. AM OCT ZI IM October 10, 1983 718191nINIlY11121'31A1!W~Ig CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 9320 BaselinerRoad, Suite C P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 Re: CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -04 ZONE CHANGE 83 -03 September 28, 1983 Gentlemen: We hereby request that the Planning Commission decisions denying General Plan Amendment 83 -04 and Zone Change 83 -03 • made at the September 28, 1983, meeting be appealed to the City Council. Enclosed is a check for $252.00 representing the appeals fee for the two items. Please contact me at my office if you have any information that requires my attention. CDG: yr Encl. cb $252.00 CJ 1' You rsA �� C. Dougla Gorge Partner Carnelia Invest nts • 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: November 7, 1983 RE: Chapter 1.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Government Code 5815.6 provides: "where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity estab- lishes that it exercised reasonatle diligence to discharge the duty ". • Supreme Court and Appellate Court decisions in recent years have expanded the significance of this statute and on a number of occasions have denied the defense of an otherwise applicable statu- tory immunity where the immunity statute and Government Code 5815.6 conflict. There is not a lot that we can do about the mandatory duties imposed on the City and its employees by State and Federal law. However, we can avoid exposure to liability predicated on a "manda- tory duty" contained in the City's Ordinances, Resolutions, and regulations. The enclosed Ordinance is for that purpose, and we recommend its adoption. RED:sjo Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 1.04.010(G) TO REDEFINE THE WORDS "MUST" AND "SHALL" AND BY ADDING SECTION 1.04.100 TO PRC- VIDE THAT NO CODE, ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION SHALL CREATE OR IM- POSE A MANDATORY DUTY FOR OR UPON THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH OFFICE OR EMpifly=!T The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chanter 1.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 1.04.010(G) to read as follows: "G. 'Must' and 'shall' are each manda- tory except in reference to acts or omissions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga or any officer or employee of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in which cases 'must' and 'shall' are each direc- tory only." SECTION 2: Chapter 1.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 1.04.100 to read as follows: "1_04.100 No Mandatory Duty. Notwith- standing any other provision of law, no pro- vision of this Code, of any Ordinance of the City, of any Code adopted by reference by this Code or any Ordinance of the City, of any resolution of the Council, or of any admini- strative regulations having the force of law, whether the same was heretofore or is here- after enacted, shall be deemed to create or impose a mandatory duty for or upon the City, any department, board or commission of the City, or any officer or employee of the City who is acting within the scope of such office or employment." SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk sha� l attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circula- tion, published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the Cit; of Rancho Cucamonga. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1983. AYES ! NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK • /L % October T, 1983 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 93220 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: In coming weeks and months, you will be hearing a great deal about the relicensing of existing hydroelectric power plants. The controversy involves an interpretation of the Federal Power Act which gives municipalities preferred status in such relicensing proceedin+is. Nationally, various municipalities are filing competing applications for many of the investor built and owned utility hydro projects facing relicensing. The utilities, currently being challenged in seeking relicensing of the projects they financed, built, and operated, serve more than e.4 million customers while the competing municipalities serve only 835,000 customers. If these nrojects are licensed to the municipalities, the investor -owned utilities' 8.4 million customers will face an immediate increase in the average fuel cost of electricity of more than $170 million per year. ' I urge you to read the attached material and take a posltfon, by resolution, on this issue so that the City and all of our customers can continue to receive the benefits of this low cost energy resource. If you have any questions, please an11 me at 947 -8208. RWB : mb E Sincerely, R. M. Bond RESOLUTION OF THE IN SUPPORT OF RELICENSING OF HYDROELECTRIC PROTECTS TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (FERC PROJECT NOS. 1388 6 1389) Hydroelectric pi..jects, owned and operated by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), have utilized and developed our nation's natural resources, spreading the benefits of this low -cost electricity to millions of Californians. These customers, ''including thee, membars of now face the possibility, however, that the hydroelectric projects which they helped develop and pay for may be taken away by municipal agencies. From the standpoint of the broad public interest, it is preferable for as many people as possible to continue to share the benefits of inexpensive hydro- electric power. kHSREA�, SCE has over the past century developed a safe, reliable, and economic system of hydroelectric generating facilities dedicated to the use and benefit of more than three million customers representing an area population of over 9 million people; and WHEREAS, certain of these hydroelectric facilities, con- sisting of projects licensed by the Federal Power Commission, now known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), are subject to consideration for relicensing by FERC; and WHEREAS, certain municipal entities are endeavoring to secure for themselves two SCE hydroelectric powerplants, which efforts, if successful, would result in the transfer of owner- ship and operation of these hydroelectric facilities from SCE, ® and would divert low cost power away from millions of central c __i`_ornia customers for the benefit of a few ti,�usacd served by the municipal entities; and G: ?EREi+S, it would be directly contrary both to the best interest of the ,e, and to the best interest of the millions of other residential, commercial, agri- cultural, and industrial customers served by SCE whose rates have supported the ownership and operation of these hydroelectric ' acilities, were FERC to remove from the hydroelectric generating systems of SCE the following facilities: 1. SCE Rush Creek Project (Project No. 1389), which is located near June LaKe on the Eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada about sixty miles north of Bishop, California. 2. SCE Poole Project (Project No. 1388), which is located on Lee Vining Creek also north of Bishop; and WHEREAS, if any of these projects were to be transferred to • the municipal entities seeking them, the customers served by SCE would be forced to pay, every year, increased power costs for electricity from oil or gas fired generating facilities; and .... �...... , ...0 C..n ...nuC- J.. ❑ar a. ip, J�.c ro�wl, aau 'nip lovewu ,,L of their hydroelectric generating facilities by SCE is essential to the public interest and to the social and economic well -being of central and southern California consumers; and retention of these projects by their current owners is the only course consistent with the fullest improvement and utilization of these resources in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the'�i.i hereby urges and requests that The Federal Energy Regulatory /I l Commission relicense these hydroelectric facilities to SCE, I -S- and to reject the applications of the municipal agencies seeking . to take the benefits of projects away from the millions of customers served by SCE; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the - hereby requests that all hearings concerning hydroelectric e relicensing applications by SCE be conducted in the service territory where the projects are located and where the public they were built to serve lives and works; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ' supports proposed legislation to amend the Federal Power Act so as to not allow municipal preference treatment during the relicensing of hydroelectric facilities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be provided to: • The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, The California Public Utilities Commission, Appropriate members of the United States Congress Appropriate members of The California Legislature and The Southern California Edison Company. (send to Robert Dietch, Vice President and appropriate division vice president) 49 1 t tI / � i The T *eat tD SCEs LOW Cost WArlo Somas Southern California Edison Company currently owns and operates 21 hydroelectric pro- jects in the State of California. These projects enable Edison to provide reliable and efficient service by utilizing the benefits of falling water, one of the nation's most dependable sources of low-cost electricity. Edison's customers are facing the possibility, however, that the hydroelectric projects they helped develop, and pay for, may be taken away by municipal entities. Edison's hydroelectric facilities are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 1980, FERC interpreted Section 7 of the Federal Power Act, the law that governs the licensing of hydroelectric projects, as granting a "preference" to states and other municipalities in obtaining a new license for an existing hydro- electric project if the state or municipality's plans are equally well adapted �n "conserve and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region." The effect of this ruling was that the state or municipality competing with the investor - owned utility did not need to show that their plans were the best. They only needed to demonstrate that their plans were as good as the utility's. On Septemter 14, 1983, however, the FERC reversed its 1980 decision and said that municipal preference does not apply to the relicensing of hydroelectric projects. Since a group of municipal utilities has announced its intention to appeal FERC's decision, the issue will remain open to more lawsuits until Congress clearly establishes that municpal preference does not apply at the relicensing stage. The licenses