The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984/07/18 - Agenda PacketLions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California July 18, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in wr Sting. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. B. Roll Call; Wright _, Buquet _, Mikels Dahl , and Ring C. Approval of Minutes: 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Thursday, July 19, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - PARR DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Lions Park Community Center. B. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION, Library meeting room. C. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:00 p.m. - ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON CATV, Lions Park Community Center. D. Presentation, Jeffery Sceranka, Ezec._ive Director of Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. 9 City Council Agenda -2- July 18, 1984 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's. 84 -07 -18 and 1 Payroll ending 6/24/84 for the total amount of $560,640.54. (Previously approved warrants for 6/29/84 in the amount of $269,334,12.) B. Alcoholic Beverage Application No. AB 84 -17 for On -Sale 5 Beer 6 Wine Eating Place License, Imkiaz Ahmeo and Anwar Ali, 8998 Foothill Boulevard. C. Approval of Tract No. 12386, located on the west side 6 of Vineyard Avenue, betwecr. Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard, submitted by TAG Development Company. RESOLUTION NO. 84 -200 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 12386 • D. Approval of Parcel Map 8597, located on the east side 13 of Vineyard Avenue, between Ninth Street and Arrow Route, submitted by Lozier Corporation. RESOLUTION NO. 84 -201 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 8597 E. Release of Bonds: Tract No. 11144 - located on the west side of Vineyard, north of Arrow; owner, TAC Development. Accept; Maintenance Bond (Road) $ 3,350.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond $33,500.00 (Road) Monumentation Bond $ 4,300.00 11 • E City Council Agenda .ma Parcel Map 7244 - located on Elm Street, south of Foothill Boulevard; owner, Messenger Investment Corp. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $204,000.00 (Road) RESOLUTION NO. 84 -202 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 7244 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK F. Approval of release of landscape bond ($10,000 cash deposit) for DR 83 -25, Forcast Mortgage Corporation. All work (landscaping /improvements) has been performed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. G. Approval of acceptance of DR 83 -10, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street Improvements on Rochester Avenue at 8th Street, submitted by Julius Viana. RESOLUTION NO. 84 -203 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -10 H. Approval of acceptance of DR 83 -21, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street improvements at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue, submitted by Sickles- Stampley S Associates RESOLUTION NO. 84 -204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -21 I. Approval of destruction of obsolete records in Community Development Department. July 18, 1984 18 20 27 28 36 37 City Council Agenda -4- July 18, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84 -205 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 J. Approval of consideration for a new Agreement with 41 Great Western Savings 6 Loan for deferred compensation services. K. Approval of claim of 5899,145 to be submitted to the 49 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the Rancho Cucamonga share of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds. Funds will be distributed as follows: $283,633 to Omnitrans; $615,512 for Streets and Road Purposes. L. Approval of Resolution to the Interstate Commerce 53 Commission concerning the proposed merger of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads. M. Approval of authorization for City Council fable 73 Television Subcommittee and Assistant to City Manager to attend National League of Cities Telecommunication Seminar, August 17, 1984. N. Approval of 1984 -85 budget adjustments .riding $4,000 74 for maintenance needs of building and equipment, and adding $4,147 for contractual agreements to HSI for computer software /hardware, 0. Set public hearing for August 1, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission Decision approving conditions placed on Tentative Parcel Map No. 858., Lucas Land Company. I RESOLUTION NO. 84 -206 71 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MERGER OF SANTA FE AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROADS AND ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT TRACKAGE AND UNNECESSARY GRADE CROSSINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M. Approval of authorization for City Council fable 73 Television Subcommittee and Assistant to City Manager to attend National League of Cities Telecommunication Seminar, August 17, 1984. N. Approval of 1984 -85 budget adjustments .riding $4,000 74 for maintenance needs of building and equipment, and adding $4,147 for contractual agreements to HSI for computer software /hardware, 0. Set public hearing for August 1, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission Decision approving conditions placed on Tentative Parcel Map No. 858., Lucas Land Company. I .. Council Agenda -5- July 18, 1984 • 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - (This consists of two 75 separate appeals) 1. Appeal by the Deer Creek COMPANY of the Planning Commission's decision to Impose three additional conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 12650. 2. Appeal by Deer Creek HOMEOWNERS of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract 12650. B. REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT - In 143 accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580 of the California Goverment Code, a revision and update to the City Housing Element. RESOLUTION N0. 84 -207 162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS • C. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 4 163 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACTS 12316, 12316 -1, 12317, 12317 -1, 12364, 12364 -1 AND 12402 RESOLUTION NO. 84 -208 183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION N0. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12316, 12316 -1, 12317, 12317 -1, 12364, 12364 -1 AND 12402 5. NON-ADVERTISED HEARINGS A. AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE 185 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CREDIT AGAINST RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS r, City Council Agenda -6- July 18, 1984 • ORDINANCE NO. 105 -C (first reading) 190 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS E AND F OF SECTION 16.32.030 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO PARK AND RECREATIONAL LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS A. STATUS REPORT OF MATTERS RELATING TO VECTOR CONTROL 192 CONCERNS IN THE HAVEN AVENUE WILSON STREET AREA OF THE COMMUNITY B. CONSIDERATION OF MOBILE HOME PARR MATTERS - The City 193 Council will discuss the subject of Mobile Home Park Mediation. C. DONATION OF 6 ACRES OF PARKLAND TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA D. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA WINDROWS PARR 207 - City Council to approve Conceptual Development Plan. • E. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 209 CONCERNING THE NAMING OF CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESOLUTION NO. 84 -209 211 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN RANCHO CUCAMONGA 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL 212 CONPERENCE B. REDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND SAN BERNARDINO 214 COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT AREAS FOR FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE E City Council Agenda -7- July 18, 1984 RESOLUTION N0. 84 -210 215 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCEO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING REDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT AREAS FOR FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE 8. ADJOURNMENT 9 • PAN CXO CULANUNOA PAGE 1 PRO yA- NARK AMT:__ LIS1 OF NIRRA -IS 11En DESCR __ _______________ ___ 1 -18-94 _ -- " " - -� .♦ LXECMP Uvt RIAV y�959 11[lE" .52 35L.C4 PAYEE - - - -- -' ___________ 11611♦ 250.00 '- �� "__ ELDPNEN CO JULY FEN, 7,11-13 CASK AOV 1111-1- 11618• 11019♦ 250.00 236.00 1000 • M ERMAN, DEV WASSE0.NAN, LAUREN CAS' ADV LASH ApV 1111-13 11620. 11621• 5,452.82 638.06 483 L S 463 JON M1K pANELA 23, Jam I U 1111-13 ME EI IN FS LEASE 1184 IN INS 11622• 11623- 3145.50 $1.00 515 NRIGHI' PAMEth 5NLRIf JULY PNEn1Un /NE AL /b4 11624♦ 62,68 515 231 NENAK INC. FO. DAIWN KEALIF 1NG5 LEI COMP 1 /B 7/81tl4 DES LOLNIAL 11625. 11626• 2,U 6.51 119 KAISER FE 5AV ASSOC 138 GLENDALE NAL Cl1Y nGR INC pE SN PF JULY O- L ♦ 1U .300.50 1HFR HENS 11621 J 303.89 L 11626♦ h!5 INTERN A710 V ON1 AR10. NC LAXAN DESIk BANµ iNuSl EE Ell k/U n6AV ' 1N5-JULY NE 11629♦ 16• 451.54 185 ONI TED CE NIR Lhl AONINI SIRAIUP1 FUNC WORMERS LOKP-JU IP ING AG PE EN kNI 11630 - 13841 13642 603 ,U5 3•LL 373 HARBOR 325 JAIL CO SIRIPING N 1H5. S1R TIRE REPAIR 13643 13144 _ 5,412.02 1'.00 227 PAC 1f 1C 11 PE SE%VICE SHERIFFS AUD EMP LAN LUMP 'JUDY CLASS L 1384$ 13646 553.50 121.63 10 A E P TRAvEL AUENCY ACT lON ASSOCIAIfS UN L pE- NEFUNG RK CLASS PL SF RV JOEY" C UIXEF I1EL5 13847 13848 116.00 3A 76 RALPH ANOE MS ANOE0.5UN 6UPG ALA L NEEIIN45 C LINEN ITEMS 13649 257.82 4.856•L0 JUStIN 209 RN SNSIEK5 SA (RAVEL SXEN IF FS CHAP LES C U1HEP 1 13850 103.95 211 &p, ALI ANk RICA NT L 31 1lPE REPAIR 33851 U PNO JE CI 13852 15.00 57.14 HARDWARE 33 MSEL GULCH 1lFE SE NVlCE 1NSVELTURIVICIUR µLC IN SINUU UN LAA55 13653 1,087.51 35 BEAD AN. XUILK 1!! BEDNOSI N6S IEY MI REFUNL REC TOILET 13854 33655 983.01 50.00 555 BENEFIELD 95 PAT71 BRUCNER RUOIEP L 'J .ED NEC INSINUCTOP INSIPU CI OR 13656 13851 22,60 55 .OD ll BUDGET PLUNBIK6 FLOIO ILL OuES 13858 1,000.00 551 B K POSE AHN TREASU REFS 552 M1R1 PAL Assoc SUBSLRIP110N DUES 13859 13660 261.55 3L•00 LU%IC1 6G CAL JpVRNAI tlE n'EFSNIP JULY PAYNENI C UTHEN IlEHS 13861 192.68 62 CALIFDRNIA CCAC CUNLIRCt (FACT Ox pENIAL CLASS IE� C LINER L1EL5 13862 13863 5,650.50 67 F 30 CNANBL0. 0 REWJAL NkVUNU COKE 13864 150.00 18,00 CITY j4 TRACY 'LARK NPARY 110 IRA "JILING CL A OE L GRAD PLAN Cµ LAN 13865 FEE/ 1L /2164 "COLE 13866 ENS 2,364.63 NEG CONLU N3TY EN "11 NE WAO NEC PEC CLASS 361 INC NGNI AN AV ION IN Pµ L UTNER li 115 55 COUNCIL ON EDDLAI LR u1 ST IK 9280 XELL 166 �pch"ONGA CO NAT 56 7 -I8 -84 LIST OF MARkANIS PAYEE 85 CUCAMONGA CO MATER 0157 92 DAILY REPORT 548 DAVIDSON, SUSIk 107 OETCO 547 OYAM, DIANE 2C8 DESIREE ELEMMA III EMPEY, MARRY 162 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT LEFT 236 ESGIL CORPORATION 94 FALCON DEMO 137 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. 142 GOMEZ, NICK 143 GRAN19 JERW1 N. 190 GREEN ROCK GARDENS, INC 210 NICOLE GROESSL 147 HANCOCK, GEORGE 543 MIVELV, PUMICHA 514 MULLET, BILL 157 VOLLEY, WILLIAM L. 158 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO., INC. 161 S.M. HOYT LUMBER CU 163 IBM 542 IMSODEh, JUSTE 71 IMFOMORLO 169 IN7L COME. BLDG UFFIC /ACS 541 K02LOVICH, 01881E 217 VICTORIA KUGLER 339 LAN, JACK 116 ANDY 11% 111 ERICK LIST 540 LOGUE, SALLY 501 M C M REFRIGERATION, RIG, A/C 66 MARLBOROUGH DEV COMP 198 RICHARD S MARTINEZ 28 MC KAUGMAN, RCIkRT , P.E. 156 MEARES, MEL 64 FRED MIELEN 75 MOORE BUSINESS CENTER 220 HSI 79 NAT RECREA71ON C PARK ASSOC 230 N81 INC RANCHO CUCAMONGA PAGE 2 ITEM OESCR WARRA WARR.AMI. ---------------------- ------ --- --- ---- --- ------ -- - - -- TR 93C5 LNGSC E LThER ITEMS LEGAL ADVERTISING C LINER 11EMS REC INSTRUCTOR BRASS PLATE /CITY CbUk E LT HER ITEMS REC INSTRUCTOR REFUND REC CLASS MILEAGE ALLUNIJULY UNk MP INS BENEFITS PLAN CHECK SERVICES REFUND CONSI PER 1535 PL519148 /SHERIFF'S E OTHER ITEMS MILEAGE ALLOWNULY TRAVEL AOVANCEIICBO M C OTHER ITEMS BASELIME.LION REFUhb REC CLASS REC INSTRUCTOR REC INSTRUCTOR PEIIY LASH /CQMM SVCS C OTHER ITEMS MILEAGE ALLOWIJULY ASPHALT AUTO CLAMP /NULDER C OTHER ITEMS KA /NT AGREEMENTIMAG C C OTHER HEMS AEC INSTRUCTOR SUBSCRIPTION REG kkE /ICbO CONE RFC INSTRUCTOR REFUND REC CLASS MILEAGE ALLOW /JULY REFUND REC CLASS kEFUND REC CLASS REC INSTRUCTOR REPAIR AIR LONG REIMS PRO ISSUE INSTRUCTOR /RECREATION PLAN CK 5115 - 6119/64 -BLDG LEFT DANCE BAND /MAYIJUNEIJULY FIELD REVIEW DSK FLIP FILE C OTHER ITEMS COMPUTER EQUIP ANNUAL DUES MAINT CONTRACT 13861 13868 13865 13670 13611 13672 13813 13874 13875 13876 13877 13876 1387V 13880 13881 13882 13863 11884 B5 13686 13867 13888 13689 13890 13691 13892 13893 13894 13895 13896 13891 13896 13899 13900 13901 13902 13903 13904 13905 13906 13907 342.87 921.57 35.64 87.98 711.75 36.60 200.00 152.00 3,903.91 250.00 4.679.73 200.00 575.00 477.00 18.00 106.83 217.60 123.96 200.00 50.03 27.67 1,064.95 118.20 14.95 205.00 153.45 72.00 256.00 18.00 3 D. 00 282.15 16.00 1,121.96 99.00 64L.CC 210.00 715.00 73.79 72.15 110.00 32.00 20 0 .L- 7 -]8 -84 LIST OF WARRANTS PAYEE 140 567 306 96 461 536 43 220 52 49 112 270 536 524 300 301 214 3% 132 100 TO 534 47 95 533 205 16 $17 317 532 120 330 46 279 336 520 149 06 94 213 65 i - ji PAM MEAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS ORTON, LLOYD R TIFFANY OSBORNE PACIFIC ROOM C GRAVEL CD PALMER. ERIK PROGRESSIVE ARCHITFLTUHE RANCHO COCA REDEVELOPMENT A REMARKABLE PRODUCTS INC THE RESOURCE LINK RITZ CAMERA CENTERS ROBERT RIZZO RODRIGUEZ, DEANNA ROOT. LESLIE D SAN BERNAROINO CO. RECORDER SAN &ERNARGINO CO. SHERIFFS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM CO, MELINDA SANDOVAL SCHINDER NAUGHTON ELEVATOR SWAN, CECILIA SHIPLEY PHOTOGRAPHIC$ SICKELS STAHPLEY C ASSOC SMALL, JACK NITA SMALLEY BEA SMIOERLE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SPAMGMOLA, SAM STATE FARM FIRE C CAS INS STATIONERS CORPORATION STEVE`S MOBIL THE SUN SURVEYORS SERVICE LATE, TAMMY ALISON THORMEYER TIBMI- SYSTEMS INC VANCE CORPORATION WAM1E. KLEEM -LINE CORP WESTERN TEMPORARY SERVICES RANCHO CULAMON64 PAGE 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM OESCR WARR% WARR.AM7. REFUND REC CLASS 13908 30.00 JULY BEEPER RENTAL 13909 20.00 BLDG INSPECTOR /CONTRACT 13910 440.00 REFUND REC CLASS 13911 30.00 ASPHALT 13912 4.09 PEG IN57RUCIOR 13913 427.68 SUBSCAIPIION 13914 25.00 GENCY REPAY OF C17T HONIG REV FROG 13915 4,500.00 WA LL /[MART UNIT 13916 26.45 ICSC 1984 CONVENTION/ C OTHER 17EMS 13917 93.50 PHOTOFINISHING 13918 20.86 MIELAGE ALLOW /JULY 13914 200.00 AEC INSTRUCTOR 13920 130.68 BLDG PLAN CK 13921 1,60D.00 LEFT COPY /LEWIS HUMES DEV AGREE 13922 12.50 CONTRACT /JULY 13923 256.646.00 DUMP TICKETS 13924 50.95 ASSESSORS UPDATES 13925 16.64 INC GUTTER BROOMS /SWEEPER C OTHER DENS 13926 112.36 REFUND NEC CLASS 13927 18.00 CORP B5 LIC REFUND 13928 809.99 AEC INSTRUCTOR 13929 371.25 PRINTS 13930 55.65 REFUND /BLDG PERMITS -OVER PAID 13931 81,208.08 REC INS7RUCTOR 13932 118.80 AEC INSTRUCTOR 13933 63.36 MINUTES 715181 13934 54.00 CO. 6925 ETIWAIIDA AV C 67HER LIENS 13935 363.29 CO. 34 AL-8SLN -CARTA SPN C OTHER ITEMS 13936 112.86 REC INSTRUCTOR 13937 126.01 BEV AUIHELE1 /SUIETY BOND 13938 110.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES C OTHER DENS 13939 655.06 VEHICLE ICI 13940 10.00 SUB SCRIPIION 13941 96.GC VEST /SCALES 13942 37.99 AEC :NSTRUCIOR 13943 31.65 MEFUNO REC CLASS 13941 3L.OD DATA MANUALS 13945 189.74 PHOG PAY 01 13946 23,323.50 TOWELS C OTHER ITEMS 13917 69.46 IEMP HELP L OTHER ITEMS 13948 648.21 _ lT�� 7 -16-54 LIST OF WARRANTS PAYEE 154 NANCY WILLIAMS 509 XEROX CORPURAIIUN 371 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE • RANCHO CUCAMONGA PAGE 5 :TEM DESCA MARRY wARR.AMT. ------------------------------------------------------- . REFUND AEC CLASS 13949 3C.00 MUNINLY REN7ALISHERIEES 13950 1,230.57 NED SUPPLIES 13951 54.33 TOTAL CHECKS 471,026.19 • MVLWM 0M M l[tat[lIK 11REEtMR ucom M Fw IRPxIrN N AIw11.! W.." ca" S • wAwR Sorr C.P. P1fltZ for y;l �_..._ .I.. r•�wplwlRr I. !RR[(M q 11ttlgRf) !NU N0. -- ..... �.. .. .. AAII•t Pi[A ❑ lR•sw O.n•. R[mRr M0. Ix••i L NAWM OR APIIKAMM r• RwwR [ff• Owc A9M0 IRyLR L ALI 1 ""M OI tRMNSACTK*O) M. WM 4 IYw• N f Ww N.rrn Vua PiwHA 1I 46 ........ b wy lRwl 1999 F-Nill blvd.. 1101 CRr xM F.P CW Caw1y lOTAI f ♦ Ir h•M.w lit•IIMf. 1. M M1•ei.•. In.iA• {S•. !�• N IiM•r City 1Mw.t L M•Aw[ A.Nm 1A •Ilwrl I.•w SI- Mx.f•. N 1Mx in.•� ir.ti. 9. H•.• r•• •.•r Rww a.wdu•/ N w l•4pf 10. 11. [.dwn a "r[f" ••Mw w i1•w. ♦ x 10 M M •N•.1.•ml .M•n .1x11 M dwwN pr1 d NIn •RR4•RM. P' • 12 , ARPikwn •S•••• IN AMI •^I x•^RR•. •wNI•1� M M.•1. Iitmxtl x.•!.•..nN M1•.. oN IM R•sIM••Ign. N • N(•MM. W IRI rM M ..N rM .n4M r ddx•/ N • N • Akendk C.•n.t A.I 13, STATE W CAIIM C• N ........__.-_.. .. _............___._. E .4a .w»... M1 L.w.. wM..•.n ....Mw �h ../. 1 +Mnr• +.. . Mw• • 4 ../.•Z �• 14 AMICANT Mr��.e..1 ... M1+�I�A�Fww .�W M •wi.n• � � ~iw. �inwr•. �. .. i �� SIOM'I" ................ ..................... . . . . .. ............................ .................... ..... . . . . .. AMILK11TIM RT TR"SMOR STATE W CALIRORMA C• d .............. ............-------...0•M-----°------_---------.-- 1' D. No Write Ild.. 1'AY Linn; Fe. DRPR9xvnt LM ONP A9xn•l ^ RxadN n•xo, r INwlxy RRRer., . •mu ❑ ft. 4 NM d....... —P w N ............................. ON" M... ------------- . 1..W tM..____................. Y. •r•.�.M J •MM•. w..I 0 • u DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT July 18, 1984 City Council and City Manager roil 1977 Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer Approval of Tract 12386 located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Blvd. submitted by TAC Development Co. The subject tract is the second phase of a two phase development of townshouses. The tract is located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Blvd. The tract received tentative approval from the Planning Commission on October 26, 1983 for the construction of 54 townhouses on 4.3 acres. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Final Map of Tract 12386 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same on behalf of the City. Ty supmitted, L Attachments • 9 W as o, Arro %w Rte-. CITY OF RANCHO CUGAMOIVGA n f ENGINEERING DIVISION 6 "" i VICINITY MAC N nn .� page i� I M� I " I TRACT 12386 • • wow. RECEIVED July 11, 1984 111L : 1 iJG•i CITY OF R /NCMO CUCAMUNGA EIYCIRLERINO OIVISIO!1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Gentlemen: T.A.C. Development, Developer of Tract No. 12386, situated in Rancho Cucamonga, has deposited with this District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance Bond, and a Utilities Improvement Agreement for waterline and sewerline construction. These bonds and agreements are 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. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Betty Fien Secretary bf cc: T.A.C. Development ■ T-R ia38b Y1...n.,mN CCW D "SCAT NEU.ELD i... Q.M.I a1.�7., CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT LLOYD W. ARCNAEL OV—. **41 MN atexinoiKO R0. CUCANOMO*. aAU7. *1730 WN aaa Nmia *' EARLE R. ANDERSON EEVERLY E. ERADEN VICTOR A. CNEREAK. JR.. h t CHARLES A. WEST RECEIVED July 11, 1984 111L : 1 iJG•i CITY OF R /NCMO CUCAMUNGA EIYCIRLERINO OIVISIO!1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Barbara Krall Gentlemen: T.A.C. Development, Developer of Tract No. 12386, situated in Rancho Cucamonga, has deposited with this District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful Performance Bond, and a Utilities Improvement Agreement for waterline and sewerline construction. These bonds and agreements are 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. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Betty Fien Secretary bf cc: T.A.C. Development ■ CHAFFEY JOfNT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Letter of Certification CITY Of RANCHO CUCWKA of School District Capacity fNGINEENING DIVISIDN Within the Chaffey Joint Union High School District attendance boundaries for the following described project: Location /Description: Number of Dwellings: Anticipated Completion Date: Tract No. 12386 Rancho Cucamonga 54 multi units June 1985 The school district hereby certifies that the capacity for 8 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 G. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocation Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and 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. / sst. Superintendent by Dianne Allen cc: Planning Division T (///1777��),^/`/.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga ✓'`�"-�- � -��*•- 7333 Hellman Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 /O rJ n! O211 WEST FIFTH SINEFT, ONgNIO, C1LIiOflXI> 21762 +ss s ac 000 0 0A I - -I w• A'.f to pwwOt0�t11Vtt!!S acf5 - -v -.. n.. • ., ...... ! \' JUL a i3E4 Letter of Certification CITY Of RANCHO CUCWKA of School District Capacity fNGINEENING DIVISIDN Within the Chaffey Joint Union High School District attendance boundaries for the following described project: Location /Description: Number of Dwellings: Anticipated Completion Date: Tract No. 12386 Rancho Cucamonga 54 multi units June 1985 The school district hereby certifies that the capacity for 8 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 G. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocation Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and 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. / sst. Superintendent by Dianne Allen cc: Planning Division T (///1777��),^/`/.1 City of Rancho Cucamonga ✓'`�"-�- � -��*•- 7333 Hellman Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 /O rJ ral School V istrid 7 haMill Blvd. - Rand" Cucamanyo, CA 91730 - (7141989-4341 ADMINISTRATION Frank A. Casco, Jr. 0.,hnl SprrmxMrm John A. McClory, bnn.nr sw«.xmernr, r..,am..1 Thomas W. Oomello, Ed.D. .4mrenr S.or••nx..nmr. Iw.eeu S—... .'1ac I5, 10P,L Date LETTER OF CERTIFICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY Within Central School District and Central School District attendance boundaries for the following described project: Developer TAC DECELOPMEST CORPORATION Location /Description West of Vineyard. South of Foothill. Ncrr's of Arrnw Tr -ct No, 12385 Number of Dwelling Units fif tv -four (i4) nulti- family. dvelnr,.g Anticipated Completion Date 12/31/84 . Gentlemen: The Central School District hereby certifies that it will provide capacity for ,,A _g students in grades K -8 living in housing units to be constructed in r the above residential development. This certification is given on the condition that: 1) The developer and district have executed the "Agreement for Financing Public School Facilities and Establishing Interim Fees" and 2) The developer continues to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The commitment of this letter shall expire ninety (90) days from the date of this letter. However, the di strict agrees to issue further Letters of Certification to this developer so long as the executed Agreement between developer and district remains in effect. This Letter of Certification for School District Capacity shall be nonassignable and all assignments are null and void. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within the 90 -day period shall validate such commitment to -his developer. Sincerely, l / • Frank A. Cosca Superintendent 12/83 so..o or rsusr(ss cc: City of Rancho Cucamonga Jack McKelvey Lawrence W. DuWen Ruth A, Matter own E. Ogden Pamela J. Wright IryrM.l (11.1 Mr.", // M.mpn Mrn,OM n RESOLUTION M0. fit! 8y-a o0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT NO. 12386 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12386, consisting of 54 lots, submitted by TAC Development Co. Subdivider, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue between Arrow Route and Foothill Blvd. 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, the Subdivider has met the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk jaa Is Jon Mi a s, Mayor • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT •, 1 DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Nubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Parcel Map 8597 located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Ninth Street and Arrow Route submitted by Lozier Corp. Parcel Map 8597 was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1984 for the division of 37.75 acres of land in the General Industrial /Rail Served District (Subarea No. 2) into 2 parcels located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Ninth Street and Arrow Route. Off -site improvements will be constructed at time of building permit issuance for Parcel No. 2. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 8597 and authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign same. Respectfully submitted, LB1 :jaa / Attachments 0 L title; C17YGFtANCHO CUCA!V10NGA A P M 8597 s �(MSFRING DIVISION �T ----- %WINITY MAP 1� f+te PARCEL MAP NO, 8597 W THE C17Y AKRAMIV CUCAMONCA Raw- IMwfM- Y��YM KWKfR N tlµTUPI� Paaff[/ 14(I( Y rp µhr lC LEGENO .N pro' K' h I IPpOW .1IX/R K rI y[yt rlf� NfvOE wWwl�� IYPfCq[ j�. !:l ;r n e.• /5 PoPCE[ nt.Kt s. flf:lRZ+c� za Y r 1 I niC.we rru 1 +no• awwa- brrfwratnavrTw b.Y' HI 0.ueu1 �frllMf IIILV..Mtl! YNP.Rf K l�y .b e Oir /i Tf.oreorw as T[IAMIfO ie)t �r u (Tr NS rK 1� /pFU Ike ��pi�rp�K: �fY rfpMU MVr) Yii 1I) MM"f rt� iq YYe M/'T /IN ryyw MllKr VROI(Ct / , X'} VTINirY M<P .J • L 9 WNr/ Mf PARCEL MAP N0. 8597 ivil IN THE C 17Y 0Ir,'N1 ChV CUCCA�NOW 6A,, ,-y EnMYEr- ya.y. m.v/f ,wr r«van fu[a �OIH!Nr[ l�rpp [IL/pI.W G)fl Mf GIJp wr.r�w rri[E r�1b0' onw�P - <ulrutwN�Inoii o�I::rirvru fwel ,IOfJ M/ SYV na xrr s rp. /.rr /e. e I I 1 I rcw , �vp _ �� •: w�� PoRCEL 1 1. _EGEIrp ` V „ s y is �� s r is v:- y «:io•:'�.e :c� "� _ __�� ..r Nay -., IWII {�� t t'� - rra ; C; 5CC710Y5 - \' • I Vrc,W, MAP /e. • RESOLUTION NO. O?%t8 MR 6Y-AV/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8597 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8597) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8597, submitted by Lozier Corporation and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue between Ninth Street and Arrow Route, being a division of Lots 11 and 12 Subdivision of Lot 10, Cucamonga Vineyard Tract as recorded in Book 20 of Maps, Page 44 of San Bernardino County, State of California, was approved on July 11, 1984 by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 8597 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Parcel Map Number 8597 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk jaa 0 1� Jon D. Mike s, Mayor • RESOLUTION NO. I? - kB -BeeR- Ff y--7o '. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 7244 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Parcel Map 7244 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: • ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authe et, City Clerk jaa IC.I I Jon 0. Mi a s, Mayor RECORDING REQUESTED BY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: PARCEL MAP 7244 2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base Line Road, P, 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, • California 91730. 3. On the 18th day of July, 1984, there was completed on the hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the contract documents for: PARCEL MAP 7244 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: Messenger Investment Co. 5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: Elm Street, south of Foothill Blvd. 19 CITY OF RANCHO CJCAMONGA, a municipal corporation, Owner Lloyd . Hu s, City ngineer n �J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer •r SUBJECT: Acceptance of D. R. 83 -10, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street improvements on Rochester Avenue at 8th Street submitted by Julius Viana The developers, Julius and Charlene Viana, have submitted the attached bonds and agreement to guarantee the off -site improvements at Rochester Avenue at 8th Street. The project, 0. R. 83 -10, consists of two manufacturing /warehouse buildings on 3.02 acres of land in the Medium Heavy Industrial Zone (Subarea No. 9) and was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1983, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the bonds and agreement for the subject improvement and authorize the Mayor to sign same on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. *LOMjuaa ubmiS ted, �L Attachment s ao 0 0 191] rY OF RANCHO CUCAYIONCA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY XIAP N title; Page Wd CIT► OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR KROae ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, A municipal corporation, hereinafter referr- ed to as the City, by and between said city and Julius E. Viers A Charlene 8. Viand hereinafter referred to as the eve Open. THAT, WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop certain real property in said City located .t the sawtn ... t corner of 8th St. and Rochester ; and WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be met by said Developer is prerequisite to granting of final approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at • developer s expense all improvements described on page a hereof within 12 months from the date hereof. 2. This agreement shall be effective an the date of the resolution of the Council of said City approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day follow- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless An exten. sion of time has been granted by said City as hereinafter provid. ed. 3. The Developer may request add it tonal tfine in ehICh to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than 30 days prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In Considera- tion Of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including consbuction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein, e. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shalt have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any law. ful means, and thereupon to recover from said :eveloper and /or his SuIaty the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. 5. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Devel. oper from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right -of -ray, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regulations contained therein. Non - compliance may result in stopping of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. • 6. Public right -of -way improvement work required shall be constructed in Conformance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special .I. a 1 • amendments thereto. Construction shall include any transitions and /or other 'incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. Errors or Omissions discovered during construc- tion shall be corrected upon the direction of the City Engineer. Revised work due to said plan modifications shall be covered by the provisions of this agreement and secured by the surety covering the original Planned works. • i� U 7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligent- ly 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. 8. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocatiOns, Or removal of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. _ 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right -of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The Improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The grin. cipal amount Of said improvement Security shall not be less than the amount shown; a3 EF49 J Date Ze 4 by �f'� Signature rt —•/ Developer • erinte Accepted: City Of Rancho Cucamonga, California A ilunlcipal Corporation 3y: ;Jr „ uty �.. I4r e// App'oied: ` %J Q t. ,, city attorney GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT • Onlmalne( =.Oav or 191— ,beIore me 11 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type! me undenloned Noury Piiah, peraenely aPbeand Principal Amount: /C A, • Name and address Of surety: _ pereonelly%mown tome lomeon mofubabetoq evldenea pt L MATERIAL AND LABOR I within metNmen6 end aChnowledped that [y�_eaeCUleeu Type: WITNESS my nand nW ollical NU, i .a 'iFe ae" rl..mm rr :r.. v.:: A :NS Principal Amount: Name and address of surety: CASH DEPOSIT NONUMENTATION Type: Principal Amount: Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto nave caused these Presents to be duly eaecuted and acknowledge with all forialities required by law on the dat9,S Set OpPOaiteltheir signatures. Date by /ffoorth uLS /� r Developer J Date Ze 4 by �f'� Signature rt —•/ Developer • erinte Accepted: City Of Rancho Cucamonga, California A ilunlcipal Corporation 3y: ;Jr „ uty �.. I4r e// App'oied: ` %J Q t. ,, city attorney GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT � Slate of __.__1 -- Onlmalne( =.Oav or 191— ,beIore me 11 Ay. Coon I' of -_ - -- me undenloned Noury Piiah, peraenely aPbeand /C A, • _ pereonelly%mown tome lomeon mofubabetoq evldenea pt L to aetMPianninelwoX%monNM F!r fuENnpedte the hose I within metNmen6 end aChnowledped that [y�_eaeCUleeu f•, - :'L1C7J of, ':'•a.'J ^rn WITNESS my nand nW ollical NU, i .a 'iFe ae" rl..mm rr :r.. v.:: A :NS A � /' , En 9ESt CITY OF AAKHID CIICAMOMOA FNMA MIN Division EMAOACIMEMT FM IT FEE SCHMLE . For Improvement: Rochester S/0 8th " Date: mapu ! y: John Martin Fite a3Mce: m at_tn City 0rawinq NO. 861 IMIIE• Dols not inclige atrresst fee for writing permit a prrmnt deposits QUANTITY UNIT ITEM PRICE AMOUNT L.F. P.C.C. curb - 12" C.F. 24• gutter 7.25 461 _ L.F. P.C.C. curb - 8• C.F. 24• gutter 6.00 2,766 L.F. P.C.C. curb only 5.50 5_ L.F. A.C. berm 4.50 229.50 5.1, 4• P.L.L. sidewalk 1.75 0- S.F. Drive approach 2.50 227i- _ S.F. 8• P.C.C. cross gutter (Inc, curb) 3,40 C.Y. Street excavation 1.50 _jpp_ C.Y. Imported embankment 1.50 8525 S.F. Preparation of su09rade 0.15 -I Tr7 0525 S.F. Crushed agg. base (per Inch thick) 0.03 --7V-Zr- TON A.C. (over 1300 tons) 27.00 TON A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) 35.00 TON A.C. (500 to 900 tons) 45.00 TON A.C. (under 500 tons) 60.00 3525 S.F. R.L. (3" thick) 0.55 T6B6.7S- S,F, Patch A.C. (trench) 1.75 S.F. 1" thick A.C. overlay 0,30 3 EA, Adjust sewer manhole to grade 250.00 EA, Adjust sewer clean out to grade 150.00 EA. Adjust water valves to grade 75.00 EA. Street lights 1000.00 L.F. Barricades (Intersec. 