issued for Edison's hydro projects in the 1920s and 1930s have begun to expire and Edison has applied for new licenses. Today, ownership of two of Edison's projects (Rush Creek and Poole) is being challenged by municipalities. Between now •and 1993, four more projects will he exposed to the same kind of challenge and eventually all 21 of the hydro projects on the Edison system will be subject to this exposure. Thus, Edison's customers will be faced with the very real possibility of this system being broken op and taken away, after years of helping to build and maintain a hydroelectric system that provides them with the benefit of low-cost power. Since no fuel cost is associated with electricity generated by hydro power, and since most nydro projects were constructed many years ago when costs were much less than they are now, the cost of hydro generation is very low when compared to other sources of electricity. Thus, if the benefits of hydro projects are lost to Edison's customers, increases in the cost of their electricity will inevitably result. From the standpoint of public interest, as many people as possible should share the benefits of this low -cost energy. However, if current municipal take-over attempts are successful, the result will be just the opposite. For example, the energy from the two projects now being challenged by municipalities is delivered throughout Edison's system for the benefit of approximately 3.2 million customers. In the event the two municipal entities are successful in taking over these two projects, the number of those benefiting would be reduced from the 3.2 million now being served to 732 for the Rush Creek project, and 2,777 for the Poole project. Edison continues to coordinate the use of its 21 hydroelectric projects to use water efficiently and repeatedly. If a hydro project is taken away, Edison's ability to fully use this resource in the most efficient manner will be reduced. Edison believes the continued operation of its hydroelectric projects for the benefit of its customers is the only manner of operation consistent with the broad public interest. Edison is committed, therefore, to retaining ownership of its hydro pro- jects in order to provide the fullest possible utilization of resources to the great- est number of individuals. To this end, Edison needs and appreciates the support of its customers. - SCE /October 1983 • D S,ck r. Ono6. 27. IM 0 W, r Edison fighting to q serve public interest SRtdhern California Eduoo,Co. current- ly owns and operates it by Srceleetrie projectsln the state. Them projects enable Edison to provide reliable and efficient service to its more than 3 million custtom- en by utilizing the benefits of falling water, one of the nation's oldest and most dependable sources of low-cost elactricuy. Edison's customers are facing the jwssibil fly, however, that the hydroelectric projects which they helped develop, and pay for, may be taken over by govern - mentowned utilities. H that should happen the coat of electricity to consumers will increase significantly since Edison would be forced to replace hydroelectric power with mom expensive sources. Edison's hydroelectric facilities are li- censed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Comoussion FERCI. In 19M, FERC inter- preted Section 7 of the Federal Power .Act, the law which governs the licensing of hydroelectric projects, as granting a "preference- to states and mumcipahties in obtammg a new license for an existing hydroelectric project it the state �r munic- ipality's plans arc equally well adapted to "conserve and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region." The effect of this ruling u that the stale or municipality competing with the mves- torowned utility need not show that their plane are the best. They need only demon - strate that their plans are as good as the utilities'. This ruling was appealed by the utilitltl and in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Ctrruit affirmed FERC's ruling. Just last month the FERC reversed its 1980 decision and held that the municipal preference does not apply to mlicensing proceedings. This decision does not resolve the issue, however, since a group at municipal utilities announced their decision to appeal the ruling. The licensee i€sued for Edison'& hydro projects in the f820a and 18JOa have begubt, to exphv and Edison his applied tar new- licenses. Ownership of two of Edisae'e projecta (Rush Creek and I.es Vining Creek, both in Mora County) is being challenged by goverimentowned uttlitiei seeking to profit from FERC's first ruling if which was upheld by the federal court. The June lake Public Cti:tty f?istrict has y anpiied to obiam the license for the Rush Creek project, and the city of Vernon has (fled a sirmlar application for the license 1 of the [Re Vining Creek project. And a between now and 19M, four more projects t will be subjected to the same kind of ' challenge and eventually all 21 of the hydro projects on the Edison system. Thus. Edison's cusib men will be faced with the very real possibility, of this system being broken up and taken away after years of helping to build and main- tam a hydroelectric system that provides,; them with the benefit of low-cost power, From the standpoint of the broad public i interest, it is preferable for as many j people as possible to share the benefits of � this lowRad energy., However, if current .� takeover attempts are successful, the re- a suit will be jiut the opposite. For example, s the energy, from the two projects now a being sought by government-owned ubti- 1 lies is delivered throughout Edison's sys- tem for the benefit of about i2 million customers. In the event the two goiera- mentowned utilities are successful in tak- ing over the Rush Creek and Lee Vining Creek projects, the number of those bene- fiting would be 732 for the Rush Creek project, and 2,M for the Vining Creek project. Obviously, it doesn't make sense for two small goverrmenbowned utilities q to take over projects row, serving millions t to accommodate leas than 5,000 consum• i em. We urge the FERC to <_tand by its most recent ruling, last month, that the munici- pal preference which dpp::a in-the mitia) j licensing process does not apply to reUceo- 11 sing proceedings. Also, we believe the Congress should pane legislation that colt i amend the Federal Power Act, clearly establishing that the municipal preference is net applicable at the relicemmg stage. Connuners who support these views' may state them to letters to their con- greutra or by writing to Kenneth th F. Plumb, Secretary, FERC, 826 N. Capita) St, N.E., Washington, D,C.20428. -. . d.,. ,.....i ... .... THE ENERGY SCENE As observed by the Southern California Edison Company September 1983 EE! IiJARNS OF HYDRO REI,ICENSING INTERPRETATION The threat of higher bills for customers of investor -owned electric utilities in 30 states will become reality unless an interpretation of a 1920 law that grants preference to munici - palities in relicensingy " ydroelectric projects is permanently overturned, according to the Edison Eiectrir Institute (EE 11, the association of investor -owned electric companies. EE 1's concern stems from a 1980 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) interpretation of the Federal Power Act. The Act, written in 1920 and revised in 1935, gives preference to IIn1n IcIpal i ties over investor -owned utilities in the development of new hydroelectric resources. The 1980 interpretation of the Act by FERC gave preference to municipalities or public agen- cies in the relicensing of existing hydroelectric projects. The practical effect of the 1980 FERC interpretation is • that a murti_) pality or public agency could take over an exist- ing hydroelectric plant that was built years ago and has been operated ever since by an investor -owned electric utility. "It is a cris,s in the making," said Fred Webber, executive vice president of EEI. "Any ruling that results in limiting the benefits of a renewable natural resource to a preferred few at the expense of the majority is not in the public interest," Webber said. Such investor -owned hydropower plants -- paid for by elec- tricity consumers and developed, operated and maintained, in many Cases tar ever 80 years, by investor -owned utilities -- save customers billions of dollars per year in fuel costs, EE! said. Earlier this month, a majo ity of FERC commissioners voted to reverse their 1980 interpretation and decided that municipal preference does not apply on relicensing after all. This deci. slon is expected to be appealed in the courts. [El believes that Congress should make a minor clarifi- cation of the Federal Power Act to ensure that the benefits of hydropower -- the nations CheapeSC source of electricity -- are not transferred from the millions of investor -owned utility customers to the relatively few municipal customers. AnyoM.,thmq to Myna THE ENERGY SCENE gqulady may hara n j," o1 ch. qa by wrainq to SwIlism California Edison, Co,pomis COmmumotiom, ROom 690, P.O. Box 800, Rmamaad, U001012 91770. RELICENSING OF HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES 0 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON How long has Southern California Edison been in business and who uses its hydro- electric power? Southern Cal ifor'n is Edison Company (SCE) has evolved from a handful of small, scattered hydroelectric and steam -power sgstems that ushered the Age of Electricity into the sparsely settled region between Santa Barbara and Riverside in the mid 1880s. Today, Edison provides electric service in a 50,000- square -mile area of Central and Southern California that includes some 800 cities and communities with a population of more than nine million people. Why is Edison concerned about relicensing? Edison currently owns and operates 21 hydroelectric projects that provide reliable and efficient service to its customers. However, Edison s customers are facing the possibility that the hydroelectric projects that they helped develop and pay for may be relicensed to municipal entities. For example, should Edison lose its Rush Creek and Lee Vining Projects, originally licensed in 1936, the number of customers . benefiting would be reduced from 3.3 million to about 3,000. Falling water, one of our country's most economic and dependable energy resources, is Scuthcrn California Edison's oldest generating resource. And, our utility plans to add 520 megawatts of hyaroelectric generation during the next 10 years as the backbone of our program Co accelerate the development of renewable and alternative energy resources. Is this Just an Edison problem? How does it affect anyone else? Edison and other investor -owned utilities serve more than 72 million, or approx- imately 77 percent of the more than 94 million electric customers who live in the United States, including almost 64 million residential customers. The other 8 mil- lion are commercial, industrial and agricultural customers. Some 734 hydro pro- jects are licensed to investor -owned utilities. Generation from all investor -owned hydro plants was approximately 81.5 million megawatt -hours in 1982. Who's trying to get your power and why? Various municipalities are claiming a preferred status under the Federal Power Act and are filing competing applications for many of the investor -owned utility hydro- electric projects for which relicensing proceedings are pending. There are now 11 of these licenses in this category, and an additional 157 will expire within the next 10 years. The legislative history underlying the relicensing issue involves the 1935 amead- ment by Congress of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, which, as a result, became the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C., Section 791, et. seq.), The 1920 law had created the Federal Power Commission, the forerunner of FERC, and authorized licenses for up to 50-year periods for the use of federal lands and waterways in the development of hydroelectric power. In June 1980, FERC interpreted the Act to say that municipal preference, applicable in the initial licensing of a project since 1920, also applied to the rel�icen_sing of existing projects. FERC said it will give preferential treatment to municipiT_ ities in any relicensing case in which FERC finds that the public interest would be served equally well by a municipality. The Federal Power Act defines a "municipality" as a "city, county, irrigation dis- trict, drainage district, or other political subdivision or agency of a state competent under the laws thereof to carry on the business of developing, trans- mitting, utilizing or distributing power." A municipality also may be a public utility district. Why shouldn't the customers of these municipalities share in the benefits of hydro- electric power? The utilities that are currently seeking relicensing of their 11 hydro projects serve more than 8.4 million customers while the competing municipalities serve 836,000 customers. If these projects are licensed to the municipalities, the utilities' 8.4 million customers will face an immediate increase in the average fuel cost of electricity of more than $170 million per year. This will be only the beginning for some of those customers. They also will face rising rates stemming from utility purchases of more expensive replacement power or the need to construct new generating plants. What is wrong with utilities having to share these hydro facilities now that their licenses are expiring? • For 80 years, investor-owned utilities have developed, paid for, operated and maintained hydroelectric power plants that save their customers from fuel costs ranging from E1 billion for coal as a replacement fuel to $3.5 billion per year for oil as a replacement fuel. Transferring all existing licenses from the utilities to municipalities that claim a preference would adversely affect many millions of people by adding significantly to the utility customers' electric bills. By the time a utility seeks to relicense its hydroelectric project, important things have happened. The utility has taken the risks of development. Millions of dollars have been paid by the utility, its investors and its customers to construct the project. Additional costs have been incurred for operation and maintenance during the term of the license. How much cheaper is hydro than oil and natural gas? Hydroelectric generation has zero fuel cost per kilowatt-hour of generation. In contrast, the current fuel cost to produce a kilowatt -hour of electricity with oil is 7.5 cents; for natural gas, 5.5 cents; and coal, slightly more than 1 cent. Exactly how much would Edison's rates Increase if Its hydro were lost? This is very difficult to predict because it is not known just how many plants Edison would, in fact, lose. Possibly the best answer was provided by the California Public Utilities Commission when they stated, "FERC's 'preference' deci- sion and the relicensing contests it has spawned may well result in an annual in- crease of many hundreds of millions of dollars in the rates charged the customers 19 of privately owned utilities providing service within California." How many Edison facilities are currently subject to municipal takeover? . In Southern California Edison's service territory, the June Lake Public Utility District has filed a competing application to obtain the license for Edison's Rush Creek Hydroelectric (Project No. 1389) in Mono County, near June Lake on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, about 60 miles north of Bishop. Also, the City of Vernon, near Los Angeles, has filed a competing application for the license of the Lee Vining Creek Project's Poole Powerhouse (Project No. 1388), which is 22 miles north of the Rush Creek Powerhouse. Four other Edison plants with a combined capacity of more than 70 megawatts will be exposed to the relicensing process by 1993, and, eventually, licenses to operate all 21 of Edison's hydro projects, including Big Creek, may be threatened. It FERC ruled in favor of a local municipal utility or PUO, wouldn't Edison be ade- quately compensated at fair market value for Its losses? Wouldn't this include severance damages? Edison may not be compensated at fair market value for its losses if FERC rules in favor of a municipality. On April 26, 1983, FERC Administrative Law Judge Jon G. Lotis found that a small municipality, Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency (JOA), could take over Pacific Power and Light (PPdL) Company's Merwin Project in Washington. Judge Lotis required JOA to pay the utility only $9.4 million for the project, PPdL's original investment less depreciation. PPRL sought at least $832 million, which it said it would need to construct a coal-fired plant to generate replacement electricity. This decision will be reviewed by the full FERC Commission. • If a municipal utility takes over a private hydro plant, what will happen to the tax base that the local government presently enjoys? If the hydro plant is located inside the municipality's boundaries, the hydro plant would become exempt from, taxation. If the hydro plant is located outside the municipality's boundaries, the land and improvements would remain subject to taxation. Improvements later constructed by the municipality are exempt from tax if they co not replace existing taxable improvements. What can Edison customers do to help? Write a letter addressed to Kenneth F. Plumb; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Secretary; 825 N. rip!! ^'. St , Y.E.; Washington, DC 20426. Copies should be sent to Robert Oietch, Vice President, Southern California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770. If you have any unanswered questions about the hydro relicensing issue, please call the Edison Hotline at (213) 572 -2341. SCE /September 1983 THE CALIFORNIA ROUNDTABLE - September 12, 1983 MFMO TO: Members of the California Roundtable FROM: 'Walter 8. Gerken, Chairman S11RdFCT: Relicensing of Hydroelectric Power Plants - The Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison recently brought to the attention of the Energy Task Force of the California Roundtable an issue of major significance to many Roundtable companies: the threatened government takeover of a series of hydroelectric projects in California which these utilities currently own and operate for the benefit of their customers. Under the Federal Power Act. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is whorized to issue licenses for construction and ope -ation of most non- federal hydroelectric facilities. PGandE and SCE hold a number of licenses to operate such facilities in California, many of which were originally granted in the 1920s and 1930s and are approaching expiration. The - ompanies therefore are seeking renewal of their licenses so that They can continue to provide the benefit of zero fuel -cost hydro power to their customers. However, several municipalities and government -owned utilities have filed competing licensing applications, claiming that they should be given "preference" over PGandE and SCE under the Federal Power Act. This situation results from a 1980 FERC ruling that a municipal "preference" would be exercised as a tie breaker whenever two competing applicants could equally well serve the public interest. As a result, the customers of PGandE and SCE -- and, in fact, customers served by investor -owned utilities with hydroelectric facilities throughout the nation -- are threatened with the loss of their lowest cost power supply. In California, six projects are directly and immediately at stake in contested relicensing proceedings: PGandE's Mokelumne River, Rock Creek- Cresta, Phoenix, and Haas -Kings River projects, and SCE's Rush Creek and Poole projects. Such Sovernment takeover clearly is contrary to the best interests of the vast majority of Californians and California business now served by investol-cwned utilities. 19 0 The Energy Task Force therefore suggests that individual member companies who so desire contact both the FERC to express strong disagreement with the Commission's interpretation of the Federal Power Act, and their representatives in Congress to urge corrective legislation that would resolve this matter permanently by reversing this inequitable decision by the Commission. I have enclosed two sample letters which you may wish to use as a basis fcr such communications, together with a copy of PGandE's brochure on this issue. I would appreciate your sending Mary Anderson at the Roundtable office copies of any letters you send to the FERC and to your representatives in Congress. CC: All deputies Att. ■ 9 Mr. Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission •8Z6 North Capitol Street, Y.