5500 min) 1.00 • L.F. 2 A 4" redwood header 1.75 S.F. Removal of A.C. pavement 0,35 L.F. Removal of D.C.C. curb 3,30 Soo L.F. Removal of A.C. berm :,DO EA. Street signs 200.00 EA. Reflectors and posts 35.00 L.F. Concrete block wall 25.00 S.F. Retaining wall 20.70 TON Aggregate base 7,00 C.Y. Concrete structures 425.00 -�� L.F. 18" RCP (2000 0) 29.10 L.F. 24" RCP (1500 0) 3570 L, F. 3B' RCP (2000 0) 49.10 L.F. 48" RCP (1200 0) 75.30 EA. Catch basin w • A. 2000.00 EA, Catch basin N • 8' 2900400 EA, Catch basin w • 22' 4500.00 EA. Local depression 4' :00.00 EA. Local depression 12' 13CO.00 T EA, Junction structure 5000,00 EA. lutlet structure, Std 0506 1500.00 EA, Outlet structure, Std 0507 500.30 EA. Guard posts 40400 L.F. Guard panel (wood) 25.90 L,F, Sarcit 2,00 EA. Headwall (48" wing) 4000.10 L.F, Redwood header 1.75 S.F. Landscaping 8 irrigation 2.75 L.F. 8011 curb (P.C.C.) 7,50 12 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE 1.121.10 SUB TOTAL �C396 •RESTOIIAT ION /DEL INEATfON CASH 1.000.00 CONTINGENCY COSTS F30 DEPOSIT (REFUNDABLE) FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND (100x) 242 MONUMENTATION SURETY (CASH) LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND (50x) 33,639 alvrsRmt to Cltr Of Amw:he Cutaamnga lenlcipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.00, adopting San 0 sEDunmr PACIFIC w TH)NAL BMIK N! 933 Chino eRr1e■ JiM 7 n cw ar 7 �IRM6sATRt .n.. v I..— ..wa..a v.n ......... o. ..u• r� pOTyWA Fy -op w__________ n(.ItTRRL RATRRl To Cllt of Rancho Cperenae p■■apa 4 p W"M UO MOWfATIW M WRIMINVID(II OI TIES COn TIL Nlp({Rl. Cap■MO. AT TIME O[ s a ICU(. TIII■ D~ •UT a■w■ 1AR(IIOT AT THIS All Y 11 -m AAIINMMII 1p1lIRJl.pppMi UNnl W1VMTY RR PAIFW■YTO pOO�TO■. Mlal[cT TO n1( ■.HIT'S ft 1l TO C AI■I( TII9 1MGYT RAT( IRON WRITOI AOTC[ TO ppgITOR. yTM[ WTUIRTY O TMIf C/IITIMGT( If WU ARO IT W.0 n YMOYAT Y R(MRm RM MrW V rO11pq U1 WI"W 4101T94 WHNTtRA Wn1RIM1 oils NE OWIIR MWWTI IT I. WI ■ .W,R.M/IM� PRIOR TO M.TVIRTY 0RL■as SVMSTAR 'WaftsT is AORRl1T(0 �/ ITV =m 1 i m "im m WT ■IW11Rl • .2I • RESOLUTION NO. 4i+�ifi061'R A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 83 -10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on Jun 8, 1984, by Julius Viana, as developer, for the improvement of public right - of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the east side of Rochester Avenue at Eighth Street;and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Development Review No. 83 -10; 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 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTE -- Beverly A. Authelet, City er jaa U Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 1% 0 • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT' o � z UI > DATE: July 18, 1984 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer S08JECT: Acceptance of D. R. 83 -21, Bonds and Agreement for construction of street improvements at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue submitted by Sickles - Stampley & Associates The developer- partnership of Sick ies- Stampley & Associates has submitted the attached bonds and agreement to guarantee the off -site improvements at Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue. The project development consists of 384 apartment units on 19.14 acres and was conditonally approved by Planning Commission on September 14, 1983. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution approving the bonds and agreement for the subject improvement and authorize the Mayor to sign same on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto. Respectfully submit / LBH:J •jaa Attachments .i r L All 0 title.; CITY OF RANCHO CUCA:`tONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION 6 ron VICINITY AtAP 14 DaRC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR visa EEL vma OARS -L1 KIfOW ALL MEN IT THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is seem and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter refer,- n ad to as the City, by and between said City (L'` and SSdala- 9ta0Lv a Associates hereinafter referred to as the Deve oper. h C 'fbg J.i e8Aam7eea_ p4muer;plf THAT. WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop certain real property in sale City lauad mouth weal aosner Of Eyothi110 Nell �Aw and r WHEREAS, said City has established certain requi'reAents to be met by said Developer as prerequisite to granting of final approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, end approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of sec. r ing said approval. HOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all improvements described on page 4 hereof • within 12 months from the date hereof. 2. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the resolution of the Council of said City approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day follow. ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exten- sion of time has been granted by said City as hereinafter prov d- ed. 3. The Developer may request additional time in whit to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than 30 days prior t0 the default date, and including a Statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In considera. tion of such request, the City reserves the right to review the Provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer faits or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any law. ful means, and thereupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. S. Construction permits shall be obtained by the De'vei- oper from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right -of -Nay, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regul atians contained therein. Hon - compliance may result in Stopping of the • work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. 6. Public right -of -way improvement work required shall be constructed In conformance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special -I- op • mendments tl&retd. Construction shall include any transitions and /or other Incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. Errors or omissions discovered during construc. t ion shall be corrected upon the direction of the City Engineer. Revised work due to said plan modifications shall be covered by the provisions of this agreement and secured by the surety covering the original planned works. 7. Wort done within existing streets shall be diligent- ly 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. d. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocations, or removal of any component of any Irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right -of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terns of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The prin. cipal amount of said improvement security shall not be less than • the amount shown: 14 11 4 i% .z. 0 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: Offsite Site Improvements Principal Amount: 5298,458.00 Name and address of surety: insurance Company of West, attn: Robin P.O. Box 8063, San Diego, CA 92136 MATERIAL AND LABOR Type; Offsite Site Improvements Principal Amount; 8149,229.00 Name and address Of surety: insurance Company of West, attn: Robin P.O. Box Bn63, San Diego, CA 92138 CASH DEPOSIT NONUMENTATION Type: NA Principal Amount: to Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledge With all formalities required by law on the dates set forth Posit their signatures. . ��` C/ Date May 31, 1984 by ..Lt. , Developer SICRELS, STMT EY "SS06ATES, W William D. Stampley faiuq+u .Njer V,,, rn r me Date by Developer gn at�re Printed Accepted: City of Rancho Cucamonga, California A Municipal Corporation By: Attest: t/ Approved: .� Z ty A torney Mayor DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED • -3- 31 ror J,rmaalent: vista dal VaeSs Gate: y, r.r_r s. n.• Fib wesce• nes.n Cttyu0roning wawa. _ list Bens at IsalaN an as fee hr • Wising Patent w Revenues damits QUANTITY UNIT ITEM PRICE now L.F. P.C.C. curb - 12• C.F. 24• gutter 7.25 _102, L.F. P.C.C. Curb - r C.F. 24• Butts 6.00 L.F. P.t.C. curb only wets m 5.50 L.F. A.C. berm 450 S.F. 40 P.C.C. sidewalk 1.75 _ S.F. Dive approach 11.2ttx 2.50 S.F. M F.C.C. crass Butts (Inc.. curb) 2,,117. ors 3.40 C. Y. Street excavation 1.50 Sam C.T. Inserted aabinksemt 1.50 3oaae S.F. �OBS6 S.F. /reparation of subgraM OVOW an. bee 5.1 O.1S =6' TON A.C. (per Inch Nick) over 1300 taws) 0.03 27.00 „« TOR A.C. 900 t tam) 35.00 TOR A.C. 900 to 900 tons) 13- an.ax_m 49.00 TON A.C. ernsr $00 tom) 60.00 S.F. A.C. thick) S.F. Patch A.C. (trench) 1.7s )Rm S.F. 1• thick A.C. overlay 0.30 EA. Adjust faun ererol4 to graft tm_m 250.00 EA. Adjust sawn clean out to Brads 1SO.W FA. Adjust water valves to graft 75.00 �- EA. Street lights .F. (Interest. SSW min) 1.0000 6,000.00 L.F. 2 t 4• re0oaad heads 1.75 S.F. Reemal of A.C. Paramount 0.35 L.F. Removal of P.C.C. curb 3,30 �- L.F. • R4n0val of A.C. berm 1.00 EA. Street sign ,m •.. 200.00 EA. Reflectors and posts 35.00 L.F. Concrete block rill 25.00 S.F. Retaini -7 wall 20.00 _SL C.Y. C�oncne� struc 7.00 tures 425.00 L.F. 1B• ACP (ZWO 0) Z5.00 - =Aat2+S.0B- _ L.F. 24• RC► 0)) 35.00 L.F. 36• RCP 2000 D) 49.00 L.F. (((1500 !t• AC/ 1200 D) t5.00 EA. Catch basin w • a- e7.d4o.m 2000 00 EA. catch basin N • S. 2900.00 EA. Catch basin N • 22- 1 one m 4500 EA. Local depresslon 4' .00 . •,,,, SBg.00 , EA. Local depression 12' _ 1000.00 EA. &nctim structure ,.nm.m 5000.00 1 EA. Outlet structure, Std 0506 1500.00 EA. Outlet structure, Std #507 t.mn.m 500,00 - EA. Guard posts 40 0D L.F. Guard panel (wood) 25.00 L.F. I EA. Sawcut Reidwall (48' wing) 2.00 4000.00 L.F. Redwood heayader a.om m 6,75 10290 L.F. 12 L.P. Rolls curbn(P.C.C.)Batton 48' Martial. awns,.. 7.00 1. - ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE SUB TOTAL 24t� 71y� 00 HIDEPOSITI(REFUNDABLE) OR CASH CONTINGENCY COSTS NONUMEMTATON SURETY CASM) PERFORMANCE AND MATERIAL SOB aPWSvmt to City of Aanehe Cuaaesga Municipal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.08, adopting San ParnardINS County Cods Titles, Chapters I.S. a tasty rstteretlem!dt1111Nt1em deposit shall he each prior to Issaasca of an Engineering Construction par>,It. Revised 3/84 3 3 BOND No. 13 04 57 • FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND PREMIUM: $2,985.00 WHEREAS, toe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, and SICNELS, STAMPLEY A ASSOCIATES #(!,k.,6Ymep cc (hereinafter designated as -principal') nave entered into an PMV agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, Which said agreement, ( dated Mmv 31. 19BAa and Identified as U•' Project yT$te De Verde AnArtments= is hereby referred to and made a part hereo/ ;and, WHEREAS, said principal Is required under the terms of said agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST As surety, are held and firmly bountl unto a ty a anc o Cucamonga (hereinafter called -City-), in the penal sum of Two hundred nd t -m' - DOTT —ors 9,d5a. o aw u money o e n to a es, or t o payment of w— hi�a�suTwe ll and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions an provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof mad as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept ndqW performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall Indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered, The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or add,t ion to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the speci- fications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and It does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work or to the specifications. LN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by t I,ee principal and surety above named, on �•, ». - SICEELS, STAMPLEY 6 ASSOCIATES , INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST eve aper (Turety T1� lgndt / BfN. 42 Yr iI�1TLAICK, a,t) William DStamppl��ey W 1III am rT- ineI-. PLEASE ATTACH POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS 5 SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED 3y M LABOR AND NATERIALIEN $ONO aONO NO. 13 04 57 • WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho I� O a State Of California, and _jLCNELi- sTANP�EY t ofDC1ATES d C''i4}or4�i a.,.rai (hereinafter designated as Dr nc Ya avt cote re O to an agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated PURI It improvements, which said agreement, dated 198 4 , and identified as Or her is hereby rTrred to and made a part hlrea an awa u..Les WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is required before entering upon the performance of the work, to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to secure the Claims to which reference is made In Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and referred t(o in he aforesaid Cpde of Civil Procedure in the sum ofOwa liwX.A Fr a!w o.11w91a.lrJ T+ew:TR� Dollars (S 9 12 1, for mate7iaTs Turn z a or a or thereon of any kind, or or amount; due under the Unemployment Insurance Act witn respect to such work or tabor, that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It Is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Divison 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond, Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shatl be and remain in full force and effect. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that np change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations an this bond, and it does here- by waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has,been duly execcuted by the y,nt,pal and surety above named, on � o Z:'r r-/ :39 / ":'. 1_, RsC�tG >'f1P_r£L ryint'T:.i'�..s r F rw WEST Jevr eloper} / BENNETT W. MATLACK / PLEASE ATTACH POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS SIGNATURES MUST RE NOTARIZED 2 ' RESOLUTION NO.9MS'06CII & 4 . A t) q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO, 83 -21 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on June 20, 1984, by Sickles- Stampley, as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd, and Hellman 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 as referred to Planning Commission, Development Review No. 83 -21; 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 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon 0. Mike s, Mayor ATTEST: Bever y A. Authe el, qty C 7e rk jaa 3a 0 • iJ vMEMORANDUMV� z. r C,I DATE: July 5, 1984 TO: Robert Dougherty, City Attorney .,,�� FROM: Joan Kruse, Administrative Sec t3fi"" SUBJECT: DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETE RECORDS _ Attached for your review are Records Inventory Worksheets listing records which I recommend for destruction. All of the records listed are no longer needed for administrative or fiscal purposes and have no historical value. If you approve destruction of the records indicated, please sign each page to authorize their destruction and a resolution will then be prepared for City Council action to officially and legally proceed. Please call me if you have any questions. /jk cc: Beverly Authelet 3% 1977 RECORDS INVENTORY WORKSHEET (INACTIVE RECORDS) • DEPARTMENT Community Development - Planning prepared By /Date JAK 2/11/81 • PAGE NO File Box Number Inclusive Dates Description of Contents 1 1979 only Planning, General - Correspondence and memos to develo- pers, residents, staff, consultants and outside agencies re: planning of community, handling of resident's com- plaints, feedback on administrative policies, etc. 7 1980 only Planning General - as above. 4 1978 only C.D. Adm Files 203 -03- 1503 -03 John Blayney Corres, Mobile home condo brochures, zoning violations, consultants, historical pres, ord. copy, proposed budget working paper ping. div, status report, CEQA corres, CA EIR Monitor, HUD newsletter, 701 grant corres„ Fed, Aid Urban Prog „ SB325 corres, school fee corres, fee resolution, person- nel general, Cal Poly student intern program, purchase regs, Assy Bill 8, LAFC SOI corres, SANBAG agendas, S.B. County P.C. agendas, boundary annex survey & land desc., LOCC info, AIP, LOCC Leg. Bulletins, SCAG agendas, APA bulletins, law enforcement regional, 5 1979 only Incoming corres, std. cond. form, civil defense ping, C.D. Adm Files newspaper articles, Fontana area G.P. (1960), Assisted 101 -02 - 701 -03 Hsg, Section 8 hsg, newspaper articles, Hsg.ASSistance Plan, Hsg. Element guidelines, condo ord. corres, Afford- able Hsg. Task Force, industrial study, commercial study, Rec. Element work papers, sign corres, zoning memos, zoning violation corres, MKC,K fiscal model memos, 1980 budget workpapers, special events corres, 1980 school fees corres, AV's R.C. 1980, model home bond corres, position classification questionnaire, ping, purchase requisitions, monthly expenditure summary, expense reports, P.C. general. 6 1980 only C.D. Adm. Files 701 -16 - 1503 -05 State legislative info, annex. - deannex. corres, other cities annex fees, B &S prefab brochures, S/D Map Act, street name signs res. work papers, irrigation & landscape medians corres, storm drain committee minutes, A.D. EIR corres (1980), Ontario Ground Access Study, fwy interchange brochure, traffic accident study, sewers -storm drain fees, HUD flood insurance, commercial- retail study, tree removal permit, Sacramento newsletter, ICMA bulletins, LAFC memos, AQMD corres, S.B. local development company corre . 3? RECORDS INVENTORY WORKSHEET (INACTIVE RECORDS) DEPARTSiENT Community Development Adm. Prepared By /Date JAK - 1/5/82 • PAGE NO. File Box Number Inclusive Dates Description of Contents 8 1979 only C.D. Adm. Files 800 -1500. CO stds. fee, D.R. Committee, Industrial inventory, BAS grading reds, 1911 Act proceed, 1980 census background material, window signs, fiscal task force, equestrian /hiking trails, GBF dime listing, service station dev. standards, design review ordinance, keeping of animals in res. zones, master plan sewer, SCAG 208 areawide waste treatment plan, chamber of commerce, Sacto newsletter, energy conservation, EIR report corres, Victoria Planned Community corres, tree preservation, LAFC SB County general, SS County SOI, SB County P.C. agendas, County Building Dept, SB County Rev. Mtge Bond Program, calendar for J.Lam (secy's). 9 1980 only C.D. Adm Files 200 - 704 -14. Letters of credit old city tracts, P.C. corres, Victoria, T.V., New Walk Ministry, personnel general, purchase requisitions, Advisory Com- mittee agendas, minutes, council general, code enforce- ment, state laws. 15 1981 only Chron file, Ping general, Ping consultant brochures, 100 -500 C.D. Adm. general plan, Blayney contract A bills, HCD mobilehome park questionnaire, G.P. general, G.P. extension request, (1979) corres, Hsg. Elem, economic dev, survey of retail facilities, downtown revitalization, zoning violations, adult business ord, dog violations, sign violations, city health ord., RDA consultant brochures, MKGK fiscal impact model, 1981 -82 Cap. Imp. Prog., proposed budget, assess- ment general, CDBG A.gmt 1980 -81, special events permit, temp. access permits, urban forestry grant, Ontario Speedway comml complex EIR, personnel general, street trees preservation, historial pres. element, County general, City Atty. corres. 1979, RDA ref, papers, Upland GP amend, purchase requisitions, monthly expenditure summary, expense reports, Chamber of Commerce ISP Agmt, Blayney ISP Agmt, Circulation Element, Sedway Cooke GP contract, P.C. workshop, Calif, land use litigation newsletter. 14 Jan -Dec. 1981 only Memos and Correspondence Daily File. 16 1981 only As listed above. 800 -1500 C.D. Adm. sy • RESOLUTION NO. 84 -205 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF The CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records under the charge of the Community Development Department are no longer required for public or private purposes; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that destruction of the above-mentioned materials is necessary to conserve storage space, and reduce staff time, expense and confusion in handling and Informing the public; and WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the head of a City department to destroy any City records and documents which are over two years old under his or her charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same are no longer required, upon the approval of the City Council by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, it Is therefore desirable to destroy said records as listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, in storage, without • making a copy [hereof, which are two year. old; and WHEREAS, said records have been approved for destruction by the City Attorney. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That approval and authorization is hereby given to destroy those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2: That the City Clerk is authorized to allow examination by and donation to the Department of Special Collections of the University Research Library, University of California, or other historical society designated by the City Council, any of the records described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, except those deemed to be confidential. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. A • Vll l Vl LlLll \VLLV VUVLfLI1VlYVH G MEMORANDUM' 77 1977 DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: City Council FROM: Harry Empey, Finance Director` SUBJECT: Deferred Compensation Contract Attached is a new contract for a Deferred Compensation plan for City employees. Although the current plan with Glendale Federal is good, the new plan with Great Western affords the em- ployees, who wish to participate, a better base interest rate. Current plan only calls for an 8.33% effective yield annually, whereas Great Western offers an effective annual yield of 10.62%. Various vehicles of choice will be available to the employees for investment, such is not the case with Glendale Federal, RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Attorney and City Clerk to sign the attached contract to implement an agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Great Western for Deferred Compensation services. yi REFERRED CONPENS11110H PLAN AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this _ day of 1964, by and between �`ICEAT rAE ffN UViNGS, A FEOi7FAl SAVZNMANO LOAN ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as "GREAT WESTERN ", anal the _, hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY ". WHEREAS, AGENCY, pursuant to Resolution No. _ _ dated , has established a Oeferred Com _ pensation Plan, NeFe nSfter` referred to as "PLAN "; and WHEREAS, AGENCY desires to contract with GREAT WESTERN exclusively to perform certain services in the implementation and continuing operation of the PLAN; and WHEREAS, GREAT 'WESTERN desires to provide such services subject to the term; and conditions contained herein; NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and GREAT WESTERN agree as follows: 1. TER": This shall remain in full force an'. • effect forthr >:; (J) sear, and shall not be terminated prior to that time except fir ' Cause" as that term is hereinafter defined. Thereaf__r, this Agrea'ient shall continue in effect for successive Peri.c:s of thric (3) years ea0 unless either party gives written notice to the other, not less than ninety (90) days prier to thi end of any term, of its intention not to renew the Ag,tt lent. FLr the p': ^. <;e of this Agreer.ent, the term "Cause" shall o^ d?`i r. ed to he f1ilu,a of either party to perform any 0 its otligj'io ^s ,nler this agree'ent. If :his s'rall occur, the ion - def du'. ti'; c.r t shall give the defaulting party writ - t -. n;t'ce, w`i(�i ;n�11 specify the particulars of default, 11 svch d a f a,lt is not cdr;d within sixty (6O) days, then the non -d= faulting party shall have the right to terT�inate this Agreecent for Cruse by g+ving th defaulting party thirty (30) days written notice. Upon ter.ornat'.nn :f th1 1 :,.event, the following shall JCCJr•. C. rep:rts to AS ?.VC'/ detailrrg the ststes r0 iatgr than ten (10) busi •secs d a` •= L ^a -rid of the mon`.h in which C/ ]— AS JWT ay request withdrawal of funds on deposit. • GR MESiEU shall dis!arse such funds upon request of AGENCY Ja amounts not less than twenty (20X) percent of the balance of such funds per year for five (5) years. GREAT WESTERN may' at its discretion, disburse such funds at a rate in excess of such minimum. 2. ENROLLMENT SERVICES: GREAT WESTERN agrees to conduct the enroTTm-e—nT--oT-&77-e-TT-gT75le employees who elect to participate in the PLAN. GREAT WESTERN agrees to provide educational and promotional information for distribution to AGENCY's employees. AGENCY agrees to allow and facilitate periodic distribution of such information in conjunction with each employee's payroll. GREAT WESTERN agrees to conduct group presentations periodically for the AGENCY'S employees to explain the PLAN. GREAT WESTERN agrees to provide educational and promotional information regarding the PLAN to employees In attendance at such presentations. AGENCY agrees to facilitate the scheduling and provide facilities at which satisfactory attendance can be expected. GREAT WESTERN agrees to provide qualified personnel to be available periodically to discuss the PLAN with individual employees. GREAT WESTERN agrees that in performing the services • provided for hereunder that it will conduct itself at all times with due regard to rules and regulations of the Agency and further agrees not to commit any act that will unreasonably tend to degrade the AGENCY or bring it into public contempt or ridicule, or prejudice the maintenance of the good employee- employer relationship existing between the AGENCY and its employees. GREAT 'WESTERN agrees to retain qualified personnel on a continuing basis in order to perform the aforementioned services on a local level throughout the term of this Agreement. 3. DEFERRALS_ GREAT WESTERN agrees to accept deposit input from the- ITMNNCV an each payroll cycle in the form of either magnetic tape or listing. Each such listing or magnetic tape shall contain each participant's name, social security number, and the amount deferred. AGENCY agrees to perform the deductions to participating employee's payroll. GREAT WESTERN agrees to direct and coordinate the investment of funds in the investment vehicles herein prescribed. C, J yl • 4. DISTRIBUTIONS: Upon receipt of written instructions approv! ydEe W, GREAT WESTERN agrees to direct and Coordinate th! payment of benefits to participants and beneficiaries, withhold. the appropriate federal and /or state taxes, remit aggregate withholdings to the appropriate taxing authorities as well as issue the net funds to the participant or beneficiary. In addition, GREAT WESTERN agrees to perform the necessary monthly, quarterly, and annual reporting on withholdings to the appropriate taxing authorities. GREAT WESTERN also agrees to issue the appropriate annual wage and tax statements to participants and beneficiaries receiving payments during a given year and to provide the AGENCY with a copy of this information. S. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTS: GREAT WESTERN agrees to furnish the AGENCY, mont y and — quarterly, reports regarding the status of the PLAN containing, but not limited to, the following information: a. Each participant's name. b. Each participant's social security number. c. Each participant's sub - account number. d. Deposits credited to each participant's sub - account. e. Withdrawals debited to each participant's sub - account. • f. Interest /Earnings credited to each participant's sub - account. g. Value of each participant's sub - account. h. Summary totals of the PLAN. GREAT WESTERN agrees to provide quarterly statements to participants in the PLAN. Each statement to a participant shall identify the detail transactions that have occurred to that sub- account for that period as well as the beginning and ending values of that participant's sub - account. GREAT WESTERN agrees to maintain the records necessary to produce the various required reports and that transactions will be perforTed in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. GREAT WESTERN agrees that all records shall be the property of the AGENCY and that, in the event this contract is terminated for any reason, GREAT WESTERN will supply AGENCY these records with thirty (30) days subsequent to the termination date. AGE7,Cf agrees that all computer tapes, discs, and programs shall be tine property of GREAT 'WESTERN, GREAT 'WESTERN agrees that all information supplied to, and all work processed or completed by GREAT WESTERN will be held to be confidential and crivate and will not be disclosed to anyone other than the AGENCY or those persons, corporations or governmental agencies who have a lawful right to such information, 4V 6. INVESTMENT VEHICLES: GREAT WESTERN agrees to provide . the here n prescr a services for the AGENCY with the following investment vehicles available within the PLAN. Great Western Savings (GWS) The investment Company of America (ICA) Growth Fund of America (GFA) The Bond Fund of America (BFA) GREAT WESTERN may, from time to time, offer to perform the herein prescribed services for additional investment vehicles. Such investment vehicles shall be made available within the PLAN only upon the mutual agreement of all parties. The investment vehicle identified as Great Western Savings shall be savings accounts with GREAT WESTERN. Each such account shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and statutes to which GREAT WESTERN is subject, as promulgated by the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and other such regulatory authorities. GREAT WESTERN agrees to accept PLAN funds for investment in the savings acccunt option, bearing interest at a rate to be effective as of the first day of each calendar month, using whichever of the following methods result in the highest interest rate payable. • A. The rate of interest determined on the last business day of each calendar month for 90 -day money market rate accounts at GREAT WESTERN, with monthly compounding of interest. This rate will be guaranteed for the succeeding calendar month, regardless of any subsequent change in the rate of 90 -day money market rate accounts at GREAT 'WESTERN. The rate of interest in effect on the last business day of each calendar month equal to the 26 -week U,S. Government Treasury Bill Discount rate plus twenty -five (25) basis points, with monthly compounding of interest. This rate will be guaranteed for the succeeding calendar month, regardless of any subsequent change in the rate of 26 -week savings accounts at GREAT WESTERN. 1O.G.' per annum, compounded monthly for an annual effective yield of 10.62 %. `J yr GREAT WESTERN agrees to call ateralize any amounts of the AGENCY's PLAN funds invested In the savings account option not subject to insurance of accounts by the FSLIC, adjusted monthly, with first deeds of trust on commercial, industrial, or residential property. The remaining outstanding principal balance of the collateral shall, in the aggregate, at all times equal or exceed 125% of the value of such uninsured funds. Funds invested in ICA, GFA, and 8FA by the AGENCY will utilize GWF Securities Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Western Financial Corporation, as the broker /dealer for such transactions. 7. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP: Title and ownership of all accounts established for the PLAN shall be held in the name of the AGENCY's Deferred Compensation Plan. The AGENCY shalt be sole custodian of and receive any passbooks, investment certificates or other evidence of ownership of the accounts established under this Agreement. GREAT WESTERN shall have no privity of contract with the participants of the PLAN. GREAT WESTERN agrees not to accept or honor any instructions that may be submitted by participants or to provide any information regarding account balances or transactions, without the permission of the AGENCY. 8. FEES AND EXPENSES: Except as provided for in this Agreement or as required by law or regulations, GREAT WESTERN agrees that it will make no charges to the AGENCY or to participants in the PLAN for any obligation performed pursuant to this Agreement. GREAT WESTERN further agrees to pay the expenses incurred as a result of its providing the herein prescribed services. 9. CIRCUMSTANCES EXCUSING PERFORMANCE: The performance by the partie —s — this greement is Subject Co force majeure and is excused by fires, power failures, strikes, acts of God, restrictions imposed by any government or governmental agency, or other delays beyond the delayed party's control or defaults by participants or employer. Failures of or defaults of participants, employers, or investment vehicles shall excuse performance by GREAT WESTERN thereby prevented. 10. INDEMNIFICATION: Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, , ..S ERN agrees that it shall be coley responsible to the AGE NCY for any and all services performed by GREAT WESTERN or its employees under this Agreement. GREAT WESTERN shall be responsible for negligence committed by GREAT WESTERN or its employees. The AGENCY shall be responsible for any error committed by the AGENCY or its employees. GREAT WESTERN shall not be liable for investment performance, except as expressly rovided for within this Agreement. yv, 11. ASSIGNABILITY: No party to this Agreement shall assign . the sale without the express written consent of the other party thereto, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Unless agreed to by the parties, no assignment shall relieve any party to this Agreement of any duties or liabilities hereunder. 12. PARTIES BOUND: This Agreement and the provisions 'thereof shall be binding upon the respective parties and shall inure to the benefit of the same and to their successors and assigns. 11. APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with thaws operating within the State of California. 14. UNLAWFUL PROVISIONS: In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, said illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining parts of the Agreement, but the same shall be construed and enforced as if said illegal or invalid provisions had never been inserted herein or therein. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, no party to this Agreement will be required to perform or render any services hereunder, the performance or rendition of which would be in violation of any laws, rules, or regulations relating thereto. 15. AMENDMENTS: This Agreement may be amended at any time • during the term hereof by the express written mutual consent of the parties. 16. NOTICES: All notices and demands to be given under this Agreenent by one party to another shall be given by certified mail, addressed to the party to be notified or upon whom a demand is being made, at the respective addresses set forth in this Agreement or such other place as either party may, from tine to time, designate in writing. The date of service of a notice or demand shall be the receipt date on any certified mail receipt. • 4"% • If to GREAT WESTERN: If to AGENCY: • 9 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS P.O. Box 1085 Northridge, CA 91328 Attn: Municipal Programs IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. AGENCY APPROVED AS TO FORM: iEGVL aN —$E'i -- BY: —A a TF64TIE6- 6FPTfEIf- 7 Y& GREAT WESTERN BY: SCOTT MONTGOMERY VICE PRESIDENT GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS 0 • 0 CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Article 8 Claim Transportation Funds for Fiscal Year 1984 -85 Each year it is necessary that '_he City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the attached Article 8 claim form to authorize receipt of the City's Transporation Development Act Funds for street and road purposes. For Fiscal Year 1984 -85, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive a total of $899,145 in Transportation Development Act Funds. Of this amount, $283,633 will be claimed directly by Omnitrans. The remaining TDA funds in the amount of $615,512 may be utilized for street and road purposes. RECQNENDATION 1. The City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the attached Article 8 claim. 2. The City Council adopt by minute action authorizing the following distribution of Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA) for Fiscal Year 1984 -85. a. Ornnitrans $283,633 b. City of Rancho Cucamonga 615 512 Total Allocation: 38gTJ;T4- Respectfully submitted, L8H: ea s Attachments J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TDA ARTICLE 8a CLAIM FORM FISCAL YEAR: DATE: 1984 -85 July 18, 1984 CLAIMANT: PAYMENT RECIPIENT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY LTF: (Claimant) SAN BERNARDINO P. 0. BOX 807 PURPOSE: (Check one box only) (Mailing Address) ( ) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a Local Streets and Roads (X) Article 8, PUC Section 99400a Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 City and Zip Code HARRY EMPEY FINALE DIRECTOR Attention - Name and Title 4 9 -1851 ontact Person - hone Number DETAIL OF REQUESTED ALLOCATION: AMOUNT 1. Payment from Unallocated Funds 5615.512.00 • 2. 1% Planning Contribution to IVAG (Imperial County only) 3. 3% Planning al and Contribution to SCAG (Imperi Ventura only) 4. Total Allocation Requested (Line 1 less Lines 2 and 3) $615,512.00 5. Payment from Reserves (Drawdown of funds reserved in a previous Year) CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Approval of AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE(CLAIMANT -S this claim and payment by the County CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OR FINANCIAL Auditor to this claimant are subject OFFICER) to monies being available, and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the (Signature) allocation instructions. A.R N Woc MANAGER I Y r int Name and utle CTC USE ONLY Payment Schedule Requested: Lump Sum Monthly Qtrly Other - Indicate monthly payments on the following schedule: 7 10 1 4 8 11 2 5 9 12 3 6 TDA S Schedule A -8 TDA Article 8 (PUC 99400a) and STAF (per All 2551) LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CLAIM FINANCIAL REPORTING FORM Claimant: CITY _QE_R&CaQ KANnN.a _______ FY R2 /R3 Date: J „ly iR 740.4 ry A]ADA TDA FUNDS AVAILABLE - - -- - --- - ---- ---- 1. Fund Balance, beginning year 2. Revenues - TDA Allocations (Article 8a) 3. Revenues - STAF Allocations 4. Revenues - Interest S. Proposition A Revenues (Los Angeles County only) 6. Revenues - Unified Transportation Fund 7. Other (specify) R. Total Funds Made Available (Sum of Lines 1 -7) 9. Expenditures - Local Streets and Roads (Article 8a) 10. Expenditures - Local Streets and Roads (STAF) 11. Expenditures - Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Not Art. 3) 12. Expenditures - Transportation Planning 13. Fund Balance, end of year (Line 8 less Lines 9 -12) -- - --- -- - --- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Actual Estimated or Actual Proposed 1 653 448 936 82 005 96 708 85 046 741 1,148,372 1 349 888 1,149,494 236,739 900 952 1,149,494 _ 911,653 448,936 -0- DISPOSITION OF ENDING YEAR CASH BALANCE 14. 5. 6. Funds held for pending projects (detail on separate sheet as indicated in the claim instructions, page 4) Uncommitted Funds TOTAL (Sum of Lines 14 and 15; equal to Line 13): ' 14 15 16 -- I verify that the informati on this Financial Reporting Form is true and cur the best of my It ]edge. CAG - TDA • • (by) ✓ /84 txp10 n CJ ; Anticipated Completion Date 9 -85 11 -84 11 -84 5 -85 11 -85 9 -85 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM _ LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PURPOSES Type of Work Anticipated Project Boundaries (Construction, mainte- Starting (street specific) ance., paving, etc.) Date 1. Archibald Avenue Reconstruction 6 -85 Fourth St. to Base Line Rd. 2. Church Street ' Reconstruction 9 -84 rc iA— F'baTT-G-F. to Hellman Ave. 3. San Bernardino Road Reconstruction 9 -84 Archibald Ave. to Sauterne Dr. 4. Lemon Street Resurfacing 3 -85 Haven ve. to Hermosa Ave. 5. East Avenue Reconstruction 9 -85 Highland Ave. to Summit St. 6. Hermosa Avenue Widening, realignment 4 -85 anya�to Coca St. and Reconstruction • 7. Miscellaneous Maint. -- n CJ ; Anticipated Completion Date 9 -85 11 -84 11 -84 5 -85 11 -85 9 -85 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • STAFF REPORT° F :JI DATE: July 18, 1984 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Southern Pacific Track Consolidation (Resolution to I.C.C. concerning the proposed merger of Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads) Attached for Council approval is a resolution to the Interstate Commerce Commission concerning the proposed merger between the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads. This resolution would be submitted into the record of the hearings indicating that unless serious consideration is given to removal of redundant trackage such as the Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park line, we would oppose the merger. • The intent of the resolution is to gain the attention of the railroad for serious consideration of this proposal. The resolution will be transmitted to the I.C.C., the PUC and SCAG for presentation at the public hearing. Attached for Council's information are correspondence and a progress report dealing with the status of the consolidation study. These reports continue to demonstrate the overwhelming public benefits to abandonment of the Baldwin Park line. To date, we are receiving no serious consideration from the railroads. This lack of response is somewhat due to the confusion caused by the merger, but also just bureaucratic momentum. Hopefully, the input at the hearing will attract some attention. If the abandonment is approved, there are three industries within Rancho Cucamonga which would be required to relocate. It may be necessary for the City to become involved in the relocation process. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution on the Proposed Merger of Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads and Elimination of Redundant and Unnecessary Grade Crossings. Respectfully submitted, i LBH: a ment S3 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r..�Jgg D. xike4 Jiw) fiwJwr.n Cha In l Baguet n lef r" Rims 1971 Rklu.a x. DW Pmwk J. Wight July 19, 1984 Southern California Association of Governments 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 Attention: Mr. Gill V. Hicks Subject: Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Merger Gentlemen: The California Public Utilities Commission, a party to the above proceedings, has agreed to present the positions and concerns of local California • municipalities with respect to the effects of the above proposed merger on highway and street grade crossings, and conflicts between rail movements of the Applicant Carriers and public vehicular traffic. 10 Accordingly, it is requested that the following comments of the City of Rancho Cucamonga be transmitted to the I.C.C. These comments are on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucmonga, California 91730, telephone (714) 989 -1851, Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, representative. The City of Rancho Cucamonga supports the proposed basic merger, subject to the Carrier's willingness to abandon certain redundant trackage and unnecessary grade crossings of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not intend to participate formally in the proceedings, but does request protective conditions or assurances from the railroad, as hereinafter described. There is not information that the City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks to discover from the Applicant carriers. lv 9320 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE C • W ' 1. _. Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Merger July 19, 1984 Page 2 • SPECIFIC PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS SOUGHT The City of Rancho Cucamonga takes the position that if the two Applicant carriers are allowed to merge, any adverse effects resulting from the decrease in rail competition and increasedf rail traffic should be mitigated. Surely, the local community should receive some offsetting benefits through the elimination of redundant trackage, the concentration of rail movements within a single corridor, and elimination of unnecessary highway grade crossings. The subject Application is entirely silent on the intention of the carriers with respect to the parallel, redundant trackage of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch and the Santa Fe Second District line through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requests that the carriers make an affirmative statement to abandon the following segments of the Baldwin Park Branch, which parallels the Second District mainline of the Atchison, Topeka b Santa Fe line within the corporate limis of Rancho Cucamonga. Cordially, • JON D. MIKELS Mayor JDM:LBH:jaa Attachment ;.- S y.. Ir] July 19, 1984 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA wow J.. D. Mik.l. Ch.rk.J. 0"9 11 Jdf., King Rkh.M N. D.hl P.me1.J. Wright California Public Utilities Commission State Building 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Attention: Mr. William Oliver Subject: Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Nerger Gentlemen: The California Public Utilities Commission, a party to the above proceedings, has agreed to present the positions and concerns of local California • municipalities with respect to the effects of the above proposed merger on highway and street grade crossings, and conflicts between rail movements of the Applicant Carriers and public vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is requested that the following comments of the City of Rancho Cucamonga be transmitted to the I.C.C. These comments are on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. 0. Box B07, Rancho Cucmonga, California 91730, telephone (714) 989 -1851, Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, representative. The City of Rancho Cucamonga supports the proposed basic merger, subject to the Carrier's willingness to abandon certain redundant trackage and unnecessary grade crossings of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not intend to participate formally in the proceedings, but does request protective conditions or assurances from the railroad, as hereinafter described. There is not information that the City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks to discover from the Applicant carriers. 1] 5(0 VE C . PORT OFFICE BOX 607 - R1NCN0 CCCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 61766 . (714) 66 ►1661 Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Merger July 19, 1984 Page 2 SPECIFIC PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS SOUGHT The City of Rancho Cucamonga takes the position that if the two Applicant carriers are allowed to merge, any adverse effects resulting from the decrease in rail competition and increasedf rail traffic should be mitigated. Surely, the local community should receive some offsetting benefits through the elimination of redundant trackage, the concentration of rail movements within a single corridor, and elimination of unnecessary highway grade crossings. The subject Application is entirely silent on the intention of the carriers with respect to the parallel, redundant trackage of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch and the Santa Fe Second District line through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requests that the carriers make an affirmative statement to abandon the following segments of the Baldwin Park Branch, which parallels the Second District mainline of the Atchison, Topeka 6 Santa Fe line within the corporate limis of Rancho Cucamonga. Cordially, JON D. MIKELS Mayor JDM:LSHtjad Attachment • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA � we. Jae D. Mi4ela u. cf rin J. aegaet R Jelrrey king 19" RkWrd H. Dahl Pamela J. WoKht July 19, 1984 Interstate Commerce Commission Rail Section Office of Proceedings Room 5417 Washington, D.L. 20423 Subject: Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Merger Gentlemen: The California Public Utilities Commission, a party to the above proceedings, has agreed to present the positions and concerns of local California municipalities with respect to the effects of the above proposed merger on . highway and street grade crossings, and conflicts between rail movements of the Applicant Carriers and public vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is requested that the following comments of the City of Rancho Cucamonga be transmitted to the I.C.C. These comments are on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho Cucmonga, California 91730, telephone (714) 989 -1851, Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer, representative. The City of Rancho Cucamonga supports the proposed basic merger, subject to the Carrier's willingness to abandon certain redundant trackage and unnecessary grade ossings of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch through the City of Rancho UCaM0n9a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not intend to participate formally in the proceedings, but does request protective conditions or assurances from the railroad, as hereinafter described. There is not information that the City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks to discover from the Applicant carriers. 10 c ; Finance Docket No. 30400, Santa Fe - Southern Pacific Merger July 19, 1984 Page 2 SPECIFIC PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS SOUGHT The City of Rancho Cucamonga takes the position that if the two Applicant carriers are allowed to merge, any adverse effects resulting from the decrease in rail competition and increasedf rail traffic should be mitigated. Surely, the local community should receive some offsetting benefits through the elimination of redundant trackage, the concentration of rail movements within a single corridor, and elimination of unnecessary highway grade crossings. The subject Application is entirely silent on the intention of the carriers with respect to the parallel, redundant trackage of Southern Pacific's Baldwin Park Branch and the Santa Fe Second District line through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Rancho Cucamonga requests that the carriers make an affirmative statement to abandon the following segments of the Baldwin Park Branch, which parallels the Second District mainline of the Atchison, Topeka Z Santa Fe line within the corporate limis of Rancho Cucamonga. Cordially, JON D. MIKELS Mayor JDM:LBH:jaa Attachment 5 `7 • • ,1 WLEY .- - CATHER at L„ .C~ac99o"P7 own .:3566 -02 a Il wPr 120 Honed st. P.O. 80 7921 416149&4M � bcO, GNIdni� 9tt19 RMEN0 June 14, 1984 JUN 18 04 L D. KNO . Mr. Gill V. Hicks ' Program Manager Multi 14odal Studies Southern California Association of Governments 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 Subject: Track Consolidation in the West San Bernardino County - Pomona Area Dear Mr. Hicks: • By transmittal dated June 8, we forwarded copies of 3 P.U.C. Nominations involving the proposed consolidation of the Santa Fe Second District Line with the Baldwin Park Branch of Southern Pacific, from the westerly city limits of Pomona to Cactus Avenue in Rialto. As explained in our telephone conversation last week, our firm, in cooperation with L. D. King, Inc., Carl J. Freeman, Vice President and Project Manager, Ontario, has been retained for this study. We are currently developing a rather comprehensive engin- eering report discussing specific features of the track consolidation plan, and identifying those locations where short sections of existing SP track should remain for industry service; as well as identification of two whole- sale lumber distributors who would be deprived of rail service. The Nominations will give you a preliminary idea of the consolidation proposal. Recent informal feedback from Santa Fe indicates that that railroad may be taking a negative attitude towards this consolidation proposal. Accordingly, it seems clear the the local agencies -- cities of Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Pomona -- are going to need all the help they can gat! I am confident that assistance from SCAG would be appreciated. One forum where such cooperative action might be focused involves the pending 19 ICC Merger Application of Santa Fe- Southern Pacific. I DeLEUW CATHER .MnPr.d nC.M.�� Mr. Gill V. Hicks June 14, 1984 Page two 0 Surely, if two railroads propose to merge, the local agencies throughout Southern California should have some assurance that they can anticipate tangible benefits, such as elimination of redundant trackage and unnecessary grade crossings. The appropriate individuals in the San Bernardino County - Pomona area are as follows: Name Agency Comments Carl J. Freeman L. D. King, Inc. Project Manager for our Vice President 517 N. Euclid Ave. study; former City Ontario, CA 91762 Engineer, Montclair. Nathan A. Simon City of Fontana Most anxious to build Mayor 8352 Sierra Ave. ATGSF U'pass on Sierra Fontana, CA 92335 Ave., but needs SP tracma abandonment to qualify Robert Schoenborn(City of Fontana) for PUC funds. Director of Public Works G. Michael City of Montclair Aggressively pursuing Milhiser 5111 Benito Street track consolidation. City Manager Montclair, CA 91763 Carl L. sawtell City of Montclair City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs City of Rancho Very anxious to pursue City Engineer Cucamonga track elimination in 9161 Baseline Road his City. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Fred Blanchard City of Upland Director of 460 Euclid Avenue Public Works Jpland, CA 91786 Ben N. Minamide City of Pomona Director of 505 So. Garay Ave. Public Works P.O. Box 660 • Pomona, CA 91769 DOLEUW _ CATER Mr. Gill V. Hicks June 14, 1984 Page three of the foregoing, Mike Milhiser of Montclair, Lloyd Hubbs of Rancho Cucamona, and Nathan A. Simon and Robert Schoenborn of Fontana, foresee the greatest benefits for their coimsunities.and have been most aggressively pursuing this track consolidation concept. Upland's interest has ` not been as vigorously pursued,and Pomona perhaps does not have a great deal to ga.n. Track consolidation does not really benefit the City of Rialto, as most of the SP track must remain in- place. The tracks of the two railroads were consolidated through Claremont some years ago, so we do not anticipate any major further benefits to that City. CalTrans also could benefit through the elimination of two dangerous SP underpasses on Foothill Boulevard, State • Route 66, which have been the site of numerous accidents. It is suggested that SCAG lend its support to the track consolidation proposal. Very truly yours, DE LEUW, �ATHTT''lE��R ""ii..//�6 COMPANY R�ert r.tOnI PE. Chief Civil Engineer RMS:yc cc: eaj . Freiman; *;aGhan "I: Simon, Fontana Robert Schoenborn, Fontana G. Michael Milhiser, Montclair Lloyd Hubbs, Rancho Cucamonga E 1 ySfryc 3566 April 2, 1984 POMONA- MONTCLAIR- UPLAND - RANCHO CUCAMONGA- FONTANA TRACK CONSOLIDATION STUDY PROGRESS REPORT The consulting engineering team of L.D. King, Inc., De Leuw, Cather c Company, and Ron Kranzer A Associates Civil Engineers, Inc., has been proceeding with the track consolidation studies sponsored by the City of Montclair, with cooperation and participation from the other named cities. Principal developments to date are briefly outlined below. • Descriptiop of the Project is The proposed track consolidation under study involves some 22 miles of the Southern Pacific Baldwin Park Branch, beginning at White Avenue in Pomona and extending to Cactus Avenue in Rialto. Based on the studies completed to date, it appears that approximately 19 of these 22 miles can be retired, and that only two existing rail shippers or receivers would be deprived of direct rail access. SP traffic would be handled by the parallel Santa Fe Railway Second District line. 4 11j4 Status of PUC Nominations • The overall track consolidation projects divided into three segments for the purpose of nomination, was submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission under date of December 9. 1983, for consideration on the 1964 -85 priority list. The PUC engineering staff report, which established the provisional list for the next fiscal year was released on March 16. This list is subject to change, depending on additional data or evidence submitted at the forthcoming hearings in April. The projects of particular interest to the interested parties are: Provisional Statewide Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 46 Description , Fresno - Marks /Shaw Note: Above nomination subject to revihion at PUC hearings; number of points will increase. Fontana Track Consolidation, including Sierra Avenue Underpass Montclair Track Consolidation, including Monte Vista Underpass (position will drop, as explained below) Pittsburg, Railroad Avenue Note: Nomination subject to revision aT pending PUC hearings Bakersfield, •N• Street Underpass Pack Road, 61 Monte, SFTCo Pomona, North Carey Avenue Underpass and Track : 4 V Priority Index No. 51 48 48 47 46 45 27 • 'd1b tiIb U • The Montclair nomination will be revised at the public hearings in Los Angeles on April 11, as it spears that five of the some 37 grade crossings originally proposed to be eliminated must be retained on an interim basis, to preserve rail access to Boyd Lumber and American can Plastic Products in Alta Loma. As a result, the statewide priority position for the Montclair - Upland- Rancho Cucamonga Segment may drop from 3 to perhaps 6 or 7. Based on the above provisional priority rankings, the present financial outlook for the three identified segments is summarized below: o Pontana Track Consolidation, including Sierra Avenue Underpass at ATiSP RY -- State allocation expected to be available, if railroad agreements can be negotiated. o Montclair- Upland- Rancho Cucamonga Track Consolidation, including Monte Vista Avenue Underpass at ATa SP RY -- State allocation m� be available, if railroad agreements can be negotiated. G� 11' o° 0 o Pomona Track Consolidation, including North Garey Avenue Underpass at •ATLSF BY -- Because of low ranking, State allocation not expected to be available in Fiscal 1984 -85. However, if the nomination is restructured in December 1984, there is a possibility that state funding may become available in 1985 -86. Existing Shippers and Receivers A considerable portion of the effort accomplished to data has been devoted to a field survey of industries which are now served directly by Southern Pacific. As a part of the • project, we recommend certain short sections of existing SP trackage should be left in place, and short tracks should connected to the Santa Pe, so that all existing SP customers from White Avenue in Pomona to Alta Loma will continue to be served, at least for another two to three years. Only two existing shippers, BiM Wholesale Lumber and Ponderosa Lumber, both in the Etiwanda area, would not have direct rail access in the "after" condition. Representatives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga stated that they plan to explore procedures whereby one or both of these customers might be relocated to a new site served by rail. G'a 4 0I.Jt Av Southern Pacific has no customers on its line through Fontana at the present time. Potential for Future Rail Oriented Industries Along the Baldwin Park Branch Zoning maps were obtained from the Planning Departments of the several cities participating in this study. Zoning and land use information was then transferred onto strip maps, oriented to follow the railroad corridors. From a review of these exhibits, the following observations may be offered: • 1. City of Pomona. Several $core acres of industrial zoned property abut the Southern Pacific -Santa Fe corridor. It is presumed that the areas on the south side of the Southern Pacific would continue as potential industrial sites for Southern Pacific customers under the recommended Joint Trackage agreements. 2. Montelair, Upland Rancho Cucamonga. Land uses along the Southern Pacific Baldwin Park Branch are now, or are zoned to be, almost entirely residential, retail, or commercial, none of which offers the potential for generating new rail customers. Isolated pockets of existing rail - oriented industry are located in Claremont, at the Los Angeles -San Bernardino county line, and in the east Upland -Alta Loma area. These pockets of rail served industry would not be disrupted under the proposed track consolidation plan, and existing rail spurs would �g9 In summary, potential industrial sites adjacent to the Southern Pacific through Pomona would continue to be served in the 'after' condition from the Santa Pe Railway, which immediately parallels and is directly adjacent to the SP. A similar condition applies for Claremont and Montclair near the Loa Angeles County line. Since zoning through the Cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga along the Southern Pacific corridor is almost entirely residential or commercial, and only a few parcels are zoned for industrial use, it appears there is only a negligible opportunity for future rail - oriented industries to locate • along the Southern Pacific. It should be emphasized that thousands of acres of industrial zoned property lie adjacent to the Santa Pe mainline, as well as along the Southern Pacific mainline which traverses downtown Ontario and Pomona. The total area of vacant land zoned for industrial use along these two more southerly corridors appears to be far in excess of any near term demand. Impact of Railroad Operations The question arises as to the effect of the track removal and changes in Southern Pacific switching movements on Santa Ps traffic and track capacity along its Second District. • The effects differ for various segments of the Baldwin Park Branch, as follows. !� R - )dad v o Between White Avenue in Pomona and Grove Avenue in Upland. Not to exceed one daily roundtrip of a Southern Pacific local train serving industries within the above limits, would be added to existing Santa Fe traffic. o Between Grove Avenue in Upland and Cactus Avenue in Rialto. No Southern Pacific operations; no change to existing Santa Fe service. It is assumed that Ponderosa Lumber Services and BiM Wholesale Lumber might relocate to an industrial area served by Santa Fe. Carloads of lumber originating on Southern Pacific lines would be • set off by Santa Pe switch engine under a reciprocal switching arrangement. o Cactus Avenue, Rialto, to ^ench (Junction with SP Colton Cut -Off Line). No Change to Santa Fe; Rialto industries to continue to be served from West Colton Yard via existing SP Baldwin Park Branch tracks. In summary, the only portion of Santa Fe line which would be subjected to additional SP traffic is that segment between White Avenue, Pomona; and Grove Avenue, Upland. The additional SP traffic would consist of not more than one local roundtrip per day. In our opinion, the Santa Pe line has adequate capacity to accommodate this additional roundtrip. ;i y 2'a . 4i5 The Next Step • With two of the projects ranking relatively high on the PUC priority list, the focus of efforts should be to request the two railroads to enter into a Construction and Maintenance Agreement (or Agreements) , a document legally required if the local agencies are to qualify for a State allocation. The economic benefits, both to the local agencies as well as to the railroads, appear to far outweigh any economic losses. The,projects should proceed without awaiting the outcome of the Southern Pacific -Santa Fe merger application now pending before the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission. • Sincerely, DE LEUW, CATHER G COMPANY Robert M. Rarton,p.E. /1 l • RESOLUTION NO. 90 10 ffe k j— -,a 00 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCH CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONCERING THE PROPSEO MERGER OF SANTA. FE AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROADS, AND ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT TRACKAGE AND UNNECESSARY GRADE CROSSINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEREAS, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company operate parallel tracks through the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the number of rail movements on the Southern Pacific (former Baldwin Park Branch) is relatively insignificant; and WHEREAS, all rail movements of the two carriers can readily be accommodated on the existing Second District track of the Santa Fe Railway, thereby permitting substantial lengths of Southern Pacific trackage to be retired and some 13 railroad crossings to be eliminated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Santa Fe- Southern Pacific Corporation has filed an Application with the United State Interstate Commerce Commission (Finance . Document Docket 30,400), for permission to merge the two railroads; and WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission is soliciting the views of local agencies throughout California with respect to the merger; and I- L-1 WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is also soliciting the views of local agencies with respect to the merger, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that the City Manager be directed to advise the Public Utilities Commission, the interstate Commerce Commission, and the Southern California Association of Governments, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will support the merger, subject to an indication of willingness on the part of said Santa Fe- Southern Pacific Corporation (or the individual railroads involved) to consolidate their facilities and to eliminate duplicate and redundant trackage through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. That if the railroads cannot give sympathetic consideration to such elimination of redundant trackage and closing of unnecessary grade crossings, ti- the City of Rancho Cucamonga would oppose the merger; and '7/ That copies of this Resolution be forwarded to the Presidents and /or • Chief Operating Officers of each of the two railroads, to the Southern California Association of Governments, to the California Public Utilities Commission, and to the United State Interstate Comnerce Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Authe et, City er jaa On D. MiWeTs,—Wa—yor • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT July 18, 1984 TOt City Manager and City Council FROM: Robert A. Rizzo Assistant to City Manager SUBJECT% Approval of Authorization for City Council Cable Television Subcommittee and Assistant to City Manager to attend National League of Cities Telecommunication Seminar, August 17, 1984 The National League of Cities will be holding a telecommunication seminar on issues pertaining to cable television and the franchising process. The program appears to be very worthwhile and timely In respect to the City and cable television. This is a one day seminar to be held on August 17, 1984 in Portland, Oregon. There are funds available and budgeted in the City Council and Personnel (Assistant to City Manager) meeting and travel accounts for this conference. RECOMMENDATIONt Authorize the City Council Cable Television Subcommittee and Assistant to City Manager to attend the National League of Cities Telecommunication Seminar, BAR: mk ri 7s 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM' , 1977 DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director SUBJECT: 1984 -85 Budget Adjustment Two items were missed in the Budget process, both of which are carry over items from 1983 -84. (1) $4,000 for unsuspected maintenance needs with regards to buildings and equipment. (2) $4,147 for mtractual agreements to MSI to provide computer software and /or hardware. This item previously approved, however, no funds have been released and will not be until acceptance by the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: Council authorization to add to the 1984 -85 budget. This action will not change the bottom line dollar already approved by the City Council. HJE /wa 7V CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT z a '� 8 DATE: July 18, 1984 . Bi 1! TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 1. APPEAL BY THE DEER CREEK COMPANY OF THE PLANNING N' D I N 0 1 0 R E DDI ON L N H k�VAL 5F ItNiAlift TRACT UhhU- 2. APPEAL BY BEER CREEK HOMEOWNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S N TWNTIVE TRACT BACKGROUND: Both the applicant and a group of Beer Creek homeowners have requested to appeal the Planning Commission's decision for Tentative Tract 12650, The applicant is appealing the Planning . Commission's decision to impose three additional conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 12650, while the Deer Creek homeowners are appealing, in general, the Planning Commission's decision approving the tract. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 23, 1984, held a public hearing to consider Tentative Tract 12650. Based upon that review and the input from the public, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed tract is consistent with the City's General Plan and current Development Code, and that it can be approved subject to additional conditions. In general, the Planning Commission was concerned with compatible lot size, lot width and unit size, proper transistion areas, and the quality of the house products. The Planning Commission imposed additional conditions to address and mitigate the concerns which were raised by a group of Deer Creek homeowners to ensure that the project is compatible to the existing Beer Creek development, The additional conditions imposed were as follows: (1) the submittal of precise designs, architecture and plot plans to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits; (2) the notification of each property owner within the existing Beer Creek development of the date the project is scheduled for Commission; (3) all future residential units to provide a minimum of 2500 square feet; and, (4) the removal of one lot in each of the four northern tiers to provide a random number of lots with a minimum lot width of 140 feet. Attached for your review and consideration is the Planning Commission staff report which fully outlines the report and issues. Also attached is a copy of the Commission Resolution of Approval with Conditions and minutes of the meeting of May 23, 1984. 7,' CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Appeal - Tentative Tract 12650 July 18, 1984 Page 2 • RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the pro ec w conditions based upon the findings contained within the Resolution. tted, RG:NF:jr Attachments: Appeal Letter From Applicant Appeal Letter From Representative of Beer Creek Homeowners Planning Commission Staff Report - May 23, 1984 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval with Conditions Planning Commission Minutes - May 23, 1984 L • %: • El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 1984" Is TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DEER CREEK - A res entia eve opment o singe ami y Tots —on 147.16 acres of land in the Very Low District, located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Hillside Flood Channel, and north of Hillside Road - APN 201- 121 -16. 1. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested,. Approval of Tentative Tract Map and issuance of Negative Dec oration. 8. Purpose: Development of 225 single family custom lots C. Location: South of Hillside Channel, east of Haven Avenue and narLF o —Hillside Road. 0. Parcel Size: 147,16 acres E. Proposed Density: 1.53 du /ac F. Existing Zoning: Very Low, -2 du (ac) G, Existing Land Use: Vacant H. Surroundin Land Use and Zonin Nort - reek hanne ; Vacant; Very Low Residential South - Single family homes; Very Low Residential; Flood Control East - Creek Channel; Vacant; Very Low Residential; Flood Channel West - Single family homes; Vacant; Very Low Residential 1, General Plan Oesi nations: ro,ect ite -Very low District, i -2 du /ac; Equestrian Overlay North - Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac; Flood Control /Utility Corridor South - Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac East - Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac; Flood Control /Utility Corridor West - Very Low District, 1 -2 du /ac � 7 ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSI01. rAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12650 /Deer Creek May 23, 1984 Page 2 J. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and slopes southward at approximately an 8 percent grade. Vegetation consists of indigenous shrubs and weeds with minor rock out - croppings. Small groups of olive trees are located at the northern and mid - portions of this parcel. K. Background, This project site is a part of a recorded tract Tract ), which received Planning Commission approval on October 26, 1978, commonly known as the Deer Creek Development. The original development consisted of 293 single family lots with sizes ranging from 3/4 to 1 acre over 293.2 acres of land and had an overall density of one dwelling unit per acre. At present, the lower portion of the development (Tracts 9582 and 9583) has developed approximately 140 lots of the total 149 in these two tracts. This project site is the remainder of the entire development consisting of 144 lots on 147.16 acres of land. H. ANALYSIS: • A. General: The developer, Deer Creek, is requesting approval to . resu -divide the remaining 147.16 acres into 225 single family lots with a proposed density of 1.54 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lot sizes range from 20,000 square feet to 38,000 square feet. The following table shows the distribution of the number of lots in each lot size categories. Lot Size Number of Lots 7U,_0U_s_q. ft. 6 20,001- 22,000 sq. ft. 102 22,001 - 25,000 sq. ft. 68 25,000 sq. ft + 49 STS The average tot size for this project meets the Development Code minimum of 22,500 square feet. This project has been submitted as a custom lot /tract subdivision; therefore, precise architectural design and site plans are not required at this time. Any proposed architectural designs and site plan will require Design Review Committee and Planning Commission approval. The requirement to implement the General Plan goals and the Development Code to provide for similar land use, density and quality of house products to the surrounding development is a necessary finding of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission when reviewing any future architectural designs. • % 9 PUNNING COMMISSIOF TAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12b.j /Deer Creek May 23, 1984 • Page 3 B. Circulation: Streets "B" and "F" of this project provide access to Haven Avenue while Morning Star Drive, Valinda Drive, and Canistel Avenue provide access to the south to Hillside Road. Staff originally was concerned with providing a secondary access for the vacant parcel to the east; however, the applicant has provided and prepared a conceptual street pattern for the easterly property which illustrates an acceptable circulation plan (Exhibit "D ") and meets the intent of the access policy. Based on staff analysis, approximately 24 percent of the traffic generated by this project will use Canistel Avenue for access to the south to Hillside Road, while 46 percent may use either Morning Star Drive or Valinda Drive to the south to Hillside Road. Streets "B" and "F" of this project will channel approximately 30 percent of the traffic generated by this development to Haven Avenue, relieving some traffic impact on Hillside Road. Under the existing circulation plan, Hillside Road is designated as a collector and is designed to accommodate this increase in traffic. Therefore, the increase • in traffic generated by this project will have negligible impact in the project area. • C. Desi n Review mmittee: The Committee recommended approval of the pro ect subCo. ct to the following conditions: o The site plan shall be revised to provide similar lot sixes for lots on the south side of this project abutting the existing Deer Creek Development to create a proper transition. o Curvilinear streets shall be provided at the north end of the project site (Streets "A" and "B "). The applicant has incorporated all of the above conditions (Exhibits "D" and "E"). D. Develo ent Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the pro ect an eterm ne tat w th the recommended conditions of approval, this project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The applicant will be required to install all off -site and on -site improvements per City standard plans and specifications, and subject to all conditions of the custom lot subdivision. Conditions of Approval are provided in the attached Resolution for your consideration. PLANNING COMMISSIOP TAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12b..� /Deer Creek May 23, 1984 Page 4 • E. Trails Committee; The Trails Committee has reviewed the tentative subdiviTion and made the following recommendations: 1. Provide direct trail connections to the Haven Avenue community trail. 2. Provide an additional 8 -foot dedication for the community trail on Haven Avenue to meet the required 20 -foot trail standards. Cross - sections of the community trail on Haven Avenue and interior street feeder trails shall be shown on the plans per trail standards. In addition, a cross - section of the existing equestrian trails on Haven Avenue must be provided for comparison. The applicant has incorporated all of the recommendations of the Trails Committee (Exhibit "G "). However, final design of the trails and the transition of existing trails to the new trail on Haven Avenue shall be approved by the Trails Committee. • F. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed and approved the conch epturading plan subject to all of the conditions of the custom lot subdivision. Final grading plans are required to be approved by the Grading Committee prior to issuance of building permits, since precise designs and plotting have not been submitted for review at this time. SuT r of Deer Creek Hone Owners Neighborhood Meetin s: The app cant con ucte two separate neig or oo mee logs with home owners in the existing portions of Deer Creek. The major concerns of the Deer Creek home owners are increased traffic, and higher density (i.e., smaller lot and house sizes). A group of home owners felt that the developer has adequately mitigated these concerns by the provision of similar lot widths and sizes for those lots abutting the existing Deer Creek Development to create a buffer zone, the provision of two points of access to Haven Avenue to channel traffic away from Hillside Avenue, and assurances from the developer that the product would be the same as the existing Deer Creek. However, another group of home owners had strong concerns over the issue of how this proposed subdivision will affect their property values and their investments. 17J A^ PLANNING COMMISSIO' TAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 120.j/Deer Creek May 23, 1984 Page 5 H. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been comp et y the app icant. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse environmental impacts related to the development of the proposed subdivision. If the Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The findings listed on the attached Resolution are suppo� following facts: • The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the developer and the proposed single family uses are in accordance with the objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. • The proposed site plan, in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval, is consistent with the current development standards of the City. • IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for public hearing an environmental review in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to all the home owners within the existing Deer Creek development. Correspondence has been received and is attached for your review. V. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning ommission approve the proposed project based on the findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended in the attached Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Rick / City Planner RG:NF:jr S/ PLANNING COMMISSIO' 'TAFF REPORT Tentative Tract 12u.d /Deer Creek May 23, 1984 Page 6 J Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "D" - Site Utilization Plan Exhibit "CO - Natural Features Map Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "E" - Details of Lot Dimensions & Lot Sizes Exhibit "F" - Tentative Tract /Grading Plan Exhibit "G" - Details of Cross Sections Correspondence Developer's Letters of Intent Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions 171 r 1 LJ K1 vL VL IM ON 01 L I LM* III LM I LM* I Fc �^J NORTH CITY OF ITEM: T�T� /,I,9�45D11'',, RANCHO CL:C MONGA TITLE jAP PLANNING DIVISION EXHIB n SCALE 141000 '3 �n s.. FOR TRACT CITY OF nF R:1 \CI #CCCANIONG:S, PLANNI\ 1\'LSK).N 11-1;m: ::2°r6166-0 1'ITLF; ( P exl w,rr : '% 13— sc i • �— _. ill - - - -� —T'T -TENTATME TRAWWO. 12650 O TM CRY OF waHO COCAMOM". COUNT OF "0 6OMAOIMO. 6N6n or uuroMMU. MRUARV 1166 W� LL A6TA1167.16ACMW VAC4NT 4"D 17 1.:..I..;,.;,.;..I,I,I.i.;.I•I, . NATURAL FEATURES MAP CITY OF 4650 RANCI10 CUCAMONGA TITLE: AWOL ¢bA6&5 A to PUNNING DIVISION LXIIII;IT:_"C — SCALE: ef- 4� Q e N ~r'r;�� YAC.CMT i J r - 1 =1 I n 4. ILI "riiascl'il -' e za „ _ - TENTATIVE r �� I !- -� TRACT NO_ 12650 �.. �' � � i ' ___+ F_1J1_i � nMMlY 0i 1•i /[MAVCYIMYA. N li L nAn er cuurwxu I[iIVYY. l[H -- AR 11II NIT 1310Miy ' [IMI/xMYf - CITY ( AI, I LXI: Tf/950 RANC`I�O Ct'C': \�1O \G:1 TITLE � PL,kNN lxi'ISI()V LXI H(Tr _JL_ LE: • to 9 V-� N()WT*l I crry ( )y I-1.1-m: -Tf/CI—Av RANCI 10 CUCANK)MIA fl- Lbf NO& 45 +Wria5 PLANNING 1AVIS[ON EXI 11111, r: jr- SCALE: 74 Ell 2620 V -jm:I 1p� 3"1 V-� N()WT*l I crry ( )y I-1.1-m: -Tf/CI—Av RANCI 10 CUCANK)MIA fl- Lbf NO& 45 +Wria5 PLANNING 1AVIS[ON EXI 11111, r: jr- SCALE: Yj CITY OF f 06 O R AN 'C -I& C UICANK)MA JITLE -W- fW-Zjnk!jjjk W PLANNEWDAVISKIN Lxllllll-r:--!-FAWE: --- • to ..to 713 -4L - Ile t moil \-x ------------ N- �jtjjj Q 1 CITY OF f 06 O R AN 'C -I& C UICANK)MA JITLE -W- fW-Zjnk!jjjk W PLANNEWDAVISKIN Lxllllll-r:--!-FAWE: --- • ' l� � ,, r.�.wl � .••w we�� wfs "- Ili�^� ern � ,r...y„� ' .. •Y�'�4 _ �' • - � n � w....�... _- � tin � %� Daum n, m �� an n,whrn �+..w P�((.__ L - - �, ��SI' ^� .• l •w / _ �1' .I _ �^ � -O \I Chi O I _ • _ f ______ _ ____ _ .u_ `. * _ � � t., �YOwP�f\ `f W r 1Y Iw1f00' iJxuAl \qM M•4/ - _ �. 1' • _\.. \r �• �. `I • YIw1��M�XIt wrrn TRACT NAr 12660 3 . NOW I1 —.._- u...r. CITY ( )I.' rrG1: r RA \CI IO CL G \CIO \G:1 'I,n.l' -tw 1, PLANNING DIVISION I:xuui[-F; 2- SCALE: � -� 1) r a _! 91� TRACT NO. 12650 , � vs..' 'NUmo rw, • NORTH ____ �. CITY OF rrr_m, -ff l ag5o� RANCl O CL'C:1�IO \G1 rrn.l 1'L: \�1NI4DIVISION E V HBIT: ' res „ E: / • 6. "MOO M- gkwmpt _! 91� TRACT NO. 12650 , � vs..' 'NUmo rw, • NORTH ____ �. CITY OF rrr_m, -ff l ag5o� RANCl O CL'C:1�IO \G1 rrn.l 1'L: \�1NI4DIVISION E V HBIT: ' res „ E: / • J' CITY O Irf �vI� RANC'I10 CUU;t,\IO \G.\ PLANNING. DIVISION I:xlum,r SCALD / MFAskI •� ✓! J �`�� Est- 3: � ^�. _.' I !+'r'N'. -// '✓� i��+ a .. �,.�ir�!,� rlYIRTII TRACT M issno CITY O Irf �vI� RANC'I10 CUU;t,\IO \G.\ PLANNING. DIVISION I:xlum,r SCALD / aiAV ! MA Via. �6.. OOMDO��OOIO SIAM • nrr�t atr Cl "I'1' OP rnai: • fig aiAV ! MA Via. �6.. OOMDO��OOIO SIAM • nrr�t atr Cl "I'1' OP rnai: • .r 'J - � ��,1 N`= E+• Ate"./ �, `,�` �`�� 110 N . - +' :tea .- -✓ J �s ti ], -ice O 7 i s ; TRACT. NO. 12450 y • �.alas� rw • (OATH �••� .•rw CITY OF RANCI IO CUCANK).\G1:1 PLANNING DIVISM I II:\ I= "fi 1 "LEA Nr L'XI MIT SC,1LE _� - rrJ.. Jam.. r � -.. _ �aa,r , a. .• -� , -� • � as a'a TmR.aAvCrwTa�� R.1 \CIIO CCG1N1O \G1 t'L: \NN& Dn'IStc>N esinerr•� d, �t �- � aU' �..♦ xrl. � ♦�� - � I - I.N. MIw N/w♦MI MMIf" 1Mr�Nlw � I r� � I /I 27 :T lA4Ct M: \ CITY OF 1 \1: (4250 1t:1 \CI 10 CL'C':1IN10 \G:1 ITLF: Al - PLAN',VI'v ; t)1VISK>V Cz1 lu ;rr � sc:u.e � Aduk �T e M �- � aU' �..♦ xrl. � ♦�� - � I - I.N. MIw N/w♦MI MMIf" 1Mr�Nlw � I r� � I /I 27 :T lA4Ct M: \ CITY OF 1 \1: (4250 1t:1 \CI 10 CL'C':1IN10 \G:1 ITLF: Al - PLAN',VI'v ; t)1VISK>V Cz1 lu ;rr � sc:u.e � w i �" MIYT ♦ Y,wrw J 4 AV to jj aaoe�`ae -r TRACT A. fsas0 .+w MEW IL.�N NG DIVISKYN EM1111IT:� C:1L[ CITY OF rn:m — �ff-LLC50 ffift� -� R.1 \C 10 CCAN IONGA nri.r PLAN&G DIVISION rsiunrr:-!.r 'ALE: —�— 1nh, � � " i � � • i `"' If � � _ `_ 'dn% ice' ^ • _ __ - '�"'.` nom•. I4's ,��. `1 1 .. rt11• - wN �. __ ; .; ; t •�.. , • � • / r "=y "� t" ^ -.. /—� `-C INs. • �•' `, �'rT •y.r �., -II r�- E� i L I tom. / .,� CITY OF rn:m — �ff-LLC50 ffift� -� R.1 \C 10 CCAN IONGA nri.r PLAN&G DIVISION rsiunrr:-!.r 'ALE: —�— i 1l)2TI1 nas �aas� TRACT NO, ss, rur • •en u� R;1 \CI IO CL'CANKAGA TI TI I:: PLANNING DIVISIC)V I:xlworr:��sc.u.1 CITY OF rnr _ 7126 0 It XNCI K) CC(':1110NGA PLANNING DIVISION I:zllu;rr � A Si � e ya' l TRACT MO. 12660 13 toncum" PLM • CITY OF rnr _ 7126 0 It XNCI K) CC(':1110NGA PLANNING DIVISION I:zllu;rr � 0 0 0 AAA ..i 4 RA�R e, II � rprr ti f w_• de N(WI III RAINCI IO CUC MO.NGA TITLE! K / PIANNINC, I)IVI4IOV I'vinrrr: "ii C PI "a i i 14• i. v.u.� �piuR CITY OF RANCID CUCAMONGA PLANN& DIVISION SECTION AM 3ECT'ON 8{ _ee_ia SECTION CS SECTION O -D SECTION E{ SECT /ON F-T HILLSIDE C__HAA ffi, SECTIONS rn:\I _ 26ok girl -I _"It-51 OF GEt%s 5,FCr/OAS LXI 11BIT: — \l.l Rl (C EASEMENT TA<MTIT /ON crTAIL CT NO. 12650 IS • eiK it.•a� .ICI,` ��{{L� yy we�T3�i ITCiT� TAR � l I ��YY rYO� yynf a WN v.u.� �piuR CITY OF RANCID CUCAMONGA PLANN& DIVISION SECTION AM 3ECT'ON 8{ _ee_ia SECTION CS SECTION O -D SECTION E{ SECT /ON F-T HILLSIDE C__HAA ffi, SECTIONS rn:\I _ 26ok girl -I _"It-51 OF GEt%s 5,FCr/OAS LXI 11BIT: — \l.l Rl (C EASEMENT TA<MTIT /ON crTAIL CT NO. 12650 IS • i rA .....,,,.txg. be bu . �"` .,z. haiias tut -*ow exile- eM nst_ MIRM 'Ilan we '� fie. th aec4�l. homes " cc Ott ,etc. We - ;eowtinue tia plalin� end white uyhout the; >. development. We feel the change- froWjd.ne acre to half acre lots will not substantially change the ambiance of peer Creek. You may assure any concerned homeowners that we plan to carry on our same high- ,fA*x4" ll. of design and construction tt ut the developmcnt• and- bftiI-d a community they will - 6e'�ree� William R. ri sby i�GAw plug . _ ' i ence t6ric eatate size F.�. home. A� caht'� desire U ksws *r lot siew;WM 4• sbe a Deer Greek. In cons iders;•kb4af this and tns Sb.[Satio6etP¢'s4pset 6[_;" the economy, we are prop so subdivide ths-i®ainieg lk6 scree frfv �- - - sitg:•:tly smaller lots. _..e propose: rot size ranges from 29 ;000 - 38,000 square feet, in ccm- --'_..=-m t, .. ezilting lots which range from 29,OCJ- �O,300 square feet• �e average vii:. he well within the minim= average required t'l the City Cade. D:e density. equals 1.54 dwel.iing units per acre. The re- duced lot sizes are in no way intended to alter the quality, value, end elegance of the Deer ]reek rommunity. This phsse a. :he development ' would contain the creme nonceots and quality with regard to graiing, , .rails, landaeaping and architect'.:re. Our current :..:.-.zing _ s to xn- hcmes f a =r-ximatel; 22,)CC• -3,500 square _.. am- i`ect_rel ie ign v-.,_ _..- h. r. acme exterior uses ri alPa _-,? We 'nave `.:.e proposed design :hrc•.:g:, ';.e �ity's varic;.; '0=m ttee, �xi have revised it in accordance with ';:eir reco- =eniations, :n ,,....,ion, we 'nave conducted two neighho.hcod meetings with existing Deer .reek homeowners. In response to the first meeting - ve 'nave increased lot sizes adjacent to the exiS*Ing hames for a .. ..p1A jbjd to at the ➢Ma- - .tSC.e ee1I-hce a for lees t9i .. i9 be wai12M for acre the oor i M% -- - .- to ffie'enrtent lend vale. fail the home. ` y ' ile'eiuply went to infam the City t'vwim , development with the same quality end ele{esed -' move. Onr ccmpeny neme wen fowded On way intend to ,4,eopardiu our our development package in order to be pldfnd:*n the _ •�� _;i 4 of May 23, 1904. If you have any questiooe yc¢or to — feel .free to contact us at your convenience: 7. Mic^ae: D Vairin, rector of .4d--:^.i2tration MJV /me .y t • RESOLUTION NO. 84 -45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 12650, THE DEER CREEK COMPANY, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE FLOOD CHANNEL AND NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD - APN 201- 121 -16. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12650, hereinafter "Map" submitted by The Deer Creek Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom lot subdivision of 147.16 acres into 225 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on May 23, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. • NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to en—T tative Tract No. 12650 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious Public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. /cS Resolution No. 84 -'l Page 2 • (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12650, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Prior to issuance of building permits precise designs, architecture and plot plans shall be submitted for design review and approval by the Planning Commission in order to assure architectural compatibility with the existing Deer Creek homes (i.e., exterior and roofing materials, and design theme). 2. The developer shall be responsible to install and maintain the perimeter landscape parkway on Haven Avenue prior to annexation into the City's landscape maintenance district. • 3. Each property owner within the existing Deer Creek Development shall be notified when this project is scheduled for design review before the Planning Commission. 4. All future residential units shall provide a minimum of 2500 square feet. 5. The applicant shall remove one (1) lot in each of the northern four (4) tiers of lots in order to expand the remaining lot widths to provide a random number of lots with a minimum lot width of 140 feet. ENGINEERING DIVISI011 1. Proposed storm drain shall be extended to the intersection of "B" and "Al" streets, to intercept all flows north of "B" street east of "N" street. Des +on of other proposed and existing storm drains snall conform to City standards. 2. Additional cross gutters shall be provided at Valinda & "B" streets. 3. Flood protection walls shall be provided along the • frontage of lots 56, 57, 33, 34, 43, 44, 114 and 115 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • Resolution No. 84 -45 Page 3 4. Hillside Drive Master Planned Storm Drain shall be extended to Deer Creek Channel from existing terminus at appropriate time as determined by the City Engineer. Easements, if necessary, shall be obtained by developer. Construction costs will be credited to storm drain fees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 1984. PLANNING /CORMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ucun is u� a�ou ATTEST: Rick/Gomez, Deputy ecre 1, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 23rd day of May, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • .L. 7 OEPAp1K'0 Of COefrealn DONCLOpMxT sr"N"O'D Coe"ITl OAS 14 SUOJECT: APPL ICANi: LOCATId�'N11: l•_A['YJara!,'�Laa IJVf-,..j-T - N,ti�1e..C[tB�k1E� i rye K r,u kne— Tome '4. necaed +r Lt rent I aPpru 1. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT !HE plo'p_tlln DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE PITH THE E011MING CO:IDIrIO'TS: A. Tart tl_m,ts �I Approval dean eiplrr. nnlett e.tended by the Planning [ona loo. If b.I11 J In.1 Pee ..i[i a he, ......I or approved ate ML coTYnceJ ,no, w win In 4.•n tr -lour CI) .nt Iron m.• date of appr pro 1.. �/ ?. im.mAem.we'ilevgn pine. Stall he acCUmpl [e nod prior w vajhi) e"PalIIk+- __ _ 1. AVVrov zl ar Irutnl,ve I, act 4z. _ s granted subject lu the approval it t. To is aooraval gull r ,vltn the appllunt and Shall become said upon A Change of .IUnrr. lilt 11nf If the IlntlnPtt pptratlon CeateS. S. Prior m w ermal and recordation .1 the fiat map, a Prior to of bualJmg l"Aidts. n no Ymdlntaon map is valved, nllbne .rtIIIL I"". erne a11wlaffe"I'd S hnal Olsln[It aliall or Sul nl[ted [u th, 0- el"n.nt if Cu rvohn." Oeve larynen[ which ztatrt that adepnate zcumil Ian lal ,es are of will be dapablt of alcavandaung SluJfn(z 9.' ^':fatal LY tnit orl,lect. Sv,N IPtter of ce,tlf,cat,nn mutt 0 been Its .t nr l ..... ,i Il,tlr ,.t within ninety 1'101 JaY[ trial [JV the I,nall rzl sue 01 t11e told lv plan map or ntamet of Vowh n; tL. .ail ..f allaathn, residential projects. • - 1 - Project o.Z[2.� I 6. prior to approval and recordation oe the final up, or prior to -- lathers, of Ouilil pP —Its .hen n rear Awn trod, fatten La., me +ueetel water msln.t,s that nlegh+le z and Ovate. en. ao,l lt,ez . vin be ea,lit., to ..... the proposed praJeu, shall be S.Lmu tl eel to IIM n+parlcenl of Crone It Jrve lop _t. Snch letter m e been I I% cd by IM water it str lit nln,n n ,e tY 1'901 day, Vri to final map appria vat n the [ ` of Subdlvt t ton ,ssu once of lere,t3 the ease lof ell.3 o tlMf ,nmlaal pm9ecu. par pr.,cct, tiling septic tent Cacn,ltes A 9ldualle by the Santa Ana Ropmwl finer Control hard and the City. Aden cerlif¢At mat of totaled, Y. mcludng All Suppuftaee haf—al10n, sat All oe an to In a and a,=tvd to the city. 0. Sate Covelie -t _V`1 . one site snail be develap<A an accordance with the approved site plans an fl le m the Planning Div won, the conditions conbmrd herein, and Development Code regulations. Prior to any use of the project site w business activity calm) c need thereon +11 Conditions of approval shall be coves m to me satisfaction 01 me Cale Flamer. vs/ 2. Rev, ed site plans and buiiJing eievalmnt Incorporating all tondilions of approval shalt be s.M.ttbd for review and approval by he Planning 0—Sian prior to Issuance of building Permits. V 3. All site plans, 9radl.D plans, landscape and irrigation plans. And street impruvemenl plans shall o< cba -dildl ed far cunsistencY prior to issuance of anY permits Ruch As gr+dadg permit, tree .1.1. mdameet but 'Jing pereltz, elm.) prior to final that aldrawl the [ of A ratan lot n,h.OVlz ton, or approved use has cnmanced, ehline Vef ther, first. A. Approval of this rignalt shall not waive compliance vital all A", of the Development Code, all other applicable City Drdinancns, and appliCble forrunity Pinto apeclne Plant in effect at -the I,,- of eul id Ing Perna Issuance. _ S. Th., project Shall provide A nln inn percent of affor,lehle hout,ng and /or rents, In _ anrormance t GenfAl Plan hanUng policies. Affordability shelf be determined by current market rates, cell and median Incex levels at the lace of f conslrnct,nn of the ProlecL A developaenI agrenanl Lo shat stall ate +ppr.vAd by the Oly Council Prior to issuance or bu l l ding Permits. 6. A Jelatjed on-Site lighting Plan shell be I.WILled for epee amt Ipproval by the Planning Division prior to Issuntt of bHllding Permit3. Such plan shalt indicate style, Illumination, lOUtion. he,gnt and ate tnpJ of shielding. so it not to adversely affect ",,cent properties. _ J If nn o•n tra I, t'.I Inth --,tan,, are Print Wn. all trash pint -up :nil nr fa, n:.fr+r. loll III :II riIn all --ole[les in re l:le.l fro.n pun II vmew- A. "alb 111. Jl .1 11 (t) o I .q,r ..;I nI sno 11 be elided by 6 font -" - n:pr mnonry •:11 n LLn :n lrl r eLt VUettn9 9n 4•t Dnrsuanta to CIly tnJy lt. 1 —rt ^r. Will be •obJ It to alt ^oval by tho planning 9, All . ..... I n b °I n[:L Ir Wportrn mtt such as transformers shall he lori [ ^it n n 1. .... of the m n bid I m.l aril ant II, In, t e ly mane, ter ).in tr r cumbi..aten of amrrc4 or vat" .1, V Ip. S4e¢ n... ,'1 +rd a aopmved b [I., rely planner. in rain n IM1 v.• .,.� "I Sl r.II aa:nirp Fo l irr. prior to approval and rows ..atrnn of me ,L eat o-art K.P. IL All noil•Lnt'I .nLrrs and coal. hates units hall be identified in a - -- clear and con I s,l men • vac Ing not proper I lumr not inn. �?. le:al 'o J a 1.`r al mnrvl i ua 111 ma m n ir It tno 11 be pro. m Jed tn•o...tnn r[ •rocs encore with he Fgnrt[n an frail plan. A arts, le -1 t—hi .il VI In rid IC a t frig so I In' , mat immn IInpft; I, ne,tr. nacItII ii - arms &.1... ngt, .1 so 111be sulmrt led accordance, far wLLn CmJ n .,hero+ -nil U.. Kp�.nan 6.rior ,n nape approval approval f t,. and recordation and m< final nines Kip. and prior to approval of 4r.2t ,t all mTrails, and grating ol.,nt. n.I..I .r sill qr hue mad h,ph,Ipn all I vac ln.hnq L.nr u•g rJ Arai ,aq: •Irv, u"s .n anlum lion nln s[n•rl 1 [ �. the lloo a..nt %. r.rl.trnnt earl Pet tr.[unnt (Cite -,J shall not prohibit .,y Inv nq of •9.. ,I[, wbr nq g,s hos11 tort the I -p1., •11 .I 11.. . b.• a", u•1nun N.ul• +lot no ItiIA v n111 t`. rgrt Ir of trrD, ^q t vas ass wrthmn ter rzta jm. .y.V 'It u,I to Iauat of itIr"trs or him, awat., - s trier Cn, ',rnl'inrrn.v ...l �. n it nl C1. ..l ,. 5 ("It 1) and ert.clr of in fal -1.1 It... of [h`' , [ l atta[.at.an r t..b l^tl to ill. .,upri al of u.' pl.•.n 11 oI .I min n u.I.•r.n, n l9nns '--1 u.r city Attorney. 1'.•r tln!1 1— r r.lrl Inn toll pro! - [t pro cnn P.ction ..th -up Un [•, ..0 coo_ of build mg pans[,. A [npy sln)l be "ov -sari to t . C"'. r V 1 all pars ah Yt^ ^maid are at and LnASUping s,.a 11 be permmently .n [a rngJ by a bmi h... alt o,.almn or olhv m s alletionle to the City. Sucb prnot of +ai,toh h:v shall be inn.mlted to the planning and Engu..,.ng 01v.a,nn1 prior to issuance of building permits. 40 Project No._ ril 16. Vry Pat ... II a nl,e, In, mr mrired I. conjunction with cnmman open score a .in as. but t limited m, z ring pooh .rid 1111. led vl tan M1Ur tin tic Rion• eneloted lot mlot IJUILLies .,in oNy r• equipment and large nine b•n are are re4mred. Detail, sbell be nIhalm•., :r funs Ia.OSC .... I Wm a Ili 6glAr arm chi% ea'rxnls stall bd Ae.l voted for the purpeit of assuming -- That tat dac l I:nq :nit sno 11 the right to velewe tun l i 9nl snares a.l iattnt lots or .It, for r use of A IOLr energy v"".. De% I,P,,nt, cozy be eonlainnl n dael.latlod of B%,b:Scros (.orr the .bd, -u,pn .nice shall be vat~ tmcurrently wt In the ordal tom of 1ne fl het maP or I „Vaiitt Of pent, S. whichever rr s first. The easements shall prohibit lM tasting of 9,ado.s by oriegrla Uen, itnmtures, ".tr,s or any other object• eacept for utility Ain: nd,lint +r object,, pursuant to Wo,lopment -i. c. b.imm�y oaig^ J. An allemative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any Swuming pool or spa. All ,worming pools Installed It the time of initial development Shall 6e supplemented with solar heating. Solar energy shall be the primary nergy syslea unless other alternative energy system% are de+onslnled to be of equivalent capacity AN efficiency. Details shall be Included In the Wilding plans And sl1all be reviewed and approved prior to Issuance of building pewits. I. Energy conserving a,, Honor, +oil Ratures are repo trod to be .,pt led into in,, project to use lode smah in InIs as, but not Ivm l Ud to, rednced cluoluseept can 'he-'-' loeml1, To lot Im o to 1(11n1e1 . n / water saving to Jel,, etc. %' ]. beelling unit% shall be constructed with fire retardant material and on- codons"ble room naleriol. _4.. All corner dwellings shall here the side elevation facing the Street ungraded with additional wood true +round wi cola +s and ...6 siding or ^ plant -on5 Mere appropriate, subject to review and approval by the ) //h City planner prior to ilsuanee of building permits. `r 5, All oropoled roofing material steals provide variation In color. -- thid mess, and architectural style. A composite ample shall be suhn rtled to mil approved by the planning Division prlse to Issumce of building permits. 6. All roof appurtenances, including air Send It,vier, , shall be architecturally integrated, Shielded from view and tic sound buffered Iron adjacent properties ail streets as required by the Planning and AuildlN Divisions. Details sbill be include in building plans. _2 0 0 0. van ing s yr rr r no tar x . S (iml er aSe sIII Nth nc m to l Wing plans 1. All parkml :tit nr l.r reel islands Shall lava A M oil a Jt J ,.m n<IOn all con l e In an 1, nIlk dillrAen[m to prrt ing I; 1'^ t. Iwl i. tea oan:el f L..L rvlwen ta trio I Ilan aisles snah be -- v..re there, [o Cure..( 11.311 l^qi w n open ). 