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Mr. Plumb: I am writing to express my support for the rel tcensing of the following projects: Rel icensing to t.. ".e Pacific as and Electric Company of: a PGandE %kelumr.e -liver Project (Project No. 137) o PGandE Rock :reek - _Testa Protect (Project No. 1962) o PGandE Phoenix Prctect (Project No. 1061) o PGandE uaas -K'ngs Protect (Project No. 1988) Relica ^sing to the Southern California Edison Cd^pany: o S_E Rush Creek Project (Protect No. 1389) o SCE Poole Protect 'Project No. 1388) • I am convinced that if cc-oeting municipal entities are awarded the licenses for any of these prc.ects, the decision will be to t.. ".e detr',ment of the vast majority of California-s. For this reason, I also wish to express my strong disagreement with the Commission's interpretation t`at the Federal Power Act requires that government - owned utilities be given a prefe-ence in relicensirg of hydroelectric facilities. Hydro power is one of the least expensive fcr-ns of electric generation. If the Commission's interpretation stands, it could force the majority of consumers to pay appreciably more in electric rates, while inappropriately benefitting residents of a very few areas. I understand that the FERC will be conducting hearings an reli 1 censing later this year, and I urge that these hearings be held in California so that the affected utility customers --ay be heard. Sincerely, 0 .. Sa,cle Letter to Congress • Gear Congressman I am writing to express my deep concern about the Question of the relicensing of hydroelectric facilities in California. It is my understanding that government -owned utilities are attempting to takeover ownership of six hydroelectric facilities currently owned and operated by either the Pacific Gas and Electric Company or the Southern California Edison Col.;any. These include: o PGardE Mokelumne River Project (Project No. 137) o PSardE Rock Creek- Cresta Project (Project No. 1962) o P;ardE Phcenix Project (Project No. 1061) o PGardE Haas -Kirgs Project (Project No. 1988) o SCE Rush Creek Project (Project No. 1389) o SCE Toole Protect (Project No. 1388) • Each of the ;rojects is currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Camanission in a relicensing proceeding. In 1980, the FERC interpreted the Federal Power act to ream that govern „-gent -owned utilities are to receivr a prtference status in such proceedings. As a result, there is a very real possibility that the licenses for these projects will be taken away from their current owners who serve the vast majority of consumers in California, and given, instead, to the municipal utilities which serve only a fraction of the number of customers. Hydroelectricity is one 'of the most Inexpensive forms of electric generation. The Co'mission's interpretation, if it is allowed to stand, threatens the majority of coas.rers nationally with appreciably higher electric rates, while inappropriately tenefitting residents of a very few areas. I strongly believe that this situation must be addressed by Congress. I urge that you consider corrective legisiation that would resolve this .latter once and for all In a manner that would benefit the great majority of electric consumers throughout our country. Sincerely, - M E M O R A N D U M of RANCP.0 tytF ,,.NGA Aot tt I" %DV 02 1983 TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager PY FROM; Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney ZiBfg��(lit(ctjtztst4�5t6 DATE: November 1, 1983 RE: Ambulance Ordinance The sample Ambulance Ordinance which you sent to me for review, under your cover memo of October 24, 1983, is in most respects identical to the one adopted by the City of Ontario on December 7, 1982. I am enclosing a copy of Ontario's Ordinance for your review and comparison. The most significant difference between Ontario's Ordinance • and the sample submitted by the ambulance operators is at Section 4 -1.18 of Ontario's Ordinance which allows the City Council to regulate maximum rates that a permitee may charge. No comparable provision appears in the sample ordinance. Also, the Ontario Ordinance does not have an equivalent of the sample Ordinance's Section 4 -1.22 "Excused Performance ". Z do not recommend inclusion of a section such as proposed Section 4 -1.22. It is overbroad. I have no difficulty with the first two of the three added items.. These are essentially policy matters. On the addition subsection (k) to Section 4 -1.10, there should be some clarifica- tion as to whet is meant by "validation period" as used in That subsection. The proposed Ordinance would give the City Council the right to restrict the number of ambulance operators in the City on a "public convenience and necessity" basis. Such Ordinances • commonly provide for some form of rate regulation in order to protect the public from the possibility of overcharge due to a lack of available alternative service providers. RED:sjo Enclosure U] J -2- • 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM �� } CCS1783 DAT E: October 24, 1983 TO: Robert Dougherty City Attorney FROM: Lauren M. Wassermap,,�'"` City Manager J SUBJECT: Ambulance Ordinalen' e N vy We have had a req'l -st from the local ambulance operators to again consider the adoption of an ordinance regulating the ambulance businesses. The primary concern of the ambulance operators is to make certain that any company operating within the City of Rancho Cucamonga meet minimum standards and provide equal levels of service. As you are aware, the investment in ambulance services is quite high, and it is possible for almost anyone to open an ambulance company. We want to make certain that the companies operating have the full range of equipment and highly trained personnel. I have been told by the ambulance operators that the proposed ordinance is similar to that adopted by the City of Ontario. Flease note, however, that there are three added items (all of which were suggested by Councilman Buquet). I would like you to take a look at the ordinance and get back to me with any suggestions you have. As soon as we hear from you, we will schedule the item for council consideration. Thanks for your help. /ba enclosure 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF , CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE _ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF AMBULANCES. The City Council of the City of California, does Ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The _ _^ Municipal Code is hereby amended too read as follows! "Chapter 1. Ambulances Sec, 4 -1.01. Definitions. ,Unless otherwise stated, words and terms are defined as follows: (a) AMBULANCE. The term 'ambulance` means any vehicle specially designed, con- structed, modified, equipped, arranged, main- tained, and operated for the purpose of trans- porting sick, injured, wounded, invalid, ex- pectant mothers. (b) AMBULANCE SERVICE oPERATOR. The term 'ambulance service operator' means any person who owns or operates one or more am- bulances. (c) COUNCII,. The term 'Council' means the City Council of the City of (d) CLASS OF SERVICE. The term 'Class of Service' means the level or levels of complexity of field emergency medical services and will be specified as basic life support provided by Emergency Medical Tech- nician (EMT Ih) personnel conforming to California Health and Safety Code, Section 1760(f), full advanced life support provided by California licensed physician or by para- medics and mobile intensive care nurses cer- tified by the County Health Officer under California Health and Safety Code, Section • 1481. (e) CITY. The term 'City' means the City of California. (f) CITY MANAGER. The term 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the City _ of , or his designee.' - (g) COUNTY. The term 'County' means the County of San Bernardino, Cali- fornia. (h) COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER. The term 'County Health Ofticer' means that per- son designated as such by the County of San Bernardino, (i) EMERGENCY CALL. The term 'Emergency Call' is a request for the dis- patch of an ambulance to transport or pro- vide other assistance for a person who ap- parently has a sudden or unforeseen need of medical attention. • (j) EMERGENCY SERVICE. The term 'Emergency Service' means the functions per- formed in response to an emergency call. 0 Ik) PATIENT. The term 'Patient' means a sick, injured, wounded, invalid, expectant mother, convalescent, or otherwise incapacitated person. (1) PERSON. The term 'Person' includes any individual partnership, firm, corporation, association, governmental agency or other group or combination acting as a unit. (m) BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (ELS) AM- BULANCE. The term 'BLS Ambulance' means an ambulance which has equipment and supplies as specified by Title 130 California Ad- minstrative Code. (n) ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) OR LIMI? -D ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (LALS) AMBU- LANCL. The term 'ALS or LALS Ambulance' means an ambulance which has additional 2 %f0 equipment and supplies as specified by the County Health Officer, (0) MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE (MIC) PARAMEDIC. 'iise term 'MIC Paramedic' means a person specially trained in the provision of emergency cardiac and noneardiac care ap- propriately, certified by the County Health Officer. (p) MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE (MiC) NURSE. The term 'MIC Nurse' means a nurse who Ws been certified by the'County Health Officer as qualified in the provision of emergency cardiac and noneardiac care in the issuance of emergency instructions to MIC paramedics. (q) PEMITTP,E. The term 'Permittee' means any person who possesses a current City permit to act as an ambulance service opera- tor. '(r) CODE 3. The term 'Code 3' means the period when an ambulance is travel- ing to or from a patient pick -up point using red lights and /or sirens and is traveling in such a manner as to reach its destination in the shortest possible time. Sec. 4 -1.02, Permits :_ Required, It shall be unlawful for any person, either as owner, employee or otherwise, to operate an ambulance, or to engage in busi- ness as an ambulance service operator, upon the streets or any public way or place in the City except in conformance with a valid City permit to operate an ambulance service. Is) EXCEPTIONS. The equipment and personnel standards specified in this chapter apply to all ambulance agencies, however, the licensing and permit requirements shall not apply to: (1) Publicly awned ambu- lances; or, (21 Vehicles operated as ambulances at the request of local 3 r' � • authorities during any 'state of war emergency', duly proclaimed 'state of emergency' or 'local emergency', as defined in the California Emer- gency Services Act (Chapter 7 of Division.l of Title 2 of the Govern- ment Code), as amended. r1 Sec. 4.1.03. Permit Fees. Permit fees shall be those which are, from time to time, set by the Council. All permits shall be issued to expire on June 30 of each year. Sec. 4.1.04. Application for a Permit or Renewal 0 Permit. (a) PROCEDURE AND INFORMATION REQUIRED. Prerequisites to the issuance of a permit or renewal of a permit for an applicant shall include the filing with the City Manager an application in writing on a form to be fur- nished by the City Manager, which shall pro- vide the following minimum information: (1) Name and description of applicant. (2) Business address and resi- dence address of any individual ap- plicant. (3) The name under which the ambularce service will do business. (4) If a corporation, a joint venture, a partnership or limited partnership, the names of all part- ners, or the names of corporate of- ficers, their residence addresses and their percentage of participation in the business. (5) A statement of facts to show that the public convenience and neces- sity require the issuance of a permit to the applicant. 