411 partrnl 5 ., r•., ., antis n<.., and evil, smell he Str sped per C if rr la� e. All Yn.I 111 1 latemat lc rPra9e 1,., por., IS rl —_ .In.euy I, ..., t .r In JvVtn I,., red of 1.11 —it. 5. Lie Cc +r•n ant.. . r I Neitnc Iron, and 11 re ate Cl the Storage _ OI 'at l: rl sI[e unle,i trey are the prior tole •n rn "'l I It II tie n and Drahlbit park, on non I ter nc Iry ..Il r[r .I II 1_1IPLI than Jn r.... d1,1 .Bator Darting f. lmd�mg Je a,IN IIIII Cr. end .,gat ion old.. including Dl amm� POiv on n, l) o. ., ml a v:I ter g pal t. ..1 rbnl l ll,. l oP oils pr n to flral may any cal m Inr.ru ...IlvrSlml. __ f,r tint Ir r•tirneJ Me ever lre nle. A mailer Shift tie U 14[rnl I.. rr rl 1 r Vr'[I Z1.1rentinn, S eel fillet t doll ire y Ilre f ,I... ng Or n S roe prier 'do, in, of gal l,e mmin �,. ul,o Ilan' e 1 pin 'all Sake onto I'd o, Ue I I ray r:. 1 I• ,I, r'1, +• are or ire rr:tar,r1 f rlI..ng m, C-11., and 1. rr .re nr.a v. ..n I. I•a r.•el for rep Lrmvne all rum „r.l belts. �). ",. -,t I...., a .r [rr. .rl ISay Jlan sir o larger• shall be nstallrJ y.r Otis e!Lr all n (unloose with or easier Plan of west III— 1 11, �6'y or De^cro Cucmronga end ,hall be Dlautrd at r,ge ,rl .,, a el' in inter street, and 2J' cal art en or averts_ _C. Is m n el tn�z per g,.,I acre comprised of Ins following S.....m hall t. S.n +r La . "o,o the project: __Y - la• bn, or I nn l:r,s .- 15 g:I inn• rn.l _..._ S_ 59.i l I III 5. yr van pan ing Inn, [ shell by planter) at a rate of one 15-galle. e trc o / ) caking 1.111, tnlfc +alt to shade 50 thereof or at he parking des' a, sir ,, own nn August 21 . 6. trees shat I Le 11 nr ten rn J ,I, If Vubl lc ,I ed aJ,.enI to and along zvu_lure, at a ate of one tree per, ]0 11 Nor feet 0r be l Id ing III 11. bat pub l re e,yoIIs.I. - 3 - Projet.t No._— Ae5A___ V/. all slope h,nls cal sue (5) fee lrngl,l and of 5:1 or greater, Slope .s hall be l,o.Scae,J I,..l...... del 1 corder.[•• r, l th Slope yl In t r ng regVl remen[S of the City of Dan. -ho Cuoca'n Valle. Sure Slnye planting $11311 mclVee ON 5 -gel lon or largef Sue tree per each 150 S0. It. of Slope nr I.gal hill or larger ills strrutr per ante tin s {. lt. car Smpe err I. and apprnm ale gr nnnl ewer. 1/ 8. All Slope planting and Irngatlon 111,11 be continuously wainlalne.l i health, 3M eliaing condition by the Jere I unlit dealf, inrll, tin l unit n Sold soil oc carp led 6, Ue toyer. Prior be rllniing occupan% for mete onus, an inspection ,'...If be apndeattd lu 1In- plaril Coarsen to debrrmi ire that It r1 m 13usfectn11 condltinn. g. All Ihol,capeol areas hall bo In m s. umrl 1 a health Aid tlrrrvrml eomlc ers. tree floor oleAs, trash. and dr:hrls. _ ILL front yard landscaping Is required and Ih311 include. at A mmlm n. ^ e 15 -,Iloe s c tree, one S.gallN Sue I,N. Seeded ground SO" r 1 And A norianrat 3irn gasion s,,tf. to he .,tailed by the rlevelOper pI or to oula,neP This auqul ement .lull be in adieu s to reg.rirM street beet. y II. IDs final dralen of the peredeter putvryv, walla, anJscapmg and If deraliS Shall be included In the required landscape plans and SOW be mh)ett to approval by lire Planning D,il and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan Wran nay he renutrell by fngmecrmg DI,111.e. Id. Special landscape features such as area lug, alluvial rock. Specimen vas [reel, murdering stir -11, (both vertical ml nor rlortl 3l ctangc) and intenstletJ landscaping, is requand dhmg ...... - __ X/11. we er ao! ntrgr ,,matron technhgms are mumraged to in uu,fixed, sorh at co fpechal irrhgathnn leclw r gm . In !p, hlr,, . rigetionl, drought tolerant Item sources, III un JI r -buys, stn. Landscaping and irrigation system required to be instalto on public right -of -way on the perimeter of this tract area audit he continuously wdlnlained by the developer until accepted by the city and anne ed Into the landscape nalntenance district. P. sign, The Signs Indicated on the SVMilled plan, ,a net epproverl with to., approval. Any Signs DrOpOSN for Still development Shell be deigned in conformance m with the Sign Ordene c an.] than] require separate application and approved by the Planning Oinllpn prior to installation or any ngns. is Project IpllLl11:6 niVISda; S11APL At ONTACTEB FOR CIPICl14:Ir.E 41 it IUE FOL MIIIG CGhDIy1O4g: IL S t I iv eel rl .,Pill I It. l it. II mine lr with the Int ^[t ds,t -d un l form hri lJ ing Ian lforn 11:': nand nl Co Jr, tin lfi,• Pl.,h l ng Code, INt meal C lrrinc Cndld•, ,oral all near applea1, cede S, Or 4l hanrel an rrnn la unns rn ertect at lie time of ,tornnre of re l.eire permits. z. Prior o is uance of Wilding permit for a residential J:re)11ng co(,) „ mr mr aa..tmn to n rv.,t.n, nnit(z). the appllunt via II psi drr.•Inlvn•mt 1,11 at the eStEbbihrd rate. Such fees My let dude, bnl ar nnl Illnl lid to: City B:a,rt it w Unn Fee, Park fee, Drainage fee, SYStrns IMVUIOryu'nl Fer, Prrmll seta Pilo Check],, Fees. and Snlnol tee,. _ 1. Prior to ssilance of Will inn Dormit for a obw cover al or i n,lntrial drvrinimienl or adaltlnn to e , is Ung Juvel000mt, the a Pp L !h rt tanl all pay J ^rc lnM1rent for, the 11 tahl plied rate. Such fret my mr hu,le Let nnl Ili ImrlM to: SY,Ll I N,11.,went Fen. Brll.are Fer, Permit and Plan CWCking foes. ' �. St,r t .1.ldnnse, Pmll to provided by till: NO 111ng Ofllclal. 1. Etaumg Elr.,1bn, 1. Provide Lnlplunce with the Uniform Uniiding Cad- for property line tlelran!es contlllering ut , area and fire- resittiveness of etitli,lg A,: Ill any,. 1. Fn stlml nuilJ ley ls) shall be made to corn,], with n rrenl eullalnn ma top my rrnn del inns for the mlrndEd ace ur the Wlllb og shall be denut µlied. 1. Existing sewage ditpos.al fac I l l les Sara 11 be removed fl l l Pica and /or - — "EI'd In emyly with the nmform PIUMd,nn Cn.le, and cy..ho n Building Cadr. t. Underground oa -site utilities are to be muted and Shown mvi building "a" plant submtted for Wild's, ,ermt "Pl otmn. 1 J. 6 adln _� Craft" of the inbJett Properly shall on in nrden M. Elie Uniform Building Coco, bty Grading St velard, anti accepted graJlllg pract,ees. Ine flwl grata ln9 Ilea ,Call Le m sums!ant ul cnn1.,vw, f, nth [he aDDroved cwwo,Iual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a gwlified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. _4• • nn if s a p'. ^ , in s 1. r. le, tent snip Les nn t,d [D ter Pl rn nl Ui• I.r t::. :r ,.ane rnI r,p,,,I,I Pr or to rs su mce of W,IA ing Per.m[s. 1. r rte, tm,y n n •, r p.(.) "', 11 be [marl J far ronJumrn nn rn I..r :: -.' 1 "'a l ^rt I. G. !be, a_3111,11 1. E rgony o. D.Ilvy . -s shits be provtdeJ In accorJance with a F,mtn,II Fire P:.a..: n n:s[r lr[ Stamnr,l,. V_ <. Lm•p•nt It . rr.,vub•n. m m[enancr free and char. a of 1' l Is. C .:I- r[ 111 tees .lur m9 r ^ +tn¢[mn In ac[nraanre wits fo. [hell fur.• Ir ]'.1, 1 _ r,g,u relm'n ls. I- Prmr Ln :.I xn,IJlnn email, for [nmLn st ,L le (estrus rinn. -_ Wee nrit I., n. t l.I la file Fnn[hill Fv oa.tr it that Pip teary •.:,I1IY Fn' I,r. pr obi U nn s available, pending � <e ol`li'[Inn .dl I fide pr trr1,.11 Y,trmS. 1 V a. trn pl,, ,11 v[ Pn5 t a1 ,Iry l•n to determine Elie llol - spin ope . a. r n In.l I.. , ..ln at, b ^,r,. 5. Ile I pr., ... I dal is w,lll In ILe Ran,bn Cn.at Rldrvelb,llrt Area. (b., a".,"'., , Lr Pu. Con pa 1:nr.nv,nga Rr.id.v..lnfm^nl Nlrn[Y on it,, P, Diet t. w111 r, •' r -a d.•w On nppruvfl Of In'- dbaelopm•nt plant by 1I.r a p•nr Y. \ 6. P'na,E, Im n'a[n•r p -n 1.. ..1 t! hr rpm r1 a, to lows. n 111 b ulls Plr o. „t ".'E. "nil fm ty [,I-, . pOi ed o, itrio "wan” of a i, a 1, .rnr It). I..nn1Y 1 Inn.l Cnn IrDl Illr Er rr t. �. 4a[• I1 1 paw it Le it ..a gird and n, t r n:I 1 tD n^,•l a r •n[:t err vl.. .nly 4,trr Dl, tr i�l (0 .0). FDntnrn rail s, ran .,v U.. rift, Department of un. County of Dlsb art „11 I ,,•d n s ', lr DE noP Lance Irdw CC4D nII Ld: n•Rn lied Stn II•to reed.,. is prior to re<urdbt mvi Ir issuance of permits. n. lo0e,l htnal 1,nkn k, tiny Pax pn,, c .1 . 1 „ nr _ al ✓r itI J, .tam ,btne tl.. r alp, n.1 a ap,✓nv,l I,r ter nl .tune Pre.rry bin, Lea l t, l on alld CILY Cut— i1. is Project IpllLl11:6 niVISda; S11APL At ONTACTEB FOR CIPICl14:Ir.E 41 it IUE FOL MIIIG CGhDIy1O4g: IL S t I iv eel rl .,Pill I It. l it. II mine lr with the Int ^[t ds,t -d un l form hri lJ ing Ian lforn 11:': nand nl Co Jr, tin lfi,• Pl.,h l ng Code, INt meal C lrrinc Cndld•, ,oral all near applea1, cede S, Or 4l hanrel an rrnn la unns rn ertect at lie time of ,tornnre of re l.eire permits. z. Prior o is uance of Wilding permit for a residential J:re)11ng co(,) „ mr mr aa..tmn to n rv.,t.n, nnit(z). the appllunt via II psi drr.•Inlvn•mt 1,11 at the eStEbbihrd rate. Such fees My let dude, bnl ar nnl Illnl lid to: City B:a,rt it w Unn Fee, Park fee, Drainage fee, SYStrns IMVUIOryu'nl Fer, Prrmll seta Pilo Check],, Fees. and Snlnol tee,. _ 1. Prior to ssilance of Will inn Dormit for a obw cover al or i n,lntrial drvrinimienl or adaltlnn to e , is Ung Juvel000mt, the a Pp L !h rt tanl all pay J ^rc lnM1rent for, the 11 tahl plied rate. Such fret my mr hu,le Let nnl Ili ImrlM to: SY,Ll I N,11.,went Fen. Brll.are Fer, Permit and Plan CWCking foes. ' �. St,r t .1.ldnnse, Pmll to provided by till: NO 111ng Ofllclal. 1. Etaumg Elr.,1bn, 1. Provide Lnlplunce with the Uniform Uniiding Cad- for property line tlelran!es contlllering ut , area and fire- resittiveness of etitli,lg A,: Ill any,. 1. Fn stlml nuilJ ley ls) shall be made to corn,], with n rrenl eullalnn ma top my rrnn del inns for the mlrndEd ace ur the Wlllb og shall be denut µlied. 1. Existing sewage ditpos.al fac I l l les Sara 11 be removed fl l l Pica and /or - — "EI'd In emyly with the nmform PIUMd,nn Cn.le, and cy..ho n Building Cadr. t. Underground oa -site utilities are to be muted and Shown mvi building "a" plant submtted for Wild's, ,ermt "Pl otmn. 1 J. 6 adln _� Craft" of the inbJett Properly shall on in nrden M. Elie Uniform Building Coco, bty Grading St velard, anti accepted graJlllg pract,ees. Ine flwl grata ln9 Ilea ,Call Le m sums!ant ul cnn1.,vw, f, nth [he aDDroved cwwo,Iual grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a gwlified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. _4• • m • Project No. Iq O I- A no mpr.'1 r,.yn,I ,inn Id Drr•p a, cad nr a q',a l l ncd myrna.r er vemtat:nr: shall be made or ore muovm Y nn -of -i the g r g Y o^ 9ra lo,: s( sl v.......... et the tin' Jf atn slat wn fir "an" Lh r9 V 1 .. to l sou.girl st1/fee 1, sM1nal ablittonal feet o n V a. In e lr nM1nl I%ms shall be cnmpleteJ and approved Drfor to ----- � -- Q- _-- ill ante of Wild.., .limits. add l l anal feet nn I. AS a <us mm -Lit sae L., +:,.n, the lallar, in9 reVU,re.rcnls knell be mae additional M1-tl on - �( - - y shall Ir� Vu,lrt and a agreement a.—dine quaienlerm,l aIII ). - - -- Irrev uWlr of Jedteatloo for nl Ii roiduar easement l/ O'nol Iron .f :II r silt drainage II: t:r: n c5 for arY �, _ / offer 51.J I1'abe mat /or all private Streets W- J.vb,. ,nl alt I•n,. I 1.. Inn +nt rS ea :;he of too prior o,.: and Slacer L,a r,r , prior In err rrJa Upn of Ina xap and prior to line ua cr .t am grid U,g p,.rm,F. `// a, Corne, property fine re.lms +.II We required per City Standards aM� Jra....... �po rho„ e- .. .. -1.- ,b.....I of .b ,.na,r caul vats ,t I'In.roil ,arid'. am to be I l.nr"t..., s. All ,gins of n I 1 ss to I n s Ir--_ ihi I We neI twl j� bal e,� �N;F,- a, fo[l.i�o� , and I.1 to, go, Win, and Ito jCl 11 In prior ,s%oanrr of any grading and Wilding permits. /f x .11 ..raisin for 1..ater..., or pot -rt ml 'G'. L .1 1 fool" m: are to Le Installed r lu ILn 6. Fec.protal ara ss eau ants and mamtenrhre aline... is e m ring ec toss nl prs t '.. , L,.f lo., .,.I. [n. i troi:Iao .lino any parr.1In,il s:1 to all arc.1, m.a ml m mtenence pl alP Cw,mn ro l )o a.s, dr,Ya or talking a Shall ton wa—di by CCLF's or by deeds and Sna 11 be mY cec a. m•s to tlrn wV• flow onto Iry o -I'll a v -el r, itl ear la Ju.L a Wu.l.bn9 indent recorded r nc t .111 Lt.. map, o prior to issuance of Lulloing a format. .here n map Es p,oaW,d. "'l .,.n t h,el are L. be tnL,mtleA In Ion _ _ 1. AJeVwte provh,s eons shall be .hide for the Ingress, egress and Internal Urculatmn a Y Until du.h v,II be used for de l i very f to V .,.a. Ln lrpnnll prior In ,.....parr of / goods ine Y 9 prop +rtY or tv the nl.rnl wn of ilia ern Lutl.r s5. 1f W,I.I .wig nr nr., 1 t a ^nn, ts. (Irr,a in .Y ,.. nr. ..n .n, .aiw n,at nr p0'..d " ""t " "'s'1 V/ _B. Pr vale drain,,, a went. fur cross -ldt drainage i1:all be requved All a1. I. ., ..., nv, (S) le.t m v rural neigrt anal and shall be Jrlmeaied or noticed on the final hen. ,n/ J of ,:I :I yv ,.II L• Sn..l•d with hat we tress... nrv'n -t. ' -- 9. All a ot,., la,enents IYing .,thin futile t -uf -w In be e r g a e c.. . S .. :.. +v -r ac',o It I, - m. M,J of er ruin, qu iltla,mel r l0 We Ail wee tee can ine m,, nor . Y ngmur} Illy [ .mtrol 111 :I. L•1 t, tr., tot I'I, rt on hI t6, gin nLn'J Oel,s al r , nI" .r. Ir a III [, on n,ll Lr pro..bt in to requ ire.nenlsh gf ee,n a -'' ''I n.1 11 1. pan grow to fn left III of 6 man ens IU. Easements for sidewalk for pnLlic uses shall be dedicated to the City a r _ Mere Sidewalks meander Inrau,p, private 9 .... fly. '11 M. S�t ne immieeman , EnInnEEF1:6_ OIVISIM, /eft J. p_.b ,rn a_t 'f.'n 'rrl.r .- V 1. Canstrucl full street io,overonls including, but not Ile LLed to, curb r _ and gutter. A.C, named, iWewalk, Jrr epprm.ur,. pa,k.,y lines �/_ 1. Ue ficn m +: J, .11 W, I.n,l ,e ./ n,[.r and street ❑p,ls on all interior Whlo itrbt,. P.Vnirem+ut of .. , all .nr Sb rre n,11, 1s- '.. s, Jawalk .111 We 9oocroM by the Druids on or Planmpg Cwalas ion of- S, and all ._ „n, , 1: n III as ,iron. ran On, Inletive mdp. Faso iota,. Ilu. 81 -1tp. - z. A m iminfort of z6 -root .IA1 pa weivol whoa➢ . .p -ro.t .me dedlealed _ right -of -gray Shall be constructed nor all naif- section Streets- - 5 - V _J. ConsElat u:. 1,11 r:l r.S ... 1 epio:unent[ including. Lot col SIAM NAK C11N] t DUE", .t . e:rL '11.1 .oar •inl'fl rY "P. T.fCl IIr.n S r1.0 a INt AV •MkblaN ISLI O e1�W pamn.•nt striping, narking, traffic and street name Sl9nthq Shall be in t to llell pram tob regu,rorcnls of the City Engineer. - - x to ll¢ at gin nil 11-11 .r t lam aria to 611 cons do r log CAN sLtti no or x regru n•.I to r ter cuss or grld.r, on, parin9, 11,1, dull be rllcnrle.l .,A 1AoA1eL,.n of the canslroetoa„ in the salisfeetlon PI no C rsY L;g rnrr r. la. Walkways Small he pro'Wed lotveen public S101-11k, end ---I oe -site peUee tam l an seas. _ 15. euncrnbalrvt N—ni,r ".., :hill mt c u4 n1K. did- uN walk All.., Shell be Installed to Cil, St Indo,d ;.S 11. Ma i_Iof flnnJ cnntrnl j( 1. loo applicant will he respuntihle for c n[lrnctron of ell m -Site dra nag. le<rlrl n•[ regn-cl fry tlr r• CIL, fog rnrrr. z. Intersection crams will be r-.mred at the following Iocatmni: •Inc lr„p•s laalaaomq ant ., :Irt no rn, :ram..,. d. A Llen ;.,r..,.c -at nr yr -Iran Ooh r1v... it shall be regStrN for the soollruc inn a! can prior to relardation of the AI or lso m.. cal LoamI mg - ,,All ..hllb...•r Co .., lint. Pr— r ram, ln, .,1 [lie o..m rc ;.m [ -of -. lea \ / cIt A, p.,, nl n . .am lamm'm' pnnam[ fn.,n lame rnaul el Ivan we rtr En, , off-, I.m.tl,rr. to any albrr n. mIt r,,u Ir0. r_J N'. '• Str....[ .am pin n ,I., I.ng Partuy b• lid s[n.et lights pr. Io tlr ...i amt Ingamn rut argamrn r.l ry Ill. fit, fn•Pr ,.II l . -.-1 I- all Public brr[s poi to of i, II plm nd p-..... atl[ Same lo. I[run nr al . . I . t Iu.I lit am t; ty la amt it. AS vI t1. In Ilia Igo[ -of ray. 1. A :••pv Rn Ie.l, su uaml ling ;(ion pI.m per City SOenJUJ for the pirku1, .n l'1, - lam amam. lam..' _......I a _ 4u11 L.. r. Iu..I r., ,..r- mil Inprsvll by tl:, City [n Pne r prior -_ orrr[y :•dl 'amam• pu.n.r mJ in agrnrmm[ a •am lilt -i to Elam' satlalictlon to, city fain-I nil loll City .Att —i-it . amu n, ✓cam.. ng rnuplitlnn of t A I pu511 c In it lnr A nl• S t 11-1 en's. prior to recording of the mso all 'he issuance of Willing pdoidts, .Il rilefel comel tics!. 9. Street Improiem•nt ,I AS per City stand od far the or wale streets o -- drive, Snall be Ill. ire In. race. and approval by line City [➢q.neerl P r a j Liz No. L 2dlQ w IN. Prior to any .ark being p.,fS,q rj on 11.1 p. ;vat, streets an Jnvrs, lees sl,all be paid aid a construction permit snail [on obtained fro. the Crty [nq men's Office, In Adrtlmn to cry other Permits ra0 rreJ. _V It. All slrret rrgrmvonents shall be Installe.l to the SeUS4ttlon of the City Enginerr, prior to oeeupanpp. V_ _ Il. pamn.•nt striping, narking, traffic and street name Sl9nthq Shall be in t to llell pram tob regu,rorcnls of the City Engineer. U. f v i IA city roaJ le"irr n9 recon et me t l on She 11 remain open for to ll¢ at gin nil 11-11 .r t lam aria to 611 cons do r log CAN sLtti no or limit clnv.1 palm[ nil b. r..rpn...1. n cash devoilt shall he regru n•.I to r ter cuss or grld.r, on, parin9, 11,1, dull be rllcnrle.l .,A 1AoA1eL,.n of the canslroetoa„ in the salisfeetlon PI no C rsY L;g rnrr r. la. Walkways Small he pro'Wed lotveen public S101-11k, end ---I oe -site peUee tam l an seas. _ 15. euncrnbalrvt N—ni,r ".., :hill mt c u4 n1K. did- uN walk All.., Shell be Installed to Cil, St Indo,d ;.S 11. Ma i_Iof flnnJ cnntrnl j( 1. loo applicant will he respuntihle for c n[lrnctron of ell m -Site dra nag. le<rlrl n•[ regn-cl fry tlr r• CIL, fog rnrrr. z. Intersection crams will be r-.mred at the following Iocatmni: J. ➢amam mica n.r...l I..n lrct Ill's within al.. mi keb.aml s _- _[nil -L to elomlmg under LINE National Ilnad Insurance Program ane in subject to the prhy,s.La, of mat program and City ordinance No 21. -_ g. A dramrgr: channel and /or rinorl Protection well At 11 be regoveJ to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a worm acorn. s. kill .,It, Dr.,I..n, shall be mI.11 far acceptance and disposal of surface drunagu entering the Property from e.11acent areas. t/ h. Letter of acceptance from downstreaa Property inners small be ...Sir ed w olle raminot' nn., onto Prival, prapertre,. ). Drainage Acceptance EatyPent Oe.d shell be re gm red from • -6• 0 - 7 • Project No.Aa6 s. SL)II be re. vgneJ a a ..... .a ter [ v.l ul !. ur,• r, uo. rr.q per nnP ter IJn Jl t, vr.J wrburt .. .,. rp.rreJ m Le oln, ae rl strett rev:,rFt� a r.r nlrl�Innt or svr Jul rrrrn atlrprn, tpn.��a _ In LJ lht IJndtCJ pe r�I III[PII Jn IP dlt if lC(: LY'+e .Ir alrI r...I..I c.nrn. rt rr ni, Ilnnrl pr nler Li vrl ,I ...... ♦rI l[, .rn l'„r Irr..la. r r. I ear [Ir LPn rn: erW rnl 1. �.I Jr rvrruYt at ...... lY Irr... I ` A' / KI��_�,�. 9. Re rnM.", at. r ! art Stall be .-tl "" In ILe ......ectlan oI — inP CaV Eo irr.vr� , Pnar to recordeban, a Mate of rmtamn Lo emn eM /a Jolt LJnrlstlPe and Llghtltg MSL,Ilti ehlll be Itled dlM IMe hty foam l 1. the etq Meer lrp coui Inau la e.l It ally at roraal JOn :nnn 1•). ItP 11.1 -1 11,11 Le Sudel LleJ Lo be LJnrt hr u., nere laver. _ the C.1, Enl n .r r I ..,. J. VU ltI 1. P,u ile JI ,Lrl rtr • 1 fo eoh lot mlo,lb, Ileibry SPUertrle r trlrl> t rl.r .rr Ir t.•611 11 II IC—datce . I l• V 2. Intl tl llt rnrr It 1'I Shall LP vrrlrnoted by 010 lli. Jertl l�•r .rm vrRr prvnAUr LI to luc Ide .IIL t—'bIn9 / Ipr r.[r laf r +.. V, <II u[r 11 t m Drnlrct IJ11 be ntallrtl un.IPrgnnnrrl bII. nt ln 4 l 1'b I ^ V ar L-. Jt 12 1V -$ lea. erV \f J/. IIt r11fY a rrf. .,.,It 1 yrtal J:'1 It III, latltlaatnun or the i Ing \ V v(I l l ly Ca11 Tr Ir.l I .r CILY Enll rr, er. t r lv the relntl UOn Lt en.Lmg pILLC � u LI M1tl21. a: relur 1. � " Oea ^to Der ab.11 LP r. •grruv M1le Lrr the mrtall Jlwn of str,,t h.t.t. g L— III onl.lnc• .rte ..n [I r. rn Caltf .... t Elt, C.I,ny end CLLY It lnJ I'll. rre ]. ipprav k rr, rl Iran all ut.111.11 and t11— n a I In[ereltel -r aeL Allr: Ir rl of tLe f11n1 r:np tuL lPtl Id .InY "''L.I.- ..la Ina[ cal '^ re[P rvrJ IeJn t1 , 1 P. to F._...z .. It•_ (InJI D,rcel argil Ira.l m,pt Shall canfarIn ro oty standards J.J p ra<eJurei. A panel map :hall L. a tlded prior 1. flrIl phlte SWJIV l51on I. _2. prevent ...tl"on ul nnr.c erin r[eJ perteli. - 7 C C • Mr. Sharma replied that it would. Mr. Coleman stated that if the Commission did grant a 6 -month extension the applicant would have to occupy the temporary trailers within 6- months or have building permits issued. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, to deny to time extension request for Conditional Use Permit 82 -20. Motion failed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, to approve the time extension. Commissioner McNiel advised the applicant that the commitments and agreements made should a followed through because the Commission's deadlock now is for that reason. Motion failed. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if an affirmative action cannot be taken by the Commission the Conditional Use Permit for this project proceeds until it expires on the date first established. Chairman Stout asked when this project expires. Mr. Coleman stated that based upon Mr. Hopson's statement, the Conditional Use Permit expired on May 10, 1984. • 0 s PUBLIC HEARINGS • F. ENVIRO`1MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - DE CREEK - A residential development of 225 single family lots on 147.ER acr16 es of land in the Very Low Residential district located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of the Hillside Flood Channel, and north of Hillside Rand - APN 201- 121 -16. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker stated that many of the letters received from homeowners within the existing Deer Creek project contained statements that promises were made to them by the developer that the one acre concept of the existing tract would carry through the entire development. He asked Mr. Hopson if the Commission is in a position to enforce those promises made by the developer. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that while this may be a civil wrong which could result in litigation between the homeowners and the developer as to breached promises, the Commission is not in a position to make a determination as to who made promises to whom. Further, that it is not part of the material to be considered before the Commission, as their responsibility is to determine if a tentative tract is in compliance with existing codes, ordinances and General Plan designations. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 23, 1984 /I � C C Commissioner Barker advised that, based on this direction from counsel, the public coanents would be best directed to the Commission on whether mitigating • factors are present which would not make this project compatible with the existing surroundings. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Michael Vairin, 9524 19th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating their concurrence with the staff report, Resolution and Conditions of Approval. Chairman Stout referred to Mr. Vairin's letter to the Deer Creek homeowners dated April 12, 1984 and stated that reference had been made to the unit size as 2900 -3900 square feet, yet Mr. Vairin made reference to 2500 square foot units. He asked Mr. Vairin what would be the minimum unit size. Mr. Vairin replied that determinations on unit sizes are premature at this time, as the units have not yet been designed. He advised that the 2900 square foot figure evolved from a unit which the applicant had recently completed design on and is proposing to construct. Chairman Stout asked what the applicant's position would be on a set minimum square footage for residential units. Mr. Vairin replied that the current CCBR's for Deer Creek contain a minimum 1800 square foot minimum. He advised that architectural plans had not been developed for the full phase and would like to have an opportunity to discuss • this minimum with the owner. Further that the developer plans to build some of the homes existent in the current tract which are within the 1950 -2200 square foot range, and this minimum would prohibit him from doing this. Commissioner Barker asked if the applicant had worked with the Deer Creek homeowners on the placement of equestrian trails. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant worked with the Trails Committee on the equestrian trails and intends to retain the same trails concept in the new phases. Commissioner Barker asked if a parks credit had been given for the trails. Ted Hopson stated that a determination had been made several years ago that private trails that are not accessible to the public at large would receive 50 percent parks credit. Commissioner Barker stated that in light of the fact that the applicant is not requesting park credit, would it be safe to assume that the applicant would not object to a condition being made that no park credit be given. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant would agree to this. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 23, 1984 • /L C C • The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the tract based upon ineompatibilities with the existing development and expreasing concerns with property values, and that the developer might sell this property. Additionally, three conditions were recommended by homeowners: (1) the name "Deer Creek" not be used for the new phase; (2) a greenbelt be provided to separate the two Dhases; and (3) that the north /south streets be cul-de-sac streets. David Britton - 10920 Beachwood Drive - Rancho Cucamonga Donna Card - 10915 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Nancy Oakland - 10761 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Ken Aldridge - 10938 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Joyce Juliana - 10781 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Richard Smith - 5481 Valinda - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Balakrishnan - 10856 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Barbara Balakrishnan - 10856 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Patricia Berona - 10918 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Ralph Daigle - 5235 Masada - Rancho Cucamonga Genevieve MaeDOwell - 10518 Peach Tree - Rancho Cucamonga Bob Glennon - 5675 Canastil Rancho Cucamonga Bill Howard - 10721 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Jeri Lee - 10923 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Weldon Sewell - 10521 Apple Lane - Rancho Cucamonga • The following individuals addressed the Commission in support of the pro,Ject based upon the reputation of the developer to build what was termed "Quality" homes, the feeling the new project would be detrimental to their property values, and stated that a one -acre lot is too expensive to maintain. Anne Calinsky - 5468 Valinda - Rancho Cucamonga Bruce Wilcox - 10802 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Hedgpeth - 10565 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Kirakossian - 10688 Beachwood - Rancho Cucamonga Dr. Fisgus - 10876 Hillside - Rancho Cucamonga There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' request that the new phase not be called by the name Deer Creek and asked if the Commission has this right. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he did not believe under the Subdivision Map Act that the Commission has the right to say what a development can or cannot be called. Commissioner Barker stated that many of the homeowners expressed concern that the developer of Deer Creek might sell this property and the homeowners had suggested that the developer post bonds for a quality development. He asked for Mr. Hopson's comment. OPlanning Commission Minutes -5- May 23, 1984 //7 ( Mr. Hopson replied that the City cannot prohibit a developer from selling his • property. He advised that bonds can be required for items such as off -site improvements, but that a quality development cannot be bonded for but can be assured through the City's design review process. Chairman Stout stated that he could not accept this development if there was not a minimum square footage set on the unit size and suggested 2500 square feet. Commissioner Hempel suggested that language be added to the Conditions Of Approval which requires that the new tract be architecturally compatible with the existing tract so that compatibility will be assured when the specific designs go before the Design Review Committee. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Commission not only has the power to condition this project to be submitted to the Design Review Committee, but also the power to require it to come before the full Commission. Commissioner Barker stated that he would like the property owners be notified when the project comes before the Commission for design review. Commissioner Rempel advised that design review items are not generally handled as public hearings and requiring this project to be handled as such may be setting a precedent. He suggested that a language could be added to the conditions which would require notices to be sent to property owners within • the existing Deer Creek tract. Commissioner Barker referred to the homeowners' concern that the lot widths would limit the house designs. He suggested that a randomly selected lot be dropped from each of the four northern levels to allow the flexibility to provide lot widths of 140 feet. Chairman Stout referred to the homeowners' suggestion of requiring all of the streets in the new phase to be cul -de -sac streets and advised that this would place too much traffic on Haven Avenue. He stated that even with the increased density of this tract adding an extra street would allow a balance of traffic that would channel some of the traffic onto Haven that normally would have gone onto Hillside. He further stated that eliminating the circulation pattern would unduly be placing a burden to the residents of the new tract who are not present to voice their opinions. Commissioner McHiel advised that requiring cul -de -sac streets would also present a problem with emergency vehicle access. Chairman Stout referred to the issue of the greenbelt suggested by the homeowners and stated that he did not feel that the two tracts should be separated. Further, that the quality of the existing tract would be forced higher than if it was allowed to be moated off. He advised that through careful scrutiny and the City's Design Review process, the tracts can be made into one contiguous project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 23, 1984 • C � Chairmen Stout reiterated the conditions suggested by the Commission to set 2500 square feet as a minimum unit size, requiring public noticing of design review, and lot removal and asked the applicant if he would like to comment. Michael Vairin, representing the applicant, stated that the developer stands on his record to build quality homes and that normal design review procedures required by the City would assure well designed homes; therefore, did not see the necessity to notice homeowners when the project comes before the Commission for design review. He did also express concern with establiaing 2500 square feet as a minimum unit size. He advised that this would be in conflict with the CCBR's for the existing tract which will also be used for the proposed tract. He stated that the minimum unit size stipulated in the CC&Ra is 1800 square feet. He added that some of the homes within Deer Creek are 1950 square feet and that setting the unit size minimum at 2500 square feet would make those units non- conforming and would require an amendment to the CC @R's. Further, that he did not believe that setting a minimum unit size was a provision allowed by the Subdivision Map Act. He additionally expressed concern with the condition to drop a lot from each of the four northern tiers and stated that lot lines could be adjusted without removing lots. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not see why the CCAR's would have to be amended because the Commission was not requiring that the minimum unit size go below the 1800 square feet first required. Additionally, he advised that it would be in the developer's best interest to loose four lots in an effort to • make the development work with the existing tract. Commissioner Barker stated that the 2500 aqua" foot minimum was a compromise down from the 2900 square foot the applicant had originally referred to and that the intent was to assure that smaller homes would not be built. Regarding the loss of four lots, he responded that this was the only solution available to provide variable lot widths. Chairman Stout stated that the conditions would be the City's assurance that the proposed tract is compatible with the existing tract to the south. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 12650 with additional conditions requiring: (1) the submittal of precise designs, architecture and plot plans to the Planning Commission for approval prior to Issuance of building permits; (2) notification of each property owner within the existing Deer Creek development of the date the project will be reviewed by the Commission; (3) all future residential units be a minimum of 2500 square feet; and, (4) removal of one lot in each of the four northern tiers to provide a random number of lots with a linimum lot width of 140 feet. AYES: CO;LMISSiONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: N014E ABSENT: COK41SSIONERS: NOME - carried- Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 23, 1984 4.(I� 1 Vpd o Ntm� • ) ifs . .Ldli0EIvE0 . CITY OF RAKCIIO CUCAMONGA COMMIIN ITY PEVFl OPMFNT DEPT. CD JUN 141984 DJC AM PiE DONNA JENSEN CARD 71N191101111121112I3I%kNA JENSEN CARD {{ I I k 4 P,I_,) 't -1; l 1 c t.1L \ -`t ; %.i Li. v S Wl-L 1.tCWl. CA LL CL,i EA/l�'1L 4V C� LL 6/j Ln tJ o iK e L W L- L C III 1, I A L L a c cJ C(-t t- c� Cu l �', e c.%L CL�x1 ►� c i S c�v� i, c c i; C- L's CL«u to C) cumin c� i c� + ✓ C-1 C� I an CL UV- ` ( 1' y ,l ��I LCCh c1�l dill }�1i cL �(1tilL. 1zt, \�1w1� -1i 'Au- /* cLud oli�L +7wlrti 1 ci�lw✓+� (1k�f,, ` ff l \ 1 1 1 DJC C DONNA JENSEN CARD DONNA JENSENI CARD I�I L�'LL \,u�L I.G✓� LV� tt vl 1l, L'bJ �. �-1 v.iv..�.a./� /�✓4 -ry (/��, � L� i : S C \-"'t. c'I I L Uw ./l/I/�•�l .1 ,YU CAJy� W Tt UN�1 I Gam' I i,�Ct cfvj y\ til. `� CkA n, , t.Uti w �ZJ C rn� �, LAC 1Lc a^ II CAL 4z� J —AA- ` L4� (VvL I r tvwk 4� i t,�c.,l lZt� :Ccn� tt rr l\ c 1,%i L 1 `Yy`<. S L..L.. C C-t•vr. c �1 I•%�v'��- l� �% I Gtnt/� C`�tn'� U T� ti �" ..t�/) ` ►i,a+ V�' G�t11�t.5 •e�,A,rn„, ,J�, IJ,,r/,gc,. c� L DdC CD . DONNA JENSEN CARD DONNA JENSEN I�ARD un t L 1 t (M/11 -t.n- �i U KGT ✓Ll. .-[L Co CL- eJ Lim-, � Clj. -I (. �jCn'h.0 T11.• -,�� , ei� c'}''Lti 2r- C l l.� �` �iv...J�.l.�Vl, vL vl. -ll� [.}(.�` .W'� •.Q�i.Ci� G<--+n O Q- L•.t -'�`I -Nc L ` LA I1 T +�..•l.V I �Y� L•..^-1 L tJc;w �� i., < 4� 1�� .1.i L..51e O cu t.i_ .ivy � + rl., A-(-J . �wt'n,z N..l��c t S l'joL/Nvjt4( '\l�`,�,, C. 1�1` I 1 1'._�1" �!I`1 CD DJC y DONNA JE,NSEN CARD ,( I 1 DONNA JENSEN CARD D VATG -� l- -I-�G� �Ct,i''Vt'� cL�.t..cvv� CU v Lit, lti'Vlti. i ! L cu C �� ,Z �l � 5 i�- ti� cl 11, i 1. W� ✓L e.. u.. , �II I r 11 p y(,y IL ✓C -(� UA.t �ja L w Ell L .. C. �L� L 1 J �c,L c,li 1..,..�. /LC l, 7 4lb l.L 7(.5 Cl to CY TWU- �;wu -��i. t ii 5 L LV 1VLJ [� <<-'L VJLI J C Q.etaS�a�xa ' 91761 31 "i')l,ac� iq8� &tLt Du ;jw G '\% • (Ltc� S/3�I61 ;.ky L I CITY OF.4,iN hC1 S I C MUNITY pEvF OPMFNT D pT MAY 1'! 1984 AM 71819110I111p1112i31416PM 16 r �LVG /�!%v/ /✓/ll�%� 1. U%%✓�I.- C.G�711i1/J Q/ltG� � / C'� �C/ �'`� /� epee. C v cs- r� /rz7� U�.C�i3-Ct°iu�> �/�i�G� /''7�1d�� ..t�2G ,C�G[� ✓C�d1�Gl/�Gd� ... c ; „�Gt�� Zct� ��d"r� CAC' Lt7rJ .�O .Gd!IL��/ • `r�:� ,.u' .c.�. G�(,e x`m- r�cld, 2��iiu.� �z�lllC .�u-C ,2G� �LClc -a�tt' fcvu _ Gt/.e �ce.� -t,�F� itG,et .ems -..c, h- ,��d�d .tea //./tt�s��c /. _�tJ�/u 2fuccc�cL v�rc�¢�..�/ �� . _ �zGC�v ,�hiva- . ti �G�ii�y.G- ��03.��.�� ,o�nzz' '�C Ali �'"O 1�iG�G �CL� CyjtiL!/!/ /�I�ClLlld9 .G� �L� � /� -a�6a- �% .,: ?�7ty d, ��t'G �L�ijl[c� �/ /777GJL�f�YL�.sJ r�J�F.11d �c�/ i,cr /�- .��c�' r�u.��x� y,�ira- �ssvxGto,�' rl� i%.2 .�`, �>2 �.(ult _ .GZrtc�( �2 -�'U ,v�✓,.ctyGr�ic, , is it.e- c�cwd. �fl� ,2��"'�/_� % �� „ate OPM�[IHT DEPT- 15 19MA m CD nJC 0716t9� 1 $DC NNA nNgSN CARD 41, CV^ MOLI o q A-D v V MA. naC DJO �' 1 DONNA JENSEN CARD DONNA JENSEN CARD `J t p,v, d An U h Q kryv t 4. Mcl� % Y�.� r1 � p-j 1-00LA 5 a ai �tz� 11 e We. kt/Le ar, c, � � I S cx.QQ `ice-¢- Q- DAG I- Li lI� C-IND �L uo • � �. ��. lam. � S-f� cam, . � v ll.T C DONNA JENSEN CARD ,dc,LL, ct ,4 Vc v-�. c t }} �'O-rz- CrVJj Ct-&UC DJU \ DONNA JENSEN CARD Z�t� Co C-� C,�&./V-- cx, c,j ci V a. DONNA JENSEN CARD MtLG ,4c"t �clll� . a.�Vvd a• c : � y -- --Y)uv -,,, C a„ d Ioa►s 4,tIs;dam- -?t A 0,�,4a -- Ud-vti C P� �i ►1v 0 CRY OF F. , L. ,, eUCAk'CNGA COMMUNII r U&EIOPM[R7 G. PT. MAY 15 JS�,4 All ^y 4 igffl111iL2s:A214,t j m o-� V) I c18 4 CVtL OLL-j a.,tLL hIAl Cyj d 5 Lc um A M.I� . 0 pOLA aA J IP. it i 1 0 I lJ�l� LMM RAMA Vti<-ai_., OIL CLU a t6 o�u s 41,J f- DAA- cam, p� d Q.nc� Buz OA, - �u� d� QJ,,I 15 cod . lt4,cL OAL �- • l�.f � `��,wt�h'1 L�1,1, .� � FM- �- CLCtn � Q. � I 3. Y� �vu., p o.�,u. � vx, � a.in. �• r,,ea.�.e,) T2. Q G c o�5 I CvI e, AaAc-" L 44 , tc� 1 � �u ylti zo ,, Caut J C C a-c(1)4 3 • � �� Cvu.� � l a4-�v� �Y �►-�. � c,�..o - I-u.«. -ham• . �� 5 ,. C'I y spa -.6 w Oj l "Ll�)/titA 7U Ca T� ,j, 441 �I • QIu1- C�U.� c I �c�I p�- 4- ��.¢.. �n1 crYt_¢.� -1V� lu m At C Cvl U UL �} t tit o 4,L cW N�Uti�/L5 • ��s C C. I-, C,/�� 4v � h UAIC C' cj a- - l dc� CLAAA, • aY e.j gno • • • PTY OF P;B�r.C' fU,,AMONGA DgIW"rrf (EVt OPWRT DEM MAY 17 1584 AN PIA 718i9iIQA 2iIi2s8j4jM _.tv Planner Rick Gamez Q. itgx 90: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 917 =0 Dear . Gomez: r Dave & Gay Erittain 10920 Eeechwood Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, rA 91701 May 16. 1 ?54 Vie are writing to you to e;:pres5 our deep concern regarding the chanae in the Deer Creek housing community qtr e.c' 12650, APN 201 - 121 -16) proposed by the developer. We consider this proposal a radical departure from what we were told by the developer when we originally considered ourchasina our home in Leer Creek. The orimery actor in our decision to purchase our home was that we were told by the developer, both orally and in writino. that the ultimate development of the Deer Creek community would comprise homes of equal or better quality on lots of toe same or larger size. Eased on that information and our good faith in the developer we felt our investment in our Deer Creek home would appreciate substantially in time. It made good sense to us, from a planning standpoint_, that higher valued homes should be built at hiq_ner ?levaticns. on more prime lots. t-s develocer is proposing just _he apposite. 'Iemely. smaller, less expensive homes on lots zne half t:ro thirds the size of present Deer Creek lots. This would e the ncusing density by 50 (7, -ones on 2 acres, rr;thers than 2 homes on 2 acres). �e have made substantial investments in our hone and orcoerty improvements since we moved to Deer Creek in NIc•Ienber, 107G. This sizable invastmant was also based primarily on our confidence and trust in the developer doing what he told us he would do regarding the future development of Deer Creek. We see the developers new proposal as a breech o= his Nord. We rsi•e,.'e he lids a moral end lea a.l obiioaticn to -Ll sent Deer [rep., awor?s to proceed wish his original 013x•' We 'rinow _ = 3dap t_vr, o; this _ropos_al ¢ii cramaticairy ..mod aovrers_'. f :e pr.- pert', __ co _. _sc _ __ _ __.. _ r D sr -.'ee _ , ._ -•ho. _ r1• ,tl nea�.f .."ce as al. __ _ •. lay .rll]t dill Gp �(✓� Gam' /i_+-i✓ yii �t�:�L !.� -a.i (��/ �-�. Z/1 �Cc mss. i y�y �.`..� yey.�o zQ-�- con.. -�.� �sr�r��,✓�/� --� .aeY, --� • �. -i-�- ✓1✓ sit -�r� �/,.,, � -....r �. �G.v•c�i C_cc�4.,.r..+j�a. 1.37 :7 0 / Mey r7 /tt4 /A l o6oA Q &W -M !N fC, 214. aAA du.e -Pn.,� a rf,rvy 6`a"°f,y o1 tt, �o.ti cGa gt wn/ u , G r l /!' t9 k,,.. bj C, Or WVL- Co .V p c.4c a lfu,� 3 C,•• .r..W a 6e.er� l ti/L ao iii C�� v�h�r .� ✓roc Ovio rt d CJAAA.� -fA RG�w 7e LA-N as., // L.Ml a r-.( 40, 'Fwo an601,•v\'ja,,. OP, OF R..^ . COMfM06 Y MAY e z 1984 G ._ AM pfA �R• C • 9AG/ KR`�HNM✓ 4(8l9fWd�d211f2f3i4f5fti (00,76 Niu.9F)c ,tans &M 49, A lQRWUb r�,c..w,�, CI 9i7u, CIIY Of RAN.HO CUCAMONGA C~ITV MV OMENr DEPT. t�7t8 MAY 17 1981 /a.�v 7�8&9(g14Q(112(3t4t6(6 ps yry,.. ��F. Sg�( 9.> of .x..e.4 pa;,t, *'�c iuYtA N, (ls,'el. Q� O ifd pioposP lay.; ac�uiwl� - � 2t'l V 4.tm.4 z dr. Yw[ CilJt r$ Wo,9d LLW in stv L+ (�tw, 3{"I C. • -I'(. la,4. s4 u+JJ be 4.o h.o cjjc 4..x 4t, ka" .°.Ync -tLr L4.S ..ubl"cr t>.. dW Jus -/ 'AO -41- e,cu. kb� (a e h.r..e du. ,5- _ . M.d ✓Ut..j� c�we:p•�r �Qppp CC ovy to 44L Q:o •0.t_a wCit L+ pL ..,J -e' a i ,...ere yl,.c��b¢.cl -10 `r� LIIA' 11 p" o. il. du..<i.•p<,s. en. �cLo,c �l..u"L -htd- u��.. ik� I.....,:v u,.. rl •rfu '1..c fj; c:.: ci C' /;n..�{, ._ C -Ju.w- ..7 •rla - ;aj„L' ya�'10. fk.tr n7 Qt'y M LE, L-j liL� Alc" "o M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager FROM: Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney DATE: June 20, 1984 RE: Deer Creek /Alleged Conflict of Interest We understand that certain homeowners displeased with a Planning Commission decision made May 23, 1984 on Tentative Tract 12650 have suggested that Covington a Crowe and I personally had a conflict of interest and should have disqualified ourselves from any statement to the Planning Commission. Conflict of interest is defined in depth in Government Code • §87100, et seq. A financial interest is specifically defined in Government Code §87103, which provides that an official has a finan- cial interest in a decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that that decision will have a "material financial effect" on that offi- cial, as distinguished from the effect that the decision will have on the public generally. To have a "material financial effect" on an official, the decision must effect any business entity in which the public official has a direct or indirect investment worth more than $1,000.00, any real property in which the public official has a direc.. or indirect interest worth more than $1,000.00, any busi- ness entity in which the public official is an employee or holds any position of management, is an officer, director, or partner, . or any source of income greater than $250.00 "provided to, received by or promised to" the public official within twelve (12) months prior to the time that the decision was made. Further, the mater- -1- �' J iaiity of a financial impact has been defined in regulations pro- mulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission. In the FPPC • regulation no. 18702, a "material financial effect" is one which is likely to have an effect on the gross revenue of the business which the public official has a direct investment, the fair market value of real estate which the public official owns, or a direct effect on the amount of the public official's income. When Covington & Crowe was interviewing for the position of City Attorney in 1977, our involvement with Griffin Development Company and Grigsby Development in the preparation of the C C & R's on Deer Creek was fully disclosed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The work by Covington & Crowe on the C C & R's terminated in early 1978. Covington & Crowe did no further legal for either Grigsby Development Company, the Grigsbys individually, or Griffin Develop- ment Company, after 1978. Covington & Crowe for a brief time re- • presented the Deer Creek homeowner's association during the infancy of that body, but was replaced by other counsel for the homeowner's association in early 1979. Covington & Crowe, consequently, has had no connection with either the developer or the homeowner's association for a period of five to six years. No member of Coving- ton & Crowe is an employee of or on the board of either the develo -er or the homeowner's association; no member of Covington & Crowe has an investment in the developer or the project, either in the form of a business investment or an ownership interest in real estate. Consequently, no decision rendered by any member of Covington & Crowe to the Planning Commission would have constituted a conflict of interest under either the Government Code or the regulations • promulgated by the FPPC. Further, a review of the Minutes of the -2- 14i May 23, 1984 meeting will demonstrate that any comments which I made in response to questions posed to me by Planning Commission members or others had no relationship whatsoever to the content or drafting of the C C 6 R's. The decision made by the Planning Com- mission was a political decision which they had the right to make under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and that decision is not legally effected by the participation of Edward Hopson, a Partner in Covington 6 Crowe, in that process as Assistant City Attorney because no conflict of interest as a matter of law existed. EAH:sjo Is �tiT.•., 0 • 9 ATV AT 4 1 VAVA Ar,l� � VAI,/. STAFF REPORT DATE: July 18, 1984 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVISION OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT WN A • �r SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its June 13, 1984 meeting, TOT a public hearing and recommended approval of the attached Draft Housing Element and issuance of a Negative Declaration for the document. The attached report outlines the basic content of the Element, including excerpts from the Technical Appendix and a brief description of the housing programs. In addition, background information on State legislation and a summary of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comments on the draft document are provided. The major topic of discussion by the Commission regarded preventing future overconcentrations of very low and low income subsidized rental housing in any one project. The Housing Element contains a policy which states that low income housing shall not exceed 25% of the total number of units within a project (page 13). In addition to this, the Commission added the following statement to the Resolution of Approval: "While the City recognizes the fact that certain policies regarding subsidized housing have been legislated by the State and Federal governments, it is the intent of the City to limit this type of housing to the minimum amounts required by the State and Federal governments." Excerpts from the Planning Commission minutes of the June 13, 1984 meeting at which the Housing Element was discussed are provided for your review. 11. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in he Daf Re ort newspaper. To date, no correspondence commenting on the ra t Housing Element has been received. / k, CM ONKIL STAFF REPORT Revisions to General Plan lousing Element July 18, 1984 Page 2 III. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City unc approve the Housing Element and issuance of a Negative Declaration through adoption of the attached Resolution. 4esp/otfpl su fitted, CJ:jr Draft Housing Element Planning Commission Staff Report - June 13, 1983 Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 1984 City Council Resolution of Approval • • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCA&vNGA STAFF REPORT F_f= DATE: June 13, 1984 1977 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVISION OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT I. ABSTRACT: This report outlines the basic content of the Draft oush� ing Element, including excerpts from the Technical Appendix and a brief description of the housing programs. In addition, background information on State legislation and a summary of State comments on the City's Draft Element are provided. The Commission should review the document and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding final adoption. II. BACKGROUND: . A. New Legislation: California State law requires that each M jurisdiction adopt a Housing Element with their General Plan. This requirement first became effective in 1969 and detailed Housing Element guidelines were subsequently adopted by the State in 1977. The City's Housing Element was prepared under these 1977 guidelines and adopted with the General Plan in 1981. Since that time, the State revised the guidelines to make them more detailed by adding provisions for: 1. Development of a 5 -year action program for meeting local housing needs. - 2. Incorporation of a proportional share of area housing growth (Southern California Association of Government's Regional Housing Allocation Model, SCAG /RHAM Forecast). 3. Identification of governmental and non - governmental constraints to the productions of adequate housing. i 4. Identification of energy conservation measures. 'dhen the new guidelines were adopted, the State also required that each jurisdiction update its Housing Element every five years and established a deadline of July 1984 for the first update. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION fF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 Page 2 • 8. Housin Element Contents: The State has identified the attainment o a ecent home and a satisfying environment for every resident of the State of California as a goal of highest priority. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this goal, and to insure that local planning effectively implements statewide housing policies, the legislature mandated that Housing Elements contain three basic components as follows: 1. An assessment of local housing needs and an inventory of local resources and constraints relative to meeting local needs. 2. A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. 3. A program that sets forth a 5 -year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. • Review Process: As the Commission may recall, portions of the Housing Element were reviewed at two previous meetings. Following a brief overview of the document by the Commission on March 14, 1984, the Housing Element was forwarded to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCO) to undergo a mandatory 90 -day review period. Comments from HCO were received in late May and have been incorporated into the document where possible. Section IV of this report describes HCO comments. Following review and recommendation of the Element by the Planning Commission, the document will be reviewed by the City Council for final adoption in July. III. ORGANIZATION: The Housing Element contains three chapters which separate the technical data from the housing objectives and programs. This fermat was chosen so that the importance of the City's programs is not lost or diluted with the calculations, graphs, or other technical information. Chapter One contains a brief synopsis of the information presented in the Technical Appendix, while Chapter Poo contains the required 5 -year action program. The action program is intended to achieve the City's 'housing goal and includes objectives and programs. The objectives are statements of intent which relate to a particular • asp_ct of the overall goal and guide future actions in specific topic areas. To implement each objective, programs are provided which set forth specific courses of action and establish PLANNING COMMISSION •FF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 • Page 3 quantified targets, where applicable. The third chapter contains in detail the technical data and calculations. The information provided is based on the best available background data and acts as a framework for the City's identified housing needs and subsequent policies and programs. IV.. TECHNICAL APPENDIX: The following discussion provides a brief overview of the information presented in the Technical Appendix, Chapter 3. A more detailed summary is provided on pages 3 -11 of the Housing Element. A. Demographics: As of January 1984, Rancho Cucamonga's population gas 61,624 according to the State Department of Finance. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) expects the City's population to increase by approximately 4.6 percent per year to a total of about 127,500 persons by the year 2000. As of 1980, an estimated 10 percent of the heads of households live and work in the City. 8. Hous in Paract =_ristics: As of January 1, 1984, the • Department o ,finance estimated that there were 19,205 existing dwelling units in the City. Overall, the housing stock of the City is in good condition. This is attributable to the fact that all but 2,250 dwelling units have been constructed since 1960. It is estimated that one percent of the City's housing stock is in a deteriorated condition. The City has identified four older areas of the community to be targeted for rehabilitation assistance. During the next five years it is estimated that 8,028 new units will be constructed. The demand for new housing will be spurred by employment growth in the City which is expected to create about 5,;00 to 1,100 new households. C. Vacant Lands: The City contains aoproximately 6107 acres of vacant residential lands in eight different land use districts, .vith the potential for approximately 40,609 new units. Adding this number to the January 1984 estimate of existing inits (19,205), the City will contain 59,814 units at buildout, ..n icn is anticioated to occ,ir around the year - •,cant rasi i=ntiai land within the two olanned ca *n,m�,t as of Victoria an; '_•-ra 'Iista egaa1s 1,135 acres. D. '!ousina '�gis: 4ccordinc the 11983 SCAG ?egiona1 Housing Allor,i7�-) `innel '4HAM1', ",!sere are I ,146 lower incom=_ hiisenoiis qno are payinn.dISor000rtionately high percentages of their into ^e on housing. The RHAM also projects that 12,442 new units iust be ad :fed to the housing stock by 1989 in order to avoid in impacted housing situation. The RHAM establishes that 13 percent of these new units should be - PLANNING COMMISSION , .FF REPORT Draft Housing Element June 13, 1984 Page 4 affordable to households earning 120 percent or less of the established median income (currently $31,101 per year). As of October 1982, the City's Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) prepared in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program identified 792 small families, 213 large families, and 97 elderly families needing housing assistance. E. Constraints to Housin Deve to gent The cost of housing, inc u ing financing an pro uct on costs, have increased more rapidly than household income thereby pricing potential home buyers out of the market. Lower interest rates for construction and purchasing would be a significant asset in providing affordable housing. Residential development fees in the City increase the cost of a median priced home approximately 8 percent, but are necessary to maintain an adequate level of services for new development. Inadequate and non - existent storm drains and channels represent a major constraint to development in the City and will require long- term financing commitments. OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMS: As mentioned previously, State • legislation mandates that cities commit to a specific 5 -year action program which is designed to alleviate identified housing needs and to achieve overall housing goals. The City's housing goal has been broken down into seven objective areas. The objectives and corresponding housing programs are based on present and anticipated resources of the City and should represent the most fei;ible action which the City can take in order to satisfy the identified needs as described in the Technical Appendix. The following is a brief overview of the proposed objectives and programs. Objective 1 and the corresponding programs are intended to increase the number of persons who live and work in the City. Thirty percent of new household formations is established as a goal for this objective. Objective 2 deals with the conservation and improvement of the existing housing stock. The programs include senior grants for minor home repairs, low interest loans for housing rehabilitation, and installation of public improvements in target areas. Funding for the programs is primarily from the Community Development 31ock Grant except for the proposed Redevelooment Agency Rehabilitation Loan Program specified in Program 2.2. Objective 3 deals with permitting a wide range of housing types • t roug and use regulations and with maintaining a balanced supply of rental and ownership units. Program 3,1 identifie the amount of vacant acreage in each residential district and / r PLANING COMMISSION AFF REPORT Draft !busing Element June 13, 1984 Page 5 • indicates the expected number of dwelling units to be constructed during the next five years. The projection is based upon estimates provided by the Financial Plan consultant with input from local developers and City staff. Objective 4 is provided to promote energy efficiency in residential developments through the implementation of the State Energy Guidelines and Development Code provisions requiring passive solar design techniques and active solar energy systems. Objective 5 deals with providing housing for households with low and moderate incomes and special needs. The emphasis of the programs is on mortgage and financing revenue bonds for both ownership and rental units, and promoting affordable housing citywide and in the planned communities. The target numbers shown are based on a combination of factors including identified housing needs and current realistic projections. Objective 5 basically identifies the City's efforts to eliminate un air and discriminatory housing practices. Financial support • for the program is provided by Community Development Black Grant funds. Objective 1 regards eliminating governmental constraints to the devel—opment of housing. The programs deal with financing methods for major public improvements and finacial assistance by the Redevelopment Agency for projects which help meet the City's housing needs. VI. HCD COMMENTS: Fallowing presentation of the Draft Housing Element to the Planning Commission in March, the document was sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for its mandatory comment. As identified on the attached letter, HCO's primary concerns dealt with providing q uan ti tative objectives for the 5 -year time frame of the Housing E ement 984- 1989). In response to this comment the RHAM, which projects future housing needs, had to be extended one year to 1989. The revised numbers are indicated on Table A -9, page A -44. Revisions were also necessary to the programs, in terms of identifying specific n;7eric3l : -vear coals, such as estimating the number of new snits to be boil: 'n the City by 1939, d final copy of the Housing 'e-�ant .r`�il Se forwarded to HCD following the City Copncil's adoption if the Element, VII. ENVIRONMENTAL 4SSE53MENT: .The Initial Study, including the Environmental Checklist, has been completed and staff found no S significant environmental impacts which result from adoption of the Housing Element. The Objectives and Programs contained within the document are designed to represent current goals and policies Ii PLANNING CO MISSION VF REPORT Draft Housing Elemen, June 13, 1984 Page 6 of the City and no changes to residential densities or conflicts with approved plans are proposed which have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. In addition, further environmental review will occur when development projects are proposed since site specific environmental analysis cannot be considered at the policy level of the document. If the Commission concurs with these findings, a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Housing Element at a public hearing to receive all Public input and testimony. If after such consideration and comment the Commission determines that the document is adequate, adoption of the attached Resolution recommending approval of the Housing Element to the City Council would be appropriate. Resp atfu 11 u, fitted, _ i City Planner i f RG CJ: jr Attachment: HCD Comments Initial Study Resolution of Approval Housing Element jiJ • 4e 4. STAR p CALV A DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 21 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 96814 ' (916) 445 -4775 May 21 , 1984 Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Wasserman: • RE: Review of the City of Rancno Cucamonga's Draft Housing Element, Thank you for submitting the City of .Rancho Cucamonga's draft housing element, received March 14, 1984, As you know, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b) this Department is required to review draft elements and report our findings to the locality. J Telephone discussions with Rick Gomez and Linda Daniels of your staff have facilitated our review and this le "ter summarizes the conclusions drawn from those discussions. The City of .Rancho Cucamonga's housing eleme ^t con _ains a thorough description of the City's housing market including the existing Stott and curry . demand. The element also projects housing needs and estaDlishes an ambit,ous five -year schedule of program actions. However, in our opinion, some revisions..are- necessary before the element will comply with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Following eac � recommended change, we refer to the applicable provision of the Govarnnent Code. 'Where partic lar program examples or data sources are listed, tnese are suggestions for your information only, he recognize that Rancno Cucamonga -.ay choose other means of complying wi:n .,e lan. �:I A/ G. D. <�_Wwen175 Mr. Wasserman Page Two 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's quantified objectives and programs cover the period 1984 -1989. However, the City's needs projection encompasses the period 1983 -1988 (consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Housing Allocation Model). In our view, the needs, objectives and programs of a housing element should be prospective rather than retrospective. Therefore, the five -year tine frame should begin with the year of adoption and extend five years into the future; i.e., 1984 -1989. SCAG has developed a methodology by which localities can extend their projected needs figures through 1989. We recommend that the City extend the need figures through 1989 to coincide with the time frame for the City's objectives and programs. The City may choose to use the 1963 -1988 time frame, but the element should be updated when the need projections lapse in 1988 (Sections 65583(b) and 65588(b)). 0 2. Pancho Cucamonga has revised its share of the SCAR- defined regional housing need. include within the housinq element an analysis of the factors and c -tumstances based upon acceptable planning methodology • with all supporting data, justifying the revision ;Section 65584(c)). , 3. Describe, within the element, those orograms the City will implement to promote equal housing ooportunity for all persons (Section 65583(c)(5)). For exarple, the City could disseminate information on fair housing laws, ar^ r9'P, Cpr ;dldints to the Cistrict office of the CePart -ert of Fair d'cyr,e ^t and `iousinn. e, 5stao!ish tne ; :, ;axinun number of housing units to be constructed and conserved over the 1984 -1969 tine frame (Section 65583(b)). For exdFple, the City may establish n3xir;un Sew Construction objectives baser upon t ^e implementation of all housing element programs aid antici,atec of your two planned cdr:munities through 1b39. Tie conservation oojective may be based upon the number of exia tine housing units that will de preserved tnrougn the provision „f Wore staple zone c for nobilenome parrts, apartme ^ts, or otner housing -Yes. - .. Describe t'C :i *v's =Mort to achieve the public participation of all if the communi:. (Section �4- 3). in con _e .. ,asts oursAht U t ^e :ub;l ;,forha,•on „Ct .Ye are ti, '-"el to the State , ^,f raiiforria, 7epart ^ent of .'ist;ce.^ • l-1 . f . /7 . CenfMEiti7S is • Mr. Wassermn Page Three We commend your efforts and hope our comments will be useful in the implementation of your housing program. We also thank Rick Gomez and Linda Daniels for their cooperation during the review. 1f you have any questions regarding our comments please contact William Pavao of our staff at (916) 323 -3182. Sincerely, f�t r Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Chief Deputy Director RAQ:BP;bat CC: Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director • Rick Gomez, City Planner Mark Pisano, Southern California Association of Governments Ellyn S. Levinson State of California, Department of Justice • N. c . A. CGNIi4 1G,v S S 3 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9 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 through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial 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. PROJECT TITLE: Housieo Element Revision APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELE21i0NE: gyp�ho Cucamonga. P.O. 807. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 (1851 NA_:, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE On PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CCNCEP_IING THIS PROJECT: Curt Johnston. Associate Planner LOCATIC:1 OF PRCJECT (STREET ADDRESS A =D ASSESSCi PARCEL NO.) LIST OT..-.. .'.,:BITS ooAR•i FRC }1 LC C:�' REGIONAL, ST..... .y..., FECEP_ =.L AGE. ^.CIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PER:HITS :,T 90 day review neripd by the State Department of Housing & Commum tv Development is mandatory. No permits are required. I -1 ".S4 PRWZi:r DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: N/A DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI.NALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AiiD THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): PniiriPS Patahlished in Noising Flament apply City wide - Sep f neral Plan F. i_P. Is tha - _.:_ p2rt of a ._-_ -ect, cne cc a ser:_s ^ of -_ '.'e actions, whi-n altnouch i,-.divicua li� -ca i1, mapas a wnoie have s_gniclacnt environmental impact? I -? isr 9 • • WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial chance in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial chance in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create chances in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X S. F,move any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flarmables or explosives? Exploration of any YES answers above If the prc :ect involves the construction of residential units, conziete the fora on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishes abc•:e and in tz e attar. ^.ed exhibits present the data any in= craat.- - ed for th:.s initial evaluation _ -'_an.. to tl:e be__ of ab. that „ne c .ats, statements, and ir_or^..acicn - __ - and ^ __e_et� the best of my ;-.,-'arszand that adQa nai an adec,:a to --a 7. .._ ..,___ _he .. •: L:atncr.:' Review .,..c.,__tee. -_.:.. Cate 5i-,.. a t.._ title City Planner : -3 RESOLUTION NO. 84 -49 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCID CUCAININGR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the California Goverment Code; and, WHEREAS, comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development have been received and incorporated into the document; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised Public hearing to consider the State Department of Housing and Community Development comments, and the content of the Housing Element including housing policies, objectives, and programs; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental initial study prepared for the Housing Element and recommends to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the General Plan Housing • Element to the City Council subject to the following: While the City recognizes the fact that certain policies regarding subsidized housing have been legislated by the state and federal governments, it is the intent of the City to limit this type of housing to the minimum amounts required by the state and federal governments. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST I, Rick omez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho C camonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularl introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held 49 on the 13th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit: '7 RTES: COMMISSIONERS: RENML, NCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT • NOES: CMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • • DRAFT EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . June 13, 1984 F. REVISIONS OF THE 11ENERAL PLAN HOOSINB ELEMENT - In accordance with c e on o e a orn a Government Code, a revision and update to the City Housing Element. Senior Planner, Otto Kroutil, gave an overview of the Housing Element and asked that before the staff presentation is made, consideration of special language be made for insertion to the Element that resulted from the 19th Street Corridor Study Committee's recommendation regarding affordable housing. Associate Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel asked where the 7 percent of the City's population living in overcrowded housing referred to on page A55 of the technical appendix live. Mr. Johnston replied that those figures are from the 1980 Census and no exact location is available. Mr. Kroutil, Senior Planner, replied tht HUD's and the Bureau of Census definition of overcrowding is more than 1.1 person per roan and that would be a four person household living in a two bedroom dwelling. Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Mr. Daryl Nikolai, 6245 Dakota, asked where HUD proposes to locate future • housing. Chairman Stout replied that this would be addressed shortly. Mr. Gomez stated that no new sites are contemplated and the Draft Housing Element Revision proposes no new sites. Mr. Nikolai asked if there is any type of restriction in location. Mr. Gomez replied :hat is a point the Commission will cover. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Stout stated there is a policy statement that the Committee wants to have included in the Housing Element and it will bring the element into conformance with the recommendations made during the 19th Street Corridor Study. Further, Chairman Stout indicated that the Committee is comprised of Mayor Jon Mikels, Councilmember Richard Dahl, Commissioner David Barker, and himself, and resulted in the development of a policy recommendation that would limit Section 8 housing to its minimum limits with respect to subsidized housing within the City. Chairman Stout read the language: "While the City recognizes the fact that certain policies regarding subsidized housing have been legislated by the State and Federal governments, it is the intent of the City to limit this type of housing to the minimum amounts required by the State and Federal governments ", and asked that this language be included in the Housing Element. Commissioner Barker stated that this would be in keeping with what the City must do in order to meet the minimum requirements, but no more than that. /. y Mr. Hopson stated the language should say that it is the intention of the City • to comply with all minimum standards of the State and Federal government rather than saying they will only comply with the minimum. Chairman Stout stated that is not what the Committee means. Rather, the City will only comply with the minimum standards. Mr. Gomez stated that the only caution he would have is that the City is required to do certain things and he would not want to state a policy that would be in direct conflict with the State. Commissioner Mc Niel stated he agreed with the intent of the policy statement but there is no reason to red flag it in order to draw undue attention to it. Further, he agrees with compliance only to the minimum required. Commissioner Rempel stated that the policy statement could be put into the approving resolution and not into the Housing Element itself. Mr. Gomez stated that this would be preferable. Mr. Hopson indicated placement of the statement in the resolution would be appropriate. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 84 -49, recommending approval of the Housing Element to the City Council which would include the policy statement in the Resolution. • Mr. Nikolai asked where such housing will be located within the City. Chairman Stout asked Mr. Gomez to explain where HUD housing might go. Mr. Gomez responded that this is governed by the General Plan and Development Code and the policy that the Commission is dealing with is for the overconcentration of projects which would have more than the 25 percent minimum so that the same problem does not occur as the Woodhaven project on Lemon and Haven. Mr. Hopson stated that if there is an already built apartment and someone applied for Section 8 housing money, or rental subsidy money, and contracted every apartment unit in that already build apartment building, there would be nothing the City could do about it. Mr. Gomez stated that the City does have the power to voice its concern and object to that but the Federal government is the overriding body and would make that approval. Chairman Stout asked for clarification on whether the City determines where these apartments will go. Mr. Gomez responded that the City gives the appropriate area for apartments but funding is determined by the Federal government. The City does not • determine where they will go and it does have some input, but the Federal government can contract with anyone it wants to to construct those apartments. Mr. 8onsz replied this is correct; however, under this President there does not appear to be any money for subsidized apartments. Mr. Larry Bliss, local developer, explained how the Lesny Development Company obtained its long term financing for this project and indicated that what the City attorney has stated is correct. He also advised of the difficulty of managing Section 8 housing. Notion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McN1el, carried unanimously, to modify Resolution No. 24 -49 to include the statement relative to subsidized housing and recommend approval of the Housing Element to the City Council. • 0 IVi • RESOLUTION 110. '9P— i8 -9BBR 84- -*�!Oi A NE901MON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been prepared in accordance with Article 10.6 of the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development have been received and incorporated into the document; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the State Department of Housing and Community Development cnmments, and the content of the Housing Element including housing policies, objectives, and programs, and recommends approval of the Housing Element to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental Initial Study prepared for the Housing Element and recommends to the City Council approval of a Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly advertised public hearing • to consider all aspects of the Housing Element and public input. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga City Council does hereby approve the Revised General Plan Housing Element subject to the following: is SECTION 1: White the City recognizes the fact that certain policies regarding subsidized housing have been legislated by the State and Federal governments, it is the intent of the City to limit this type of housing to the minimum amounts required by the State and Federal governments. SECTION 2: A Negative Declaration is hereby adopted for the Revised dousing Element based upon the completion and finding of the Initial Study. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: /G1 0 11 CPPY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT r DATE: duly 18, 1964 19 7- TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Ordering the Work in Connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 for Tracts 12316, 12316 -1, 12317, 12317 -1, 12364, 12364 -1 and 12402 Attached for City Council approval is a resolution ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 for the following Tracts: Tract No, of Units_ Arterial Lights 12316 36 S.F. 5 12316 -1 37 S.F. 0 12317 50 S.F, 2 12317 -1 50 S.F. 2 12364 45 S.F. 2 12364 -1 27 S.F. 2 12402 152 Units 0 Total 397 13 ?he Engineer's Report for the District is also attached for final approval. The Report shows the estimated costs and includes a location map for each tract. Letters of intent. to join the District have been received from the developer >f eac,n t s ha<e been sent to the developers and the Resolution of ,rtent ion �nas been ;s:er'ised in the Daily Report Newspaper giving the time and place of the puhlic near Ing, v� R CM COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordering the Work in Connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. I July 18, 1W - ._. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the the subject annexation to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1. Res ectfully su mitted, L H• :Jaa Attachments ;/�4 • L • wmmi TERRA VISTA May 16, 1984 Hand Delivered City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RECEIVED Attention: John Martin Subject: Tract No. 12316 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear John: EI!GINEER!NC OIVIS!Orl Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. • Cordially, E LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLAS R. WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1156 N Mnnnldin 4e PO 9,, 670 Unlantl CA 91786 171419850971 Deeelane0 DY Lew -S HoleS 31572VT May 16, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Hand Delivered RECEIVED Attention: John Martin il•4Y : 7 Subject: Tract No. 12316 -1 CITY OF RANCHO CU1A6I0NGA ENGI1 EERING MVISION Dear John: Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cordially, LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLAS'R. WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1156 N Mmmlain Ave Po Oo +670 Upia�d CA 91786 (714) 9850971 0 • L J TERRA VISTA May 16, 1984 Hand Delivered City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9320 Base Line Road p� C C E V 2. CAN Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 °1416 Fri' Attention: John Martin i'P ,i -_ Subject: Tract No. 12317 Clty Or RANCHO CUCA7,ONCA Dear John: E!!5!CE'_R!%G ON LIN Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho • Cucamonga. Cordially, VJ LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLA R. WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1156 1 j V""'!' A,r PO 60, e/0 Uniznrl rA 91766 1714) 995 0971 4avain n =,• by � �wc �� ^�c � TERRA VISTA May 16, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: John Martin Subject: Tract No. 12317 -1 Dear John: Hand Delivered RECEIV PE. ® 17',x. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EP'GINEEWNG DIVISoN Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cordially, LEWIS HOMES OF CALI�FOORNIA DOUGLAS /�- Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1157 M MOII n: ti^ A.@ PO nn, 670 UDIdM (;A 91;86 17141 9850971 0 • l J U • TERRA VISTA May 16, 1964 City of Rancho Cucamonga Cotmnunity Development Department 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: John Martin Subject: Tract No. 12364 Dear John: Hand Delivered RECEIVED CIIV C: RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING ONIS:Orl Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Cordially, LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORRNNINA jam/ DOUGLAS t WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1156N MnummnA,e PO 80.670 U PIP lj CA 917P,6 f 714 985 -0971 (l�vem ron n., I . v c Nn -mom TERRA VISTA May 16, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: John Martin Subject: Tract No. 12364 -1 Dear John: Hand Delivered RECEIVED id.4Y 17 CIIy OF RANCHO CUCAMCNGA ENGINEERING O;VISION Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the existing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Cordially, LEWIS HOMES OFF CALIFORNIA / DOUGLAS (. WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 1!55 N Mow'I'a n Ave Pp Box 670 Uniand CA 91785 (714) 9850971 Oom�n non, ,,,� � �w•c MnmFC 0 • • nn 7LEM W A as: o • r�s:a- May 22, 1984 City of Rancho Cucamonga CoTClunity Development DeparUnent 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: John Martin Subject: Tract No. 12402 Dear John: Please accept this letter as our notification of intent to join the exist- ing landscape and street light maintenance districts of the City of Rancho • Cucamonga. Cordially, WESTERN PROPERTIES DOUGLAS R. WALKER Staff Engineer DRW:jgc 19 11•, Mounlam Avp PO hi , C70 Uo! 10 CA 91786 pva1 9950971 Crr + �T�n by l ewls Nornes 0 . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 Annexation No. 4 TRACTS 123166, 12316 -1 , 12317, 12317 -1, 12364, 12364 -1 AND 12402 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 the tracts enumerated in Exhibit "A" into Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the street lights to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within said tracts as well as on the lots directly abutting the street lights. Work to be provided for with the assessments established by the district are: • The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street light improvements on arterial and certain collector streets. Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be divided on a per lot basis. In the case of condominiums with airspace ownership only, and apartments, a dwelling unit shall be considered to benefit the same as a lot. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications The plans and specifications for street lighting have been prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifics were attached hereto. Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the illumination of the subject area. SECTION 4. Estimated Costs No costs will be incurred for street lighting improvement construction. Is All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on available data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will be as indicated below. These costs are estimated only, actual assessments will be based on actual cost data. The estimated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 . (including Annexation No. 4 comprised of 397 lots and 13 9500L street lights. is shown below: 1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy: Lamp Size* Quantity Rate ** 9500L 115 9,90 5800L 95 8.75 *High Pressure Sodium Vapor Lamps Rate Mo's Total 115 X 9,90 X 12 = 13,662.00 95 X 8.75 X 12 - 9,975.00 2. Costs per dwelling Unit: 23,637,00 Total Annual Maintenance Cost 22 3..1.637 = 1.87 /year /unit No. of Units in District* �uUS 7.87 divided by 12 = 50.66 /mo /unit • Assessment shall apply to each lot as explained in Section 6. SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this report and labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 111, Annexation No. 4. These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment Imorovement for the District are found to be of general benefit to all dwelling units within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each unit. Where there is more than one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of assessable land, the assessment for each lot or parcel shall be proportional to the number of dwelling units per lot or parcel. It is proposed that all future development shall be annexed to the District. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's • Report, 3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to annex to District and sets public hearing date. 4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to form a 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. E EXHIBIT "A" • Properties and improvements to he included within Annexation No. 4 of Street Lighting Maintenance District 1: Tract No of Units /Lots No of Street Lights 12316 36 S.F. 5 12316 -1 37 S.F. 0 12317 50 S.F. 2 12317 -1 50 S.F. 2 12364 45 S.F. 2 12364 -1 27 S.F. 2 12402 152 Units 0 M7 IT • • ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I ANNEXATION NO. 4 TRACT N0. 12316 e � 2 3 arm 4 B `O C g Vo � b 4 4zo 0 0 O0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA yc; COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO n STATE OF CALIFORNIA N19A ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 TRACT NO. 12316 -1 .. Base Line m Road - e �c 9 r 10 V o� 72 V a 0 �o Q m V Oo CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA y @ih COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ion n tl[le; A N naoo 0 • 12 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 TRACT N0. 12317 m m m r4a) 42 44 06 48 50 N 43 145 47 40 1 2 3 4 Q •C. Street 5 2 30 28 25 24 22 31 2B 27 25 3 21 c B C N 20 10 (D • �. 19 2 11 O W m d t8 y� 12 V O Z �~ 17 13 O • I B `� 14 4� • 15 Fri <O V 2� Qr O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO n STATE OF CALIFORNIA lv T T Ion I I oyn wnFGC PITY Fnir.i niv-a nnc +n•v. — DaQe 3 C Q Q C d .: ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 d 4 2 d 3 _J' TRACT N0. 12317 -1 .�%`` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM GA A �r COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN0 / \ 7a STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 • I TRACT NO. 12364 Base Line 44 45 'C' Str 43 42 4 1 27 28 26 25 24 23 21 Road 1 2 3 4 a e eet 7 40 39 38 ° 9 37 10 29 36 i •G. 30 35 N u- 17 4 31 12 33 32 13 S<teet 14 D 19 18 17 16 15 irrot.,� title; CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — A STATE OF CALIFORNIA N 1977 LLOYD HURBS, CITY ENGINEER R ^,F 23r+aa nnr� Page ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 TRACT NO. 12364 -1 Base Line Road p et y 7 a b s d � 4 m ct N 3 2 1 26 25 24 23 27 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �Cf s w title; COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO , \ _ 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA VI i I_ 9n �InVn MIPPS /` ITV FN/:IIF:p qr^q gyp.M • i ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION NO. 4 m rz C m Q m Y LOT 1 TRACT N0. 12402 LOT s LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 2 P alk"1 ay CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 19TI 11 nvn NnFRC CITY FNGMFFR RCF 7RR4 nrc Ltle; A N page • RESOLUTION NO. 94- -18--e1,CR A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NOS. 12316, 12316 -1, 12317, 12317 -1, 12364, 12364 -1 and 12402 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 20th day of June, 1984, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 84 -178 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 84 -178 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 s: 'd Resolution of Intention No. 84 -178 according to the names and addresses or 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 cop .s 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 oposed 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. 84 -178 be done and made; and SECTION 2: The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; a— SECTION 3: The assessments and method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. V] SECTION 4: 'he assessments shall not begin until after 60 percent of • said tracts aif ve Feen occupied. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A. Autheiet, City Clerk jaa Jon D. Mike s, Mayor 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA \\ Ci CA.Aipt v MEMORANDUM Date: July 9, 1984 To: City Council . V From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: An Amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code F.stablishina Criteria for Private Open Space Credit Aqainst Resident,,; Subdivision Park Dedication Reauirements. The procedure as currently outlined in the Municipal Code for granting private open space credit is open to interpretation and, therefore, not an ideal law. The attached Ordinance, presents a manner in which this lack of clarity can be rectified. Specifically, this is accomplished by addinq E(6) which defines what is eligible for credit and the procedure for applying for credit consideration. A second change in the ordinance references E(6) in E(7), stating, in essence, the criteria is the same for both sections. The balance of the ordinance, F.(6) and R(7) aside, remain as before. The Park Advisory Committee, new the Park Development Commission, recommends the Ordinance as presented. we have attached hereto the PAC staff Reonrt to • explain how and why the Ordinance was constructed as it is. In light of the devastating effect that Senate Bill 2137 will have on park dedication provisions should it succeed, a public park dedication safety measure could be built in if it were the Council's pleasure. Specifically, that safety measure would be to amend F(6) as follows, rather than as attached: "(6) That the open space for which credit is givnn is a MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES and provides a minimum of FOUR of the elements listed below, or a combination of such, and other recreational improvements that will meet the specific recreation park needs of the future residents of the area: Criteria List A Children's play apparatus B Family Aar -b -que picnic area C Game court area D swim pool with adjacent deck and bath -house E Recreation Building The subdivider requesting consideration for private open space credit shall, as part of the submittal filing, include: continued ... rage 2 7/9/84 Credit for Private Open Space (t) Written request for such consideration by the Planning Commission; and (2) Submit detailed plans and specifications for areas and improvements within such proposed private open space. The Planning Commission shall, as an element of the review for private open space credit, solicit comments and recommendations from the Park Development Commission on all such applications." The difference is readily apparent ... that is the three acre minimum requirement. This would virtually eliminate private open space credit unless it was extraordinary in nature and scope, allowing all dedication requirements to be directed to public community improvements. If I can provide further information, please adivse. • • • L CITY OF RANCHO CCCAMONCA MEMORANDUM Date: ;anuary 5, 1984 Tq: Par% +dvisory Committee -rom: Hill Holley, Director, Community Ser.•ices pepartment ;abject: Credit for Private Open Spaca . Z in distilling the comments and concerns of the romnittee with regards to the above referenced subjert, I think I have the essence of where you would like to go. -first concern centered on 'equity'. The small developer could not reasonable Fleet a minimum three acre requirement. For that matter, in most instances, the average developer could not meet a two acre or even a one acre minimum requirement, 59tablishing a minimum would virtually eliminate credit for private open space for all but the largest developers. Second concern was for thwarting the 'creativity' of the developer by prasccibinq what was to go into the credited private open space and specifying design criteria (i.e., swimming pool minimum - 42'x75' with adjacent decking, �tg.) This would perhaps stifle an innovative approach to the proiect. What I bollove T heard the Committee say, was that you wished for a way to recommend private npan space guidelines to Council that would recocnice and address both the concerns of 'equity' and 'creativity'. T` the shove perception was correct, the Eollowina Pxample_ illustrates a rvethod of addressing both 'equity' and 'creativity'. Examplr: Project "X" A. Project X ... Gross Acres 15 Total Units 135 Units to Acre 9 Pop. per Unit 1.52 A. Total Park Requirement (TPR) N x 5 x P= TPP 135 x .nn3 , 1.52 = 0.515 acres C. Pn va to i)non .0 pa ra Rligibility (pOE G) - 502 maximum 0.615 x .50 = 0.307 a,:rPs Pn1e D. ,c•.ive Private :Open Space (APOS) reglli ramont,: • 501, or 0.153 acres, of private open. space, 4s calculated in "C" anove, he active in 3esign and natars containinq at least thee? elements representative of the following: Children's Play Apparatus Area Bar -B -p /Picnic :ame Court Area S'wimminq Pool w /Deck and Bath -house Recreation Building She real key factor in the above is- "D ". while "B" determines overall requiremen ts and T" sets a ceiling limit on available credit, "D" actually �1•termines what the credit 'sill be. Let us return to Protect "X" for two different illustrations, the first in which 503 of "✓' is active, and in the ,econd, 31% is active. First •.• n.615 ( "B ") x Spy - 0.307 ( "C ") x 50? = 0.153 ( "D ") 0.153 x 2 = 49.73 or rounded off to 50% credit 0.615 Balance to City through in lieu fees, or ... (L + D) x linnet Requirement = Fee (S60,onn + S48,000) x n.307 = $33,156 "a 0.615 ( +B ") X 50% = 0.307 ( "C ") x 313 = 0.095 ( "D ") 0.095 x 2 - 3n.BA or rounded to 311 0.615 Balance to City through in lieu fees, or ... (L + D) x N.R. - Pee (S60,on0 + S48,OnO) x 0.424 = S45,792 In closing this mathematical exercise, for comparative purposes, what if Project "X" had no private open spare ... what if they simply chose to pay fees? (L + n) x Proitrement = Fee ($60,00) + $49,000) x 0.615 = S66,42n • 'rh, precedinq he, not been written into ordinance, fern ... it is set forth as a concept. noes this ,,oncnpt address your concerns of 'equity' and 'creativity'? If sn, we will then pmt it into ordinance form and set the • 'wheels in motion (City Attorney, R.I.A. Public Hearings, Council, etc.). live me. a call or ,top by and we can discuss your views. • Several closing comments relative to the above ... Project "X "'s total requirement was 0.615 parts of an acre, which is 26,789 square feet. If "X" gets 50% credit for private open space, this is equivalent to 13,394 square feet. To get a picture of what 13,394 square feet is, it is equivalent to 1/6 of a soccer field; a square piece of land measuring 115' x 1151; or, 2 and 2/3 tennis courts. Is this usable? Not for soccer or 2/3 of a tennis court. However, it could house i) a 25 % 50 foot pool with decking and a bath -house (3750 square feet); and a playground 30' x 50' (1500 square feet); and a 1,447 square foot bar -b -q /picnic area. Additionally, you would have 6,697 square feet of passive area and buffer. Would this be useful to the 205 residents of Project "X "? On the other hand, what does this leave for public parks? $33,156. would the developer have done this anyway as a marketing amenity to sell his product? • There is no one right answer ... it is a judgment decision. You can make a case from either side. oMINAMCE Me 105-0 AN OHUINAMCE OF 112 CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF HasAn0 • CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SON - SECTION E OF SECTION 16.12.030 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO PAWL AND RECREATIONAL LAND DEDICATION RaiturtOmPfS. The City Council of Me City of Rancho COO."., California, does ordain a frilws: Section 1: Sub- •octlon E of Section 16.12.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amonded an follwa: -Credit for Priest& Open Space'. who,• private open spate for park and ...coati anal purpc... is Provided in • peopceed mWdlHmion, and much spat. is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of Me mubdlvision, such arum may be credit" against not more than fifty percent (501) of the requirement o. dedication and development for Fork and rVr,.utlw Paribas .., .. set forty In this article, or no payment of fees In lieu thereof, as mat forth herein, provided the Planning Commission finds it is in Me public interest to do u, mad Nat Me following standards or. more (1) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required to he mainulud by Me arming end bulldt" peoHSloma of Mls Code .hall not be included in Me nwptatlon of such private open space, and (2) That Me private owmershlp and Wntenance of the open spot. is adpuatsly Provided for by written agreements and (1) That Me ese of Me pelota upon space is restricted for park .ad ,.cruel anal porpous by ....Edell coesmant. which man with Me land In favor of Me esistLnq and for.. to of property within Me subdivision and which cannot be defeat" or eliminated without Me =want of Me Councils and • (a) That Me proposed phutme open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking Into consideration such face.,. .. •lee, shape. topegraphy, 9..logY, access and location of the private open .par. laid, and (5) That facilities proposed for Me open .pace are In substantial accordance Mies Me Provisions of the recreation and parks •lea. nt Of the general plan for Me City and are approved by Me Planning Coad..ViOn, and (6) That the open space for which credit is granted is fifty percent (501) active in design and function, contiguous In nature, and contains, a minimum of three of Me elemonta listed Miw, or a combination of other recces tlaesl improvements Mat Ville in Me Hew of the Cliff seat the Specific recreation needs of Me future residents a the &teat criteria List A Chlldreo'r play apparatus E Family "t -b-one' picnic ana c Guam Court area D Swim pool with adjacent deck and bath-house E Rec... tlon Nullding The eubdivlder requeetinq consideration for private open space credit .hall, as part of Me submittal filing, Sncludet (N) written request for such consideration by the Planning Cwei..irn, mod (2) Submit detailed plans and specifications for areas and improvements within such Proposed private open spec, e,1 Thew Planning Commission *hall, u an element of the review for Private open -Para credit, solicit commence and mcoemendatinn. flow the Park • Davalopent Camlssim on all e9ch appllcatlon.. Section 21 Sub- •ectlon r of Section 16.33.030 of the Rancho Commonga Municipal Cade I. hereby awarded as full-., -Credit for Private Own Swee - planed Cosmunitime- Where private open .pare for park and mcmati.nal purposes 1s PTOylded in a P1aM-d community and Portion• of or all such -pace la to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the planned —.unity or publicly dedicated and maintained by a special assessment district, credit against the requirement of dedication for park and recreational pox dee., es met forth In Section 16.32.020 G .hall be deteraln.d through the adoption of the planned community text; provided, however, that the park standard for the planned community Se the rue am for any other development and that the Plano ..q commission find- It is in the public interest to do An and that the Standards for private Open .pace, as met forth In Section 16.33.030 e, are met. Section 31 All other portion* of Ordiwnw 105 .hall remeln In full form am affect. Section h The Mayor -bell •lq. this ordimew. wed the City Clerk .hall caess the emu to be published within fifteen (151 days after its p.... 9. at 1...c one I. The Daily exert, A new.pepr of general circulation published In the City of Ontario. California, and circulated in "a City of Mart. Conmnga, California. PASSMv APPMO95D, and MOPT® this _ of , 198 AM WOES, • AMXNTt Jon o. Mikele, Mayor ATT[ST, Beverly A. A9 thebtt, City Clark • • is MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12, 1984 T0: Mayor and Members of the C'ty Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Gary Richards, Code Enfo c ent Officer SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - FLY PRO LEM - HILLSIDE /HERMOSA AREA �° yy Ih On Tuesday, July 10, 1984, staff contacted Jim Smith, Vector Control Officer for the County Environmental Health Department (Fly Control), regarding the status of the maintenance of the chicken ranches north of 19th Street that are owned by Mr. Maust /Sunshine Foods. According to Mr, Smith, Mr. Maust has completed all the requirements to the satisfaction of the County Environmental Health Department. These requirements included: 1. The removal of all existing piles of chicken manure, 2. The adjustment and repair of the watering /cooling system so that it does not wet existing manure under the coops, and 3. The addition of bait stationers, where required. Mr. Smith continued by stating that the completion of these requirements by Sunshine Foods would not necessarily resolve the fly situation. However, several other areas are being investigated by Environmental Health to assist in reducing this problem area, These areas include: 1. The inspection of all remaining egg ranches south of 19th Street to ensure compliance with the above noted County regulations, 2. The inspection of all vacant orchards within the City to ensure that they are being properly maintained. We will keep you informed of the status of this situation as the information becomes available. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Gary Richards or me. RG:GR:ns ' 1. r- i 1 LJ 1 i.aa a yr neuvs,nv UUu"IV1VlrA GtG.4C, _ MEMORANDUM z , 1977 July 12, 1984 TO: City Council and Manager FROM: Mark Lorimer, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Mobilehome Park Mediation In discussing the matter of mobilehome park mediation at its next meeting, the City Council should be aware that existing ordinance no. 148, which provides for a meet - and - confer session, will automatically expire on August 5 unless further action is taken. Additionally, should the Council wish to alter that ordinance and implement a rent mediation /arbi- tration ordinance or similar form of ordinance, it will be necessary for staff to complete an environmental impact report (EIR) to determine whether or not there is any existing shortage of mobilehome space, or a low vacancy rate exists and rents are excessive. This information provides the City with adequate Justification in the event of court challenges and provides the ordinance with a basis in fact. From a preliminary review, it appears that (1) a shortage of mobilehome spaces does exist, (2) there is a vacancy factor less than 1%, and (3) the rents are competitive with surrounding cities for parks with similar amenities. A survey of the vacancy rates at all eight parks within the City, which is certified by each park manager and /or owner, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of Birkenfield vs. the City of Berekely. At the present time staff is investigating a request by a member of the Council mobilehome park subcommittee for an ordinance which could amend ordinance no. 148, eliminate the meet - and - confer process and provide for mediation and final binding arbitration in cases where mediation proved unsuccessful. The requested ordinance could also establish the following: 1. a five - member tenants committee in each of the eight parks, to be elected by majority vote of the park tenants. 