4 (6) A verification that the ap- plicant is equipped to and will pro- vide ALS paramedic service at all times in the City. (7) A statement in renewal ap- plications that the applicant owns or has under'his control required equipment to adequately conduct'an ambulance service in the City, which meets the requirements established by` the California Vehicle Code, and that the applicant owns or ha: access to suitable and safe facilities for maintaining his ambulance service in a clean and sanitary condition. when an-initial application is sub- mitted a statement that the appli- cant will own or will have under his control required equipment to ade- quately conduct an ambulance service in the City, which meets the require- ments established by the California Vehicle Code and that the applicant will own or will have access to suit- able and safe facilities for main- taining his ambulance service in a clean and sanitary condition. Both initial and renewal applications must contain a statement that the appli- cant will maintain (station) at least one ALS equipped ambulance within the geographical boundaries of the City. AA,litinnally. the applicant must es- (8) A list for renewal applica- tions amended as required during the year for any changed, substituted, loaned or leased vehicles, giving a complete description of each ambulance vehicle operated by the applicant, covering a list of the internal equip- ment carried by each ambulance, includ- ing the patient capacity thereof, and a copy of the most recent Ambulance • Inspection Report issued by the Cali- 1 ;" fornia Highway Patrol for each vehicle. When an initial application is submit- ted, a list, amended as required during the year for any changed, substituted, loaned or leased vehicles, giving a complete description of each ambulance vehicle to be operated by the applicant, covering a list of the internal equip- ment carried by each ambulance,�in -— eluding the patient capability thereof, and a copy of the most recent Ambulance inspection Report issued by the Cali- fornia Highway Patrol for. each vehicle shall be provided to the City Manager prior to the start of ambulance opera- tion. (9) An affirmation for renewal applications that each permitted ambu- lance and its appurtenances conform to all applicable provisions of this Or- dinance, the California Vehicle Code, the California Administrative Code and any other State, County or City applic- able directive. When an initial appli- cation is submitted, an affirmation that • each permitted ambulance and its appur- tenances conform to all applicable pro- visions of this chapter, the California Vehicle Code, the California Administra- tive Code, and any other State, County or City applicable directive shall be provided to the City Manager prior to the start of ambulance operations. (lo) A statement for renewal ap- plications that the applicant employs sufficient personnel adequately trained and available to deliver emergency ALS paramedic ambulance services of good quality at all times in the City. When an initial application is submitted, a statement that the applicant will em- ploy sufficient personnel adequately trained and available to deliver emer- gency ALS ambulance servicee of good quality at all times. 111) A list for renewal appli- cations giving a description of the level of training for each ambulance employee and a copy of each certifi- i; cate or license issued by the State and County establishing qualifications of such personnel in ambulance opera- tions. when an initial application - is submitted, a list, amended as re- quired during the year for any per- sonnel changes, giving description of the level of training for each ambu- lance employee and a copy of each certificate or license issued by the State and County establishing quali- fications of such personnel in ambu- lance operations shall be provided to the City Manager prior to start of ambulance operation. (12) A statement, in an initial application, that shows to the satis- faction of the city Manager that the issuance of a permit is in the public interest and there is a need for a permit to be issued, in that there is a requirement for ambulance service whicfr can be legally serviced by the applicant. (13) A statement signed by the applicant that as a condition of the City issuing a permit, applicant agrees to appear and defend all actions against the City arising out of the exercise of said permit, and shall indemnify and save the City, its officers and employ- ees and agents harmless of and from af; claims, demands, actions, or causes of actions of every kind and description aesulting directly or indirectly, arising out of, or in any way connec- ted with the exercise of this permit. Sec. 4.1.05. Investic —a tinn by City Manager. Upon receipt of a completed initial (non - renewal) application, the City Manager shall conduct an investigation to determine if the public health, safety, welfare, con- venience and necessity require the granting of a permit for which the application has been made and shall further determine if the applicant mee.s all requirements of this • - Ordinance. The investigation on all non- renewal applications shall require the City Manager to conduct a public hearing on such need and upon the qualifications of the applicant. Upon completion of his investi- gation, the City Manager shall recommend to the Council that a permit be granted or denied. No permit shall be issued by the City Manager until the Council has deter- mined that the public health, safety,-Wel- fare, convenience and r.6-cessity require the granting of such permit. The determi nation of the Council shall be by means of its conduct of a public hearing upon such need and the qualifications of the appli- cant. Sec. 4.1.06 •Issuance or Denial of Permit. The City Council may order the issuance of a new permit to conduct an ambulance ser- vice in the City upon finding that the pub- lic health, safety, welfare, convenience and necessity require the availability of such ambulance-service and that the applicant meets all requirements of this Ordinance. (a) The Council may order the denial • of a permit on the ground of infeasibility. Whenever a riew application is filed under the provisions of this ordinance for a permit to provide ambulance service in the City, the Council, after due investigation, may find and determine, as a matter of fact, that there does not exist sufficient potential need for ambulance service to justify the granting of an additional sepa- rate and distinct permit for use within the City. Predicated on such findings, the Council may deny the application for permit on the grounds that the granting of such new permit is not in the public interest and welfare. (b) The Council may order the denial or non - renewal of a permit if the applicant or ant partner, officer or director thereof% (1) Was previously the holder of a City permit, which permit was re- voked or suspended and the terms or conditions of the suspension have not been fulfilled or corrected. (2) Is committing any act, which, o - if committed by any permittee, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation - of a permit issued pursuant to this ordinance. .. (3) Has committed any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit whereby an- other is injured or where the applicant has benefited, (4) Has acted as an ambulance ser- vice operator in the City without posses- sing a valid permit therefor. (5) Has aided or abetted any person to violate any provision of this chapter or any prior ambulance ordinance. (6) Makes any false or misleading statement upon any application, or during the course of any investigation, required or permitted by this chapter. . (c) BONDING OF APPLICANT. Before any permit is issued under the provisions of this Ordinance, the Council shall require the ap- plicant as a condition to the issuance of the permit to post with the City Clerk a cash bond in the sum of Three Thousand Five Hun- dred Dollars ($3,500.00) or a surety bond in the same amount furnished by a corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, payable to the City. The bond shall be conditioned upon the full and faithful performance by the permittee of his obligations under the applicable provi- sions of this Ordinance and shall be kept in full force and effect by the permittee throughout the life of the permit and all renewals thereof. (d) LIABILITY INSURANCE. The permit- tee shall obtain and keep in force during the term of said permit public liability and bodily insurance issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of California insuring the owner, and also • naming the City as an additional insured C ? 9 of such ambulance against loss. by reason of injury ur damages that may result, to persons or property from negligent opera- tion or-defective construction of such am- bulance, or from violation of this Ordinance or of any other law of the State of Califor- nia or of the United States. Said policy shall be in the sum of not less than One +h' Million Dollars ($1,000,000.001 "for per- sonal injury to or death of any one person in any single accident; and the limits Of each such vehicle shall not'be less' than - One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for damages to or destruction of property in any one accident. Workers' Compensation insurance shall be carried covering all employees of the permittee. Copies of the policies or certificates evidencing such policies shall be filed with the City Clerk. All policies shall contain a pro- vision requiring a thirty (30) day notice to be given to the City Clerk prior to cancellation, modification or reduction of limits: • Sec. 6 -1.07, Content of Permit. The permit shall specify the dates o: issuance and of expiration, the number of ambulance units to be used by the per - mittee and any special conditions regarding communications, equipment and personnel - deemed appropriate by the City Manager. -10- "Sec. 4 -1.OH. .Amendment of Permits. "Upon request by the permittee, the City Manager may amend the conditions specified in a permit if he finds "such requested changes to be in substantial com- pliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Such amendment shall not affect the expiration date of the existing permit, -nor shall it authorize a change in ownership from that specified in the - original permit. "Sec. 4 -1.09. 'Renewal of Permits. "Permits shall be renewed annually by the City Manager upon application of the permittee, if the per- mit holder proposes no substantial change in the content of the permit, and if the City Manager determines that the permit holder has, during the period of the expiring permit, operated in substantial conformity with the provisions of this ordinance and the rules and regula- tions of the City, and that he is capable of continuing operation in conformity with the rules and regulations of the City. -- po' (a) Unless good cause can be shown by the permittee, it shall be a valid basis for non - renewal of a permit if the permittee has not, during the preceding permit period, had a Code 3 response time to at least 95% of its emergency calls of ten (10) minutes or less. ' Said response time being measured from the time the permittee received the request until the permittee's ambulance actually arrived at the location for which the service was requested. "Sec. 4 -1.10. Suspension and Revocation of Permits. "The City Manager shall be empowered to suspend or revoke the permit issued under the provisions of this ordinance to operate an ambulance service, when it has been found after investigation that the pernlittee or any partner, officer, or director: "(a) Violates any section of this chapter or any rules or regulations that are promulgated by the City which relate to his permit activities. "(b) Is convicted of any offense relating to the use, sale, possession, or transportation of narco- tics or habit forming drugs. "(c) Commits any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit whereby another is injured, or whereby the permitter has bencfitted, or any act involving moral turpitude. I1- "(d) Has misrepresented a material fact in obtaining a permit, or is no longer adheting to the conditions specified in his application. "let' Aids or ahets any,person who.violates the provisions of this chapter. .. "(f) Fails to make and keep records showin¢, his transactions as a permittee, or fails to have such records. avai iahle for inspection by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative for a period of not less than three years after completion of any trans- ' action to which the records refer, t'r refuses to comply with. a written request of the City Manage or slake such record availahle,for inspection. "(g) Accepts an emergency call when either unable or unwilling to provide the requested service or fails to inform the person requesting such service of any delay and fails to obtain the consent Of such person before causing an ambulance to respond from a location more distant than the one to which the request was directed. "(h) Failure, without adequate justification, to continuously provide MIC paramedic emergency service for a continuous period of more than 24 hours. "(i) Fails to notify the Fire Department of a request for emergency ambulance service. • "(,) Operates an ambulance demoted as a paramedic unit by wording or lettering on the unit without qualified MIC personnel and equipment in the vehicle. "Sec, 4 -1.11. Sue 'pension, Conditional Operation, and Temporary Variance. ' "In the event of a change in ownership of any kind or nature any interruption of service of more than twenty -four (24) hours duration, or any substantial change in staffing or equipment of the ambulance ser- vice, which causes the ambulance service to be carried out differently than specified in the current operating permit, the permittee shall notify the City Manager immediately in writing, stating the facts of suc?).change. "(a) upon request by the permittee, the City Manager may grant a temporary variance in writing from the condition specified in the Original permit if he finds that such change is in substantial compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. If the City Manager finds that such change is not LA substantial compliance with this ordinance, be pq_suspend, revoke, • or amend the permit by written notiC*. In all cases when a change of ownership oc- curs in an ambulance service, an applica- tion for a new permit shall be filed with the City Manager within thirty (30) days. In no case shall any temporary variance be valid for T—T a than sixty (60) days without written approaal of the Council. Sec. 4 -1.12. meal Procedure. If the renewal of a permit is denied by the City Manager or if the City Manager suspends or revokes a permit, the permit- -= tee shall be given written notice specify- ing not only the action taken, but in the event of a suspension or revocation, the effective dates thereof. Such notifica- tion shall be by registered or certified mail. (a) The permittee shall thereupon be entitled to a hearing before the City Manager. The permittee shall be afforded a hearing prior to the effective date of any denial, suspension or revocation. The city Manager may, after such hearing, affirm, modify, or set aside the original decision.... -111- 1, C (b) If, after the hearing provided for above, the City Manager denies the ren- . ewal of or suspends or revokes a permit, the permittee shall have the right to demand a hearing by the Council. A request for a hearing shall be made in writing to the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days following the denial, suspension, revocation or non - renewal of the permit. Upon receipt of a written request, the City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing on a date not more than sixty (60) days following receipt of the written request and give notice to the appellant, the City Manager, and any other interested persons who may present evidence, relevant to the decision of the City Manager. Within thirty (30) days following the conclusion of the hearing, the Concil shall make findings and issue its order, whether or not the permit should be issued or the suspension or revocation sustained. (c) During the time available to request an appeal, and at any time before the appeal to the Council shall have become -111- 1, C final, the effect of such non - renewal, sus- . pension or revocation shall be stayed. (d) Notwithstanding any other provisions herein contained to the contrary, the City Manager shall be empowered to effect an imme- diate suspension of a permit without delaying the effective 'date thereof if he first finds the continued conduct of such permittee is so. far removed from compliance with this Ordinance or the general welfare of the citizens of the City as to justify such immediate action. (e) Any permittee who has such imme- diate suspension action taken against it shall have a hearing scheduled before the City Manager.within seven (7) working days of such suspension. Sec. 4 -1.13. Emergency Service Requirements. Each permittee shall provide emergency MIC paramedic ambulance service on a con- tinuous twenty -four (24) hours per day basis. • Sec. 4 -1.14. Conformance with Permit Ordinance. No ambulance operator shall provide ambulance service for ambulance calls ori- ginating within the City unless he shall first have a valid City permit. • Sec. 4 -1.15. Standards for Dispatch. Each ambulance service receiving an emergency ambulance request shall dispatch an ambulance in compliance with the pro- cedures identified in Title 13, California Administrative Code. If an ambulance is not available for immediate dispatch, the procedures identified in Title 13, Cali- fornia Administrative Code, shall be com- plied with. (a) The Fire Department shall be immediately notified of any emergency ambulance request. Sec. 4 -1.16. Ambulance Safety and Emer- goncy Equipment Requirements. ` Ambulances shall be maintained at all - times in good mechanical repair and in a clean and sanitary condition. (a) MINIMUM EQUIPMENT. All ambu- lances shall be equipped with all safety _ and emergency equipment required for ambu lances by the California Vehicle Code and the California Administrative Code and ad- ministrative rules of the County Health Officer as the same are now written, or hereafter amended. (b) ALS AMBULANCE EQUIPMENT. In addition to the regular ambulance equipment and supplies, any ALS ambulance shall also be equipped as required by the valid ad- ' ministrative rules of the County Health Officer. (c) MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENCY EQUIP- MENT AND SUPPLIES. Dressings, bandaging, • instruments and other medical supplies used for care and treatment of patients will be protected so they are sterile when ready for use. Sec. 4 -1.11. Ambulance Personnel. Every person who drives an ambulance within the City, while responding to emer- gency calls, shall comply with the require- ments in the California Administrative Code for ambulance drivers. The driver of an ambulance shall be trained and competent in the proper use of all emergency equip- ment required by this ordinance. The driver shall also hold a certificate of at least an EMT IA unless the ambulance service operator has been specifically exempted from this requirement by the Council. (a) AMBULANCE ATTENDANT. An ambu- lance attendant shall be trained and Com- petent in the proper use of all emergency equipment required by this Ordinance, and • shall hold the required certification of at least an EMT IA. If the vehicle is being used as an ALS ambulance, at least one attendant shall hold a certificate as an MIC paramedic issued by the Health Officer for ALS ambulance. _ (b) ATTENDANT REQUIRED. Each ambulance being operated within the City, in response to an emergency call, shall be staffed by both a driver and attendant. The attendant of an ambulance responding to an emergency call shall occupy the patient compartment while transporting any person in apparent need of medical attention. An rmbulance driver or ambulance attendant who is a California licensed physician or an MIC nurse certified by the County Health Officer, shall be exempt from the emergency medical training requirement of this section. This section shall not apply during any 'state of emergency' or 'local emergency' as defined in the Government Code of the State of California. sec. 4 -I -18. Continuation of Call. An ambulance based and properly licensed outside the City but not licensed by the City shall be authorized to transport a patient to or