2, reg.stration of all mobilehome units, managers, and owners' businesses by the park owners. 3. special criteria for a tenants committee to petition the City for mediation should the owner propose a rent increase in excess of 1008 of the C.P.I. The content of the petition could require a majority vote of the park tenants before being submitted to the City. 4, a mediation process and a re- negotiation through mediation process for purposes of addressing rent increases and other park disputes. Mobilehome Park Mediation Page 2 • 5. a process for binding arbitration should a tenants committee and the owner fail to agree in. mediation. Prior to arbitration, a proposal would have to have been defeated in a special election of the entire park. Further, a majority vote of the tenants would have to approve the case proceeding to arbitration. 6. criteria for the purpose of a rental increase to be used by the arbitrator, including consideration of C.P.I., property tax and utility increases, general maintenance and operations, and capital improvements. The advantages of this mediation /arbitration ordinance could include the fact that the process is directed primarily by the owners and tenants, by way of allowing all tenants to approve (by special vote) the actions of their representatives. In essence, the bargaining power of the tenants committee remains, yet that committee does not approve the final agreement. The ordinance also could allow all tenants to become more involved in and aware of the process of mediation and arbitration, and could allow all tenants the right to decide whether or not their tenants committee should venture into mediation and /or arbitration. Recommendation For purposes of the July 18 meeting, it is recommended that the City Council • direct staff to prepare an urgency ordinance for adoption on August 1 which would extend ordinance no. 148 for a period of sixty days. Further, it is recommended that Council direct staff to research the necessity of an environ- mental impact report and to prepare a first draft of the mediation /arbitration ordinance requested for by a member of the mobilehome park subcommittee. MG:ml ^�� 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM July 12, 1984 TO: City Council and Manager FROM: Mark Lorimer, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Recent Mobilehome Park Developments GI;GMp 1 z° ID Since the Council last discussed the matter of mobilehome parks at its February 15 meeting, the following developments have occured: 1. Ramona Villa Mobilehome Park After an initial meet- and - confer to discuss a proposed 11.8% rent increase, the new park owner and tenants committee ventured into mediation with the Inland Mediation Board acting as mediator. From the mediation session, the park owner proposed a five -year long term lease which was rejected by the tenants committee. The owner, however, reintroduced a second draft of the lease at a special meeting of all park tenants. After at least three general meetings of the park owner and tenants, the owner appears confident that the lease proposed will recieve the necessary approval for implementation. Attached is a copy of the current lease proposed. Ramona Villa has been the only request for a meet- and- confer session since last February. 2. Rent Increases not Challenged Four parks have received rent increases since last February and all four increases were not contested to the City by a tenants committee. Those parks and rent increases are as follows: MOBILE HOME PARK LEASE PARK: RAMONA VILLA •DATE OF EXECUTION: LOT NO.: RESIDENT: This is a Lease made and executed on the date set forth above by and between Park, as set forth above, hereinafter referred to as LESSOR, and the residents, each of them listed above, hereinafter referred to as LESSEE. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES: LESSOR leases to LESSEE and LESSEE hires from LESSOR the lot indicated above within LESSOR's Mobile Home Park to be used as a residence by LESSEE and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of LESSOR. 2. TERM: The initial term of this lease shall be for years, • commencing on , 19 and ending by rG noon on As used herein, the expression "TERM HEREOF" refers to this term or any renewal thereof as hereinafter provided. No Less than sixty (60) days prior to July 1, 1986, LESSEE may give notice to LESSOR of termination of this Lease July 1, 1986 in which event LESSEE shall become a month -to -month tenant on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed to by LESSEE and LESSOR. 3. RENT: LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR $ per month as rent. rent will be duc in advance on the first day of each Me month with the first payment of rent due for the month of on 19 . All rent shall be paid at the c house located within the Park without any set -off or deduction whatsoever. If the rent is not paid by the 5th of the month, a late charge of $10 or 5% of the rent, whichever is greater, will be charged to cover LESSOR's costs for .additional accounting and collection expenses. Additionally, a handling charge of $5.00 may be required for aLl checks returned by the bank due to insufficient funds in the LESSEE's account or for any other reason. The provision shall not be construed as a waiver by LESSOR of its right to require payment in legal tender or to enforce any provision Is hereof after any default on the part of the LESSEE. Furthermore, the acceptance of payments shall not constitute a waiver of any breach of any rule, regulation or any covenant of the Lease Agreement, nor shall it reinstate, continue or extend the term of the party's Lease Agreement or affect any notice, demand or suit hereunder. As additional rent, LESSEE promises and agrees Burin- the term hereof to pay his prorata share (based upon the number of lots in the park) of cost to LESSOR for the following • items: A. Increases or decreases in the cost of governmental required services and modifications, including increased costs or charges for water, sewer and trash. B. Increase (in excess of the 2X per annum) or decrease in property taxes. C. Ninety percent (90X) of the increase or decrease in the Los Angeles -Long Beach - Anaheim Area, United States Department of Labor Consumer Price Index (AL1 Urban Consumers) calculated each year as of March 1 commencing March 1, 1985 provided that during the first five (5) years of the Lease Term the increase under this sub - paragrapn shall in no event be Less than 6% per annum nor more than 10% per annual .ind further provided that during the balance of the Lease Term the increase under this sub - paragraph shall in no event be less than 5% per annum nor more than 12% per annum. D. The cost of capital investments or uninsured Losses made at the Park after date of lease amortized over five years. Allowable rent adjustments due to cost of living will be effected annually commencing July 1, 1985. (Other allowable increases will be adjusted from date of accrual.) • See attached "Lease Supplement" for explanation of allowable rent increases. UTILITIES AND OTHER CHARGES: Utilities and other charges are additional rent. A statement itemizing all charges will be furnished each LESSEE prior to the first day of each month. LESSEE shall pay for the following utilities: natural gas and electricity at P.U.C. rates. LESSOR shall furnish the following utilities and services as part of the basic rent: water, sewer dud LrasL disposal; however, increases In the st of the same shall constitute additional rent. USE PROHIBITED: LESSEE shall not use or permit the leased premises or any part thereof to be used for any purpose other than as a residence for the persons listed above. No other pern;ons may reside at the premises without the prior written permission of Park Manager, who may grant or withhold such permission at Park Manager's sole discretion. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. Written permission necessary .rom Park Manager for guests visiting Longer than one mon Lh. GUIDELINES AND PARK REGULATIONS: • During the term of this lease, LESSEE shall comply with all Park guidelines and procedures, a copy of which is atrached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, which may be changed from time to time pursuant to the terms of Sar.tion 798.25 of the California Civil Code. ABANDONMENT PROHIBITED: LESSEE shall not vacate or abandon the premises at any time during the term hereof. If LESSEE shall abandon, vacate or surrender the oremises, any personal property belonging to the LESSEE left on the premises shall be deemed to be abandoned at the option of LESSOR. LESSOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY: LESSEE shall permit LESSOR and the agents and employees of LESSOR to enter into and upon the leased premises (Lot only) at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the same and for the purpose of posting notices of non - responsibility for alterations, additions or repairs without any rebate of rent and without any liability to LESSEE for loss of quiet enjoyment. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS: If any action at law or equity shall be brought to recover any rent or any utility fees due under this lease or on account of any breach of, or to enforce or interpret any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this lease or the rules attached hereto or for the recovery of possession (if the leased premises, the prevailing parties shall be entitled to recover from the other party as part of the prevailing party's costs, reasonable attorney's fees, the amount of which shall be fixed by the court and made part of any judgment or decree rendered. • 10. WAIVER: The waiver by LESSOR and LESSEE of or the failure of LESSOR or the LESSEE to take action in any respect by any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained, shri Ll not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or subsequent breach of the same, or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acreplance. of rent by LESSOR shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by LESSEE of any term, covenant or condition of this lease other than the failure of LESSEE to pay the particular rent so accepted, regardless of LESSOR's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of accepting sucn rent. 11. EXTENSION OF LEASE; Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this lease shall be construed to extend this lease for an additional year on the terms and conditions herein specified for a maximum term not to exceed ( ) years. she amount of rent due for the term of such a period of •:xtension may be altered according; to the terms of Section 798.30 et seq. of the California Civil Code. 12. ASSIGNMENT: LESSEE shall have the right to assign his interest in tnis Lease, the leased premises and his mobile home, atl. with the consent of LESSOR, which consent sha1L not be unr..•r:n,nabl.y withheld. 1. 3, RESPONSIBILITY OF LESSOR: It is the responsibility of LESSOR to provide and maintain the physic 11 improvements in the common facilities of 0,! Park in good working condition. LESSOR will provido the following facilities in the park. A. Clubhouse which includes assembly room, card roar., Library, kitchen and poolroom. B. Swimming pool, sauna and jacuzzi. Heating, especially • with regard to any particular temperature, cannot be guaranteed because management will abide by and conform to energy conservation programs established by government or utility companies. C. Laundry room facility. D. Storage areas for recreational vehicles and boats, but subject to availability and to posted rules and regulations and applicable extra charge(s). This paragraph shall not be deemed to take away any oL the rights of the LESSEE as set forth in the "Residency Guidelines and Community Procedures" dates December 31, 1977, or es updated. 14. NOTICE OF CHANGE IN RULES AND GUIDELINES: LESSOR shall, after having provided LESSEE with at least ten (10) days prior written notice of the matter to be discussed, meet and consult with LESSEE either individually or collectively on the following matters regarding general Park operations: A. Amendments to the Park rules and regulations as attached hereto; • B. Standards for maintenance and physical improvements in the Park; C. Additions, alterations or deletions of services, equipment and physical improvements. Any change in the "Residency Guidelines and Community Procedures" shall not be construed so as to change dny of the paragraphs in this lease so as to affect the substantive rights, duties and compliance of the LESSOR and the LESSEE. Notification of such changes will comply with the California Civil Code. 15. TRM :SFER OF LESSOR'S INTEREST: In the event LESSOR transfers its interest in the Park or any portion thereof, LESSOR shall be automatically relteved n:. any obligations hereunder accruing after the date of sucn transfer. Such obligations shall be assumed by the trars,'eree. 15. GOVLR'IING i.AW: Thi; Lease Agreement shall be governed by and cons!:rucd pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 17. AMEITXENTS: • Thi: Lease Agreement, Lease Supplement and the written documents referred to herein contain the entire agreements betoeen the LESSOR and LESSEE and may be amended only in writing and with acceptance by LESSOR and LESSEE. 18. EMINENT DOMAIN: The rights of the LESSEE and LESSOR shall be determined by • the California Law of Eminent Domain. 19. INCORPORATION OF RULES AND LAW: LESSOR and LESSEE hereby acknowledge that the rules of the Mobilehome Park have been made a part hereto as have copies of Section 798 through Section 799.6 of the California Civil Code and that these documents are incorporated into this lease and are made a part of it. In the event of conflicts between this lease and the appropriate section of the California Civil Code, the Code prevails. 20. ACKNOWLEDGMENT: LESSOR and LESSEE agree that this lease and Lease Supplement contain the entire agreement between the parties relating to the lease of lot within LESSOR's MobileHOme Park. All prior negotiations or stipulations concerning this matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of this document are conclusively deemed to have been superseded. However, this lease may be altered by written agreement of LESSOR and LESSEE or by the operation of law. LESSEE also acknowledges that he received copies of Section 798 through 799.6 of the California Civil Code and the "Residency Guidelines and Community Procedures" which are incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement between the parties as those set forth in full. LESSEE also acknowledges that he has read, understood and received copies of this lease agreement • and all attachments hereto and agrees to be bound by its term::. Dated: Dated: Dated: Dated: By OWNER OR AGENT (MUST BE SIGNED TO BE VALID) Dated: n" MANAGER 1] MOBILE HOME PARK LEASE SUPPLEMENT •I. RENT ADJUSTMENTS: A. GOVERNMENT REQUIRED SERVICES: These services include, but are not limited to, fees for water, sewer, trash pick -up and trash bin rental. Monthly rental presently includes LESSEE prorata share of these costs. The cost of providing any new or 'additional services required by government, as well as any increase in cost of existing services, at this mobile home park will also be passed on to each LESSEE on a per lot basis. LESSOR will make available LESSEE copies of actual bills to verity the increase in government required services. B. TAXES: Any increase in taxes (in excess of 2% per annum) over the base fiscal year preceding the date of this lease will be pa:,::ed on to each LESSEE on a per lot basis. LESS ij!t i L I make available to LESSEE copies of actual bills to verify the Increase in taxes. C. CONSIIMER PRICE INDEX: Sub jecc to the minimum and maximum adjustments set forth in Par:;graph 3.A., the rental shall be adjusted upwards or downwards once each year, according to ninety percent (90%) of 'lie increase in the cost of living as reported by the • Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor (or other applicable United States UepartmenLS should the !,nbor Department discontinue same) for the Los Angeies -Long Beach- Anaheim Area, United States Department, of Lahur Consumer Price Index (All. Urban Consumers) utiinq as a base the Consumer Price Index for March, 1983. D. CAI'f TAL INVESTMENT:, Capital investments are additions, improvements or betterments made to the Park as compared to items normally considered everyday maintainance expenses, including those required by a government entity. LESSOR will be paid the cost of such improvements, amortized and payable over a period of five (5) years. At the expiration of the five (5) years, the rent adjustment on account of the capital investment shall be deleted from the then rent payable by LESSEE to LESSOR. Capital expenditures over $10,OOU.00 (for any one item) are subject to a majority vote of ballots cast (1 lor, 1 vote). Capital expenditures mandated by i governmental body are not subject to vote. lndividunl capital expenditures costing less than $5,000.00 per item shall not be considered capital investment, except LC re,l,.ired by a governmental body. LESSOR agrees prior ':y June 30, L985 to repair the streets within the Park and to refurbish the club house and pool area, and further agrees th:i: the core of the same shall. not be capital invesluments. Capitnt investments shall not be included in the c:LL:l oi' :n_,,• Consumer Price Index rental adjustment. i ORDINANCE NO. 168 AN ORDINANCE Of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ADDING CHAPTER 8.10 TO TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO CUCAM]NGA MUIICI- PAL CODE TO PRDVIDE FOR A MDALLE HMM PARR RENT MIATICH PROCESS. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, CiIlfornia, door ordain u follows: SECTION 1: Title 8 of the Reomho CucuoaSS Municipal Coda is hereby amended by adding Chapter 8.10 to read as follwe: "Chapter 8.10 'MOBILE ROME PARR RENT (EDIATION "Sections "8.10.010 Intent and purpose. "8.10.020 Right to petition. 118.10.030 Coat=" of petition. 118.10.060 Filing and teas. "8.10.050 Preliminary processing. "8.10.060 Meat- and - confer session. "S.10.070 Appeal. "8.10.080 Conduct and mediation. "8.10.090 Fitullcy Of decision. "S.10. 100 Judicial relief. "8.10.110 Rmedlee for failure to attend wet -snd- confer aessfun. "8.10.120 Rescheduling and continuances. "B.IO.OIO Intent and Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter fa co nteblish a mandatory mmee -and- confer preteen becuan tenants and owners of mobile home parks with respect to certain proposed rent Increases. "B.10. 020 Rf¢ht co osticion. within thirty (30) days after a owner of • mob1L home park has given notice to one tenants thereof of a proposed rent increase which exceeds the consumer price indeed as outlined in Section 8.10.050, Cho tenants may petition the City to Call a mandatory meet -ad- confer session between Cho mobile home park owner and a comittes representing Cho tenants for the purpose of discusain8 the proposed rent increase and the reasons therefor. "8.10.010 Contents of petition. Any petition filed pursuant to this chapter shall contain all of the following information: "A. The named and address of the mobile home park. "8. The name and address of the owner(,) of the mobile home park. "C. The number of spaces in the mobile home park. "D. The number of spaces which were vacant on the date Cho notice of rent increase was given. "E. A statement of rho existing rent schedule and the proposed rent schedule.• orainance Wo. : -d Page I r • "F. A statement of the rent Schedule to eE[eec as of Melva (12) moths prior to the dace on which the proposed rent increase would be effective. . "G. A brief statement of the reasons why petitioners believe the proposed rent increase is noC Justified and A request for a mor-and-confer Session with the mobile home park awns[. "N, The signatures of and identification of the mobiL, hose specs occupied by each tenant signing the sere. "I. the nines of a tenants' C- mICtee of not sore than five (5) persons, designating one (1) person as Chairperson. "J. The mobile home park owner shall provide the petitioners, upon request, with such Information identified in A through F above as petitioner, require to emplace the petition. 4.10.040 Filing and fees. "A. Any petition filed pursuant to this chapter shall be filed in Cho Office of the City Clark. "B. No petition tendered for filing pursuant to this chapter shall be filed unless the filing fee therefor, in an amount established by resolution of the City Council, is first paid. • "8.10.050 Preliminary oro .... Ing. Within three (1) working days after receiving a petition filed pursuant to this chapter, the City Clark will review the one to determine whether a meet- and - confer session shall be required. A meet- - and- confer session a4a11 be required only if: "A. The petition contains the signatures of tenants representing more than fifty percent (502) of the occupied mobile home spaces in the mobile home park. "B. The petition contains all of the information required by Section 8.10.040 hereof; and, 'C. She proposed rent increase when added to all rent increases which were effactive during the 12 months immediately proceeding the affective date of the proposed rent increase computes to be a am grater than seventy -five (752) of the percentage by which the Cos Mgaln -tong Beach- Anaheim Are, Consumer Price !ndes for Urban gage Earners and Clerical Workers, as reporter .y the United States bureau of tabor Statistics, has incraased in the twelve (12) months Immediately preceding the dace of Cho moat recently published CPI information. "If the City C rk determine, that a petition complies with the requirement, of Cis section, the City Clerk shall select a dace, time and place for a seat -and- confer session between the Conant.' committee and the mobil, home park owner. Whenever possible, the date selected shall be at least can • (10) days prior to the effective date of the proposed rant increase. The City Clerk shall, by certified mail, give notice of the meeting to the chairperson of the tenants' Committee and CM mobile home park owner. Ordinance vo. ::d Page 3 L J 008.10.060 Nett -mime- confer session. At the mandatory meet -end- confer session, the taunts' committee and the mobile home park owner, or a duly authorized representative, shall meet for the purpose of exchanging Snformaclon, opinions and proposals with respect to the proposed rent increase. The r mobile home park owner shall be prepared to give an "planation of the necessity for a rant increeae in excess of the Consumer Price Index percentage described in Sacclon 8.10.0500 and the mobile home park owner shall also be prepared to inform the tenants as to the "Cure of any substantial improvements proposed for the mobile home park during the next year, together with the information that would substantiate the proposed intressa. The parties shall endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of discussion. "8.10.070 Appeal. If agreement on the amount of the proposed rent Increase cannot be reached between the resents' committee and the mpblle home park owner, either party may appeal to the West End Mediation Board, located in Ontario, California, for further mediation and conciliation. Modem of much appeal must be filed with the City Clark not mere than five (5) days after termination of the mandatory wet -and- confer session. A "tics of appeal will not be received for filing unless it is accompanied by payment of 1/2 of the fee established by resolution of the City Council, which said fee shall be in an amount appropriate to comp nseta the West End Mediation Board for the mediation services to be rendered. • The responding party shall pay the other 1/2 of the fee vithin 10 days. "8.10.080 Conduct and Mediation. Mediation by the West End Mediation Board shall be conducted in accordance with standards of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The West End Mediation Board shall prepare a awry of facts concerning the proposed rent increase in the event the mobile home park owner and the tenants' committee cannot reach mutual agreement upon A proposed rant increase. Such summary of facts presented by the West End Mediation Board shall be advisory. "8.10.090 Finaliry of Decision. the sumaq of facts concerning the proposed rent increase prepared by the West End Mediation 3wrd shall be the final adminiscracive action upon any petition filed pursuant to this chapter with no provisions for further appeal. Such findings and recommendations shall be public records and may be careif/ed by the secrecary of the West End Mediation Board, if any, or by the City Clark. "8.10.100 Judicial Ralief. Nothing in this chapter !hall be deemed to preclude any mobile home park tenant or sabile home park owner from seeking and obtaining any approprtate judicial relief. "9.:0.110 Remedies for failure co attend meet- and - confer less lc ns. "A. If the !snorers' committee fella to attend a scheduled meet- and - confer session or a achedulwd mediation session before the West End Mediation Board, the City Clerk shall order the petition dismissed and no further proceedings shalt be had thereon. Ordinance Xc. 1 +3 Page 4 "B. If the mobile hams park Owner, or an authorised • representative, falls to attend a scheduled meet -and- confer session or a scheduled mediation session before the West End Mediation Board, then the proposed rent increase shall not become effective until such time as the while home park owner, or an authorized representative, ham in fact accendad a rescheduled msea and - confer session or a rescheduled mediation session before the West End Mediation Board, es the case may i be. "3.10.120 Rsechndulins and cOntlnueateS. "A. Rescheduling of wsc -and- confer sessions shall be dons by the City Clerk. Rascheduliog of esdlaslon sessions before the West End Mediation Board Shall be done by the sacretsry of the Vest End Mediation Board. Any such rescheduled session shall be held within footrests (14) "leader days of the dace originally Set therefor. "g, A meat- and - conifer session may be continued by written atipulatiom of the temats' cossssttee and the while home park owner or his or bar authorised raprementative Ad such stipulation shall be filed with the City Clerk. A hearing on any Appeal to the West End Mediation Board my be continued in accordance with the coifs esmblished by the West Ed Mediation Board. ". SECTION 2: TERMINATION: Unless extended by action of the Clcy Council. Nis Ordinance shall terminate And haw On force and effect three Years after adoption. SECTION 7: The Mayor shall Sian this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall sctasc to the ase. and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, At least .nee in The Oa11v Reoaq A newspaper of general circulation, published In the City of Ontario, California, ad circulated in the City oL Rancho Cucamonga, California. APPROVED and ADOPTED this Sch day of August, 1981. AYES: Frost, Nikels, Bridge, Schlosser NOES: Palombo ABSENL• Nona Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Laure�� man, [Lr�- M 0 • As . MEMORANDUM 9 Date: July 10, 1984 C `s To: City Coun ci� and City Manager - From: nick)mgjk4 &3 Project Coordinator I/ Subject: APPROVAL OF THE VICTORIA WINDROWS PARK CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGENDA N0. 6O Victoria windrows Park is an approximately 8 acre park facility that will be the first park built in the Victoria Planned Community. Located adjacent to a proposed elementary school site, the conceptual design for the park takes into consideration the needs of the school children, as well as the general community. Previous discussions with the School District have indicated the need for athletic field areas for softball, baseball and soccer sports and these facilities are incorporated into the park plan. Additionally, the plan proposes a parking area, a children's play apparatus area, a restroom building and walkways connecting to the adjacent residential areas. At the request of the Park Development Commission and the Equestrian Trials Committee, an equestrian trail has been incorporated into the park development plan along the southerly perimeter of the park adjacent to Windrows Loop. A significant factor in the design of the park was the retention of the existing eucalyptus tree wind rows within the park site. The conceptual development plan was designed in such a manner as to leave these trees intact, thereby enhancing the overall aesthetic value of the park. The attached exhibit indicates the proposed plan for the Windrows Park project. The Park Development Commission and Planning Commission have reviewed the plan and recommended that the park plan be submitted to the City Council for review and approval. The William Lyons Company has indicated that with approval by City Council, they will proceed with the preparation of Working drawings. They anticipate the park construction will begin in late summer 1984. RECOMMFNDATION That the City Council review and approve the conceptual development plan for Windrows Park. cc: Hill Holley attachment �, l Ij ��/ � �� i �� t 7' ! �� ...� 0 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: July 11, 1984 To: City Council and City Manager From: Dick Mgy�r `P Lk Project Coordinator ` is ^srn�� .`fit,., \•y rum Subject: APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONCERNING THE NAMING OF CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN RANCHO CUCAMONGA Agenda No. 6E BACKGROUND At it's meeting of June 21, 1984, the Park Development Commission discussed the issue of the naming of existing and proposed park facilities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As a result of that discussion, the Commission has Proposed the following names for the proposed and existing parks and parksites within the City be recommended to the City Council for formal approval. It should be noted that none of the City's existing or proposed park facilities have been officially to date. The attached Resolution, when adopted by the City Council, will officially designate names for the affected parks and parksites. The subject parks and parksites recommended for naming by the Park Development Commission are as follows: PRESENT `LAME Arrow Park Creekside Park Vineyard Park and Red Hill Basin Heritage Park Windrows Park Lions Park Victoria Groves Park Confluence Rest Area on the Cucamonga - Demens Trail Church Street Park Deer Creek Park PROPOSFD NAME Bear Gulch Park Cucamonga Creekside Park Red Hill Co..imunity Park Heritage Community Park Windrows Park Lions Park Victoria Groves Park Demons Creek Trail Rest John P. Quimby Park Rancho Cucamonga City Park Most of the proposed park names are self explanatory. several of the proposed names require additional discussion. These include the proposed Bear Gulch Park, John P. Quimby Park, Rancho Cucamonga City Park and Beryl Park. The Commission's recommendation for Rear Gulch park was derived from its adjacency to Bear Gulch Elementary School. The name ,John P. Quimby Park is recommended because John Quimby is a former legislator (from San Bernardino County) who authorized the original park dedication act which has provided local California novernments with numerous acres of parkland through developer dedication and improvement. This is especially appropriate since the acquisition and development of this parksite is occurrinq through the use of park dedication funds. The name Rancho Cucamonga City Park is recommended because it will become a focal point within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and will provide community facilities designed to service residents from the entire City of Rancho Cucamonga. Beryl Park is recommended because of its location on Beryl Street which has caused it to be locally known as Beryl Park since it's initial development. Page • July 11, 1984 Naming of Park Facilities RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Approve the recommendation from the Park Development Commission for the naming of certain park facilities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as detailed in this staff report; and 2. Adopt the attached Resolution officially naming the indicated park facilities. • • 0 r 1 U 40 RESOLUTION NO. 84 -209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OFFICIALLY NAMING CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEREAS, at it's regular meeting of June 21, 1984, the Park Development Commission discussed the issue of the naming of park facilities; and WHEREAS, such discussion led to the development of park naming guidelines which will be used by the Park Development Commission in developing names for official naming by the City Council for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Park Development Commission has developed the following list of existing and proposed parks recommended for official naming; and EXISTING NAME Arrow Park Church Street Park Creekside Park Alta Loma Park Confluence area at Demens and Cucamonga Creek Vineyard Park and Red Hill Basin Heritage Park Windrows Park Victoria Groves Park Lions Park Deer Creek Park RECOMMENDED NAME