through the City, but shall not be authorized to transport patients originating in the City. Sec. 4 -1.19. Emergency and Disaster Operations. During any 'state of war emergency', 'state of emergeney',or 'local emergency' as defined in the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Gover +rrnt Code), as amended, each ambulance service operator shall provide equipment, facilities and personnel as required by the City Manager. Sec. 4 -1.20. User Complaint Procedures. Any user or subscriber to an ambulance service contending that he has been required to . pay an excessive chsrge for service or that he -16- 'J 0 has received unsatisfactory services may file a written complaint with the City Manager setting forth such allegations. The City Manager shall notify the affected permittee of such complaint, and shall investigate the matter to determine the validity of the complaint. If the complaint is determined to be valid, the City Manager shall take a reasonable and proper action to secure compliance with the conditions of this Ordinance. Sec, 4 -1.21. Enforcement Responsibilities. (a) The City Manager shall make all necessary and reasonable rules and regulations subject to the approval of the Council covering ambulance service operation, ambulance equipment, ambulance vehicles, ambulance personnel, and for the effective and reasonable administration of this Ordinance. (b) The City Manager shall inspect the records, facilities, vehicles, equipment and • methods of operation whenever such inspections are deemed necessary. • Sec. 4 -1.22. Excused Performance. No operator shall be deemed to be in violation of its permit if it shall fail to provide, either in whole or in part, the services otherwise required of it if such performance is prevented by any of the following: (a) Acts of God; (b) Labor strikes or disputes; (c) Intervention of any government body;or (d) Any force reasonably beyond the control of the operator," SECTION 2: T:.a City Council hereby declares that it would hive adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions -17- 0 thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. If for any reason any portion of this ordinance shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then all other provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the permit to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage. at least once in a newspaper of general circula- tion, published and circulated in the City of California. APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1983, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • ATTEST: ty Cie • -18- Mayor aC • Section 4 -1.06 see • J cV (c) BONDING Of APPLICANT. Before any permit is issued under the provisions of this Ordinance, the Council shall'require the applicant as a condition to the issuance of the permit to post with the City Clerk a cash bond in the sum of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or a surety bond in the same amount furnished by a corporation authorized to do business in the State of California, payable to the City. The bond shall be conditioned upon the full and faithful perform -' ante by the permittee of his obligations under the applicable provisions of this Ordicar.co and shall be kept in full force and effect by the permittee throughout the life of the permit and all renewals thereof. 'J • "Sec, 4 -1.09. Renewal of permits See "(a) C� "(a) Unless good cause can be shown by the permittee, it shall.be a valid basis for non renewal of a permit if the permittee has.not, _ during the preceding permit period, had a Code 3 response time to at least 95% of its emergency calls of eight (g) minutes or less. Said response time being measured from the time the permittee received the request until the permittee's ambulance actually .tLlved at the location for which the service was requested. -11- /1 i • • "Sec. 4 -1.10 Suspension and Revocation of Permits See new insert "(k) "(k) During any validation period of not less than thirty (30) days, failure of permittee to respond to 95% of Code 3 calls within eight (8) minutes or less will be sufficient grounds for revocation of permit. -12- /! > CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 1983 TV: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman �i c City Manager SUBJECT: Employee Training and Development Ci�,CAeroI w= I On tha Consent Calendar for November 16 is a request to authorize the expenditure of budgeted funds for employee training and development. We are recommending the firm of Ross -Lewis and Associates be retained for the remainder of the fiscal year at a cost of $7,000. M Employee Development Program is needed for the following reasons: 1. To improve employee morale and to regenerate employee enthusiasm after nearly six years. 2. To improve service to the public by developing programs intended to enhance communications with our "clients ". 3. To improve employee productivity. 4. To keep our employees up -to -date on the most recent "state of the art" management practices. S. To improve communications and to improve the overall effectiveness of our management team. 6. To improve communications between our management team and other employees. 7. To develop better ways to solve problems in the City. 8. To continue our efforts to maintain effective employer- employee relations. Nearly every good organization provides training and development opportunities for its employees. This need for development programs is especially apparent at this time, because many of o-ir employees have worked for the City between three to six years. It is time to take a fresh look at the way the City operates. It is also time to 'recharge our batteries" and to build a new enthusiasm for doing our jobs. In summary, the City Executive Management Team is searching for ways to improve our operations. A training and development program will, in our view, help to focus on our needs and on the ways in which we can provide better service to the City Council and to the public, city council Re: Employee Training November 14, 1983 Page 2 The firm of Ross -Lewis and Associates is an experienced firm which also does work in a nuaber of other coimmmities. Captain Wickum and I have participated in the Police Chief -City Manager Seminar which is also conducted by this sessions we willfbehhaving iithelprogramviseapproved , in on arty of the monthly LMP:baa ;'s.SJOgN F. LEMINGER 7119 W [re M[.e[. W.e / M[.c[. ❑�w.m, W.+wwarow 9e04o ? "cv er bar 1 ^ ?j of A;.ncho �xcsr..cr. ^a Plennir.4 Division P. C. pox P07 Rancho h:na ^..on;a, Cllif. c1730 Sub; cct% Anooeal or Pla_ r.'" Declsi :n to Jenv Seneral Plan ,L :cnd7dnt e3_�:4 A Car.. ^.elisn Invest- .ents- A recu.sU o a =en: th.e ;aneral Plan Lend lee plan fron Low 3esidchtlal (2 -4 du /ac) to ; :,than Reeldent :al (4 -14 du/ao) on aonroxiaately 7 scree of land in the R- 1 - °5CC zne (R -3 pend'.n;) located on the South side of _,1 -:wand between Jasper cnd Carnelian - AF.: 20-214-C8 Aanr e_al o; P1cnn Sn^ ca-miss' caDDecision to Demf 2nviorn- 'ertal Asses - szent and Zero 2hcn +e from A -i- jCO t. et.e R- 37MITTle MI,, Aealden- tia I on apprcxl -aiely 7 acres of land located on the South side of .Ii;''Pland between Jasper and .err.elian - AP): 201- 214 -ce. As the o' :ner of 9 plus acres of land located of the South side "Ar ;hland Ave between is per and Sao ire and dieotly aeross Jseper frcr the ?ronesed rezone area( see attar had rap sho,cln -- my pro ?erty), I 's:cu13 11.46 to malts the followin- observations and statement in re,ord to the Appeals. I have no ob'ection to the recueefs and an 'sartily in favor on t :as change. In ny opinion, if this is not ;ranted, the type of future housing built on property ad;aoent to the proposed Freeway, could never be of the hi,,h nuality of the nairhborhood which is currently zoned Low Residential (2 -4 du /an). Re "zcnjn, to ,Ole F.cily 3esidential, will u ? -rade the entire surroundin, pre "erty anf act as o buffer along the proposed Freeway. Sincerely -,ours, M4rdon Hall '�eutzin7er v .._ soluz) ul u.NOyg sjagWNN N) Z6-!6 /L9'Wd '19. co i W /0-16 •416 s,jossarsy -4 ON Cn I .41 \ .• s C F / I Im n 4 D n / ^a I � n♦ T N � m- iG7 I = as s A ll) i I —41n3 us) „iiY v' yl "UCFlIC'WGA 3223 Fosca Street CC'6f: U1;i7:�1l:Fi(�;��; (ili O: PT, Carlsbad, CA 92008 November 12, 1983 Nov 1 4 1983 (619) 436 -8010 AM PIA Planning Division 718,9110(11(12111213(4(516 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Rick Gmez Re: Property at Sixth and Hellman Gentlemen: Our property is presently zoned as Medium Density Residential (4 to 14 dwell- ing units per acre) on the Interim General Plan. We would very much like to have Medium Density Residental zoning retained_ We believe the present zoning is good zoning, and will benefit the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the following Seven (7) outlined ways: (Please refer to the map attached of our property, showing in detail its triangular shape and other irregularities.) 1. BETI'PR IAND UTIISZATION. Smaller units could be designed and developed to fit into the irregular- shaped property to an advantage. 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. It is inevitable that Rancho Cucamonga will be seriously considered by industry. High on their list of "must haves" is affordable, accessible housing for their employees. The Medium Density residential housing we propose for Sixth and Hellman would provide this. 3. BEAUTIFICATION OF AREA. Area would be designed and constructed by a single developer. There would be beauty and uniformity provided by professional landscapers. Landscaping would be maintained by single management. Perpetual care would be assured. 4. WCiJLD COMPLFM U THE AREA. Develop t such as we propose could only crWlecent the existing single - family residential areas. 5. CONVFIJIHTPL=TICN. Close to industry. Near the freeway. 6, NO OVERCRaZING OF SCIMIS. Median Density Residential developmnt would satisfy the needs of many; the smaller families would not overcrowd the schools. 7. TAX BF141YITS TO THE CITY. To the City of Rancho Cucamonga, we say, "Last but not least.” We thank you to please give serious consideration to the Seven Points listed above whim would be of benefit m the City of Rancho Cucamonga if the zoning of our property on the present Interim General Plan is retained. Respectfully submitted, ,. .',j.(, ,i :.'CY ,JCs9 groomer Meg r enc-1 rd 2- a 9 S� 3, 1f., U / ?CO NI LIB y� 5; 9y Ae ?7 _ o J' F7- L e s I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i.�,y�• ^ .u.r.. Jun 11. Mikeln L F C Chvlee J. Buquel 11 J.mn C, I'n M - Rkhvd M. D.hl Phillip 1). Schlurur November 14, 1983 Mr. Michael J. Friedman Telecommunications Management Corporation 5757 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 359 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Mike: Please accept this letter as preliminary notification by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to retain Telecommunications Management Corporation for the purpose of providing cable television consult- ing services. It is anticipated that the City Council will be acting on an agreement with your firm at their December 7, 1983 meeting. In the interim, 1 appreciate your working with the city in Jev< loping the initial steps for frmchising cable television in Rancho Cucamonga. Thark you for your cooperation in this matter, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact -me. Sincerely, Ro A. Rizzo Assistant to the City Manager RAR:mk cc: City Manager CATV Council Subcommittee 9320 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE C • PORTOFFICE MOX 307 • RAN('N(1('C('AM0NOA. CAI.IFORNIA 41710 • (7141" 11161 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM November 14, 1983 TO: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager FROM: Robert A. Rizzo Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: CATV Status Report c�'caA+O,- �/� + '� G F 19JS - The City Council CATV subcommittee interviewed three tele- communication firms on November 9, 1983, and has selected one to develop a working agreement with. This CATV consulting contract should be before the City Council at their first meeting in December (12- 7 -83). At that time, the Council .Rhould be presented with a CATV report to consider options with a CATV plan of action. RAR:mk dded . . I �ems NDVemb�� �3� F Cwt • Cam. \�„�,.� Floral E. (Wm, .w "*cAsVM o�+asin eldta E. 2N..! a Hworw.w AA■ LOW CA91M p" am" i s Steven 6 Vicki Gailliot 5229 Wfber Wood Dr Alta Lana, California 91701 Noveaier 15, 1983 City Council Rancho Cucamonga Dear Councilmen It has been brought to our attention that you will be deciding on an issue concerning low inmre housing in our immdiate area. We are Very much opposed to this! Now had the issue been law income housing for Senior Citizens that would be an entirely different issue. Should you proceed with this type of action we want you to be aware that You will meet with st=org opposition. I am sure that the Council would appreciate a stranger or more supportive oo mn re ity inrvolw t from people such as ourselves. Should this issue get passed you will surely find us getting very much involved howevrr I doubt seriously if its in the manner that you'd wish. Both of us have grown up in Alta Irne and take great pride in the way the ccmT mnity and its schools have developed. It js greatest wish that our children grow up here and feel the same. 5 Vicki L. (�111iot l/- /y -1,3 � ar. 1� 64e- d L O % MAy C OA-)C IIC.U, THIS iS 7-0 i.vi -O2�y �Iloq /74.4T w6 C-A v H }re T,z�G �vo�Sc /S Ll/ ft��q z7 st i i �J c c6 L T/ h9 l 'T/ i t/0, T C DryPf} % /l�Lc G, S'<tcnf��ec�.c_i C G s ,�2 ror'gz : ,44-7�11 L (9w.y� c,4 9 :iovenber 15, 1983 Patti "Ielick 6265 Holly Oak Drive Alia Loma, Calif. 91701 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Proposed Low Income Housing To Whom it 'Iay Concern: It has been brought to my attention that you are attemPting to pass a proposal to build low housing income units above 19th Street in Alta Loma. I wish to object to this Proposal due to the fact that it will Lower property values of existing homes in that area. I also object on the grounds that the crime rate in our area will raise dramatically. I have three children, two of whom Po to Public schools in the Alt, Problems ofmaddedacrime ratepwithn low income housdinyhe If you would take a Poll of the citizens of. Alta bona, I am sure there would be an overwhelming, objection to this proposed low income housing. $`p,erely Patti Meli.ck /�/ of7 J zti yfc ,G.zi rt� ../WU saw. i('aie[.iC <Nt tNivr+�n.- CC 1 ,�p iw 19ynyi.t lla�'11f 4 ' aeeJ:: /(. yr ✓ J ✓ c*'iw v J7t ,fA. w �e i r ` � 4 �/lw t.c -r.t �Lf{c.�,/cQt�, 4••f 6t- tt � �•/ a �- c�r��/;�l� Act tldcc.2itF J asp-- eylc; tfU.tU .[/ J 3�� f q � -7J � A PETITION TO XITAIN PUSENT ZONUX STAG —X5 we. the undersigned citizens of Rancho Neamm9s, respectfully beg that our City Council deny all requests to re-zone anyaq4.411 qnd4viqloped lauds which are located in the area west of and north oL SIGNATURE TADPRESS L dkE lzw ....... ......... It � 6dl-7�? 914V A Px=T!rjN '.'C nETAIN FnESF*,;—, ZONING STANDARDS We, tla undarsjfned of Rancho riir�r,5,R, re?pectfull-, be!• that our Clt7 Council deny all requestz to re-.Jne any and ali UTde4&I�pej I.Ands watch are Located in t',,e webL vf �-cyl and north of Awwy Pao Y I/Av- i //-/a A PETIEZ,;u 1±3 PETAIN PRESEN- ZGNIN:; b-imqDAR--)s We, .he calz,ens of v-anciio reslectfull,,, bey that Our City Council deny all rzcjuazcz cv re-zone any and ai. !Ahi:6 W%jell A;, Located ill the &Zca W,mL k.1 19r-% Street: :13 13Z 16 .41 --- ------- -L IOMTO -40 vA JAA,jKnt� Z4- A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We, the undersigned citizens of Rancho 'Cucaminva, respectfully her that our City Council deny all requests to re-zone any and ajl undeveloped lands which are located in the area west of S GNATIM T aDD?iss 1j'%TE 4L L� r�ay A4!24 /Y -J'- �' i4ll I 'x� lq-s- j0p, of -Cc -'onYmcFc /9r- r-n Lo /'n P. 7CLt L(,, 4-1-L- 3 el ZY -&J Vte, , C4- `117°/ Iq A/,— &m'—L (Zq---c?/70/ / -S AJO.(4-'3 A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We, the vndersirnau citizens of F.ancho Cu ^sr:an�a. respectfully beg, that our City Council den7 all raquests to re -zona any and all uadaveio�:ad lands ctich are located in the area vest o.` Ber71 an' nzi7tL of 13' :reef SIvY9T!'R't Tr. - -_. i -- (q -t+c� o,ti.__ -- r- -- G3 8.? l _4 z....S.r--_- i�lT�_ Coar�l✓� 9/7�i— __ / /��� LLtL- _ -�l r] Pf fn . L ama - - -I ,47H4 9i74 - i lil2l —�- -- - C -1 6s�6 I ". PE=11011 70 RETAIii PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We, the : daxsLneti �Itlzeaa of Rauch,, respectfully beg that our Cttv Council deny all requests to re-zo.-i an, and a!, ...... i i.at,ds unich are Located jo I-I'a �Irl-a west of Bery ta_j l /70 ji t O�' Council deny t!L� West Of ell ST!;NPAI! 76 - ,l 93 1136 - --- ------- ----------- Lily bef. that our Citv deny 3. una .,,PPctfj- West Of _d in the Rr"8 wnich ,,Ly and all all ,C�Ueazs 4487 LOMA- jgLTAL A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We, the undersigned citizens of Rancho Cucamunva, respectfully beg that our City Council deny all requeara to re-zone any and all undeveloped lands which are located in the area west of —1,7yl , =e - CL --- -- - si—VkTURF I ?;�02 70 DATI. r 701 rj� - 5 the Lmda! g j t'... City C'O�Cil ;env and al PI e 'f ato', ill '11'e. orp• . t ni req,iasts to re -zone ac-:v a. f�r -L4 4.911 -- -------- Sy.. 7 (7 I--- --. ---- A PETITION 1v RZZAIN ZONING 5TANDARDS ..de, the ci:-'zens o' %aiwhl, Cuea—irro, respec,,f_11V Len that our Cftv Council deny all ze4uaacs tc, re -zip �e an7 and all undevelo-�a.' lands w.Ach aie located in the aria 1�2r7-* and r�cr-ft of 3't¢ -traet. Hest �f 1/' ydo (0.330 0, I--- --. ---- _ ,. F;.11 - D•.. ..:.LV .V'l', C' a..__ rSS` _. s ... _ _u[ i ._ '- _� � a. �u r r .i. ,..a :•all 'Ji _.G4.0 L - [� 3i5�✓ 1� - Ali sir V-3 t. - /( 6335 s`Yy/u'., sf �cF/a- P �� 6333 Eol9epp{�Let (oar? p ` It3i�E3 LiL ,1 > - -- -- -- — — i r � A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We. the undersigned citizens of Rancho Cuca-urga, respectfully beg that our City Council deny all requests to re-zone, any any all undir4etoned lands which are located in the area west of Beryl aac' north o° 19th St:eet. 2 A Aot-1kl( )00 m ;L Ir -/-s -,e V, 7 �,x f7V.,"Cl- , kI. J., 44JZ6 7— L f §LmA Vc - A rt i I t r lk if -7 ef Z 7J ILL— i A PETITION TO MAIN PMM ZONING STANDAnS We, the undarsigansd citizens of Paucho Cuc. respectfully beg that our City Council deny all requests to re -zone any and all undeveloDel- lands which are located in the area west of Btryj j� d t�. �f Str�e_ywr. - e- r. I----.---- -.- - - SIGNATURE f I Th q /P �A A M3 AO ST-- &--TA W.1, ,,I A PETITION To RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS We. the undersigned citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, respectfully beg that our City council deny all requests to ra -zone any std all undeveloped '_ands which are located in the area west of Be^�1 sadrorth of 13th street. i IGNATOICL 1 tiUT-RF j., � l)H1L - -r IL — /i- is -.533 1 1' �l �_� r1 / �• ; i " 64 6 elf -ac• I7Y7 A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS Ile, the underaignec citizens of Rancho Cuca,.mnpa, respectfully beg that our City Council deny all requests to re -zone any aild aj,l undqveloop.d ?_ands which are located in the area west of and ^crt�, --9 ---- -- FIB PIN PORM WWIFY� AW 'o,,tcll deny "C-3 wegi Of all 7rp _c!uests any and 4�, AIL IS19 &a4ks� CL.IA& LDtlz,-- C&- F3 Kq 7 wed 77 ,TO Z NJ eltib TG sm(cilDVIRDS Ue, tire -"Ia *S! tCVt 'ILY •ouna tl dony WLI I ICIA ale 4ccdC"; File wey(� •?I _Ole, z4v Y-3 ?L�� 4233 -7170 17;:r e4 -Ps LTA -7ool 11 // /'/Y4? Cpvvl 2o S{ _- Gx}��c -� 6� GL - -- r tt-_13_�a� dILL A n _ - -- — ��r� ComR / CJa /1- 13 -b3- Xa G47Y �`` _ _ p FELLION TO-RETAhD, -- ..__.__ — ber. that mu: Gi:9 at of oq Rancho Cur. avwtfai reawhich ate located in the area ��_ rya an3ercifne' citi any e and ail undeve..�ped xnda -- —`�— '�♦•—�- -- _ p 3 u O We. reQUeata to le''L VA2 :Liw _ei_— ,,"I a_ Sid- n_o_i_t - ; eli iKr: G "_.�� it D. t -- -- j/��. 1 / _ •—� '�- __ _.- -yam -1 A PETITION TO RETAIN PRESENT 7ANING TANDARDS We, the undersigned citizens of Rancho Cucamunga, respectfully beg that our city Council deny all requests to ve-zone any and all undgveioped lands which are located in the area went Of Beryl and no-fn 9- � �tl*-t,Ll._-,------.--..------- - - -- —, SIGNATIrU 77-7---7 711 1441 CA Zmilq C71 'k-3 7f 3- i.& (,KA all —5C�-L 11N 0 A P£T Ti(�V_TO RMIN PRESENT ZONING STAimms we, tti undersigned citizens of Rancho Cucaarenga, respectfully ba} *, that ouc City Gmmeil deny all requests co re -zon& aer and a:,l auidevaioped Lands which are, located in the area west of _ 3e:v1 and nee *_h o. *. 1 "th S,..ett -- --- - - - . _.- '-r----- --- --- - -- - -- - -- ' -- •- --------------"- -- " - -- SIGNATURE D"O'G - - -- - _ _. 8S1��Qn �- �n l/- /D - 83_ _�.i8532.G1_S�%m.ti� /2� ?s -K-6&2 A4. fibG Via,..,,, A"J. 91-n/ '✓/_ //- 0 i �ra.I e- AC'?AZOA %170/ --- `�_I2 - &3 _ � _! �'G7s emu--•- �1 y.._��c�.�� �1_v_� - � �i -I � =�3._ 093 C4MFV- oti_,�_ 63P7. -T - °oz -ST_ �cTa Lov�q 9i��( ill -/?- -� - ---- '- - - -- - -- riD L_(./�.nvi+t,•i �G7 �urpL Sl- /Jun - .- .. - -.- 4,3,F �— - -km g-- .iIfrL -Z. '; ,pass -�Kk&llll� .4 /,4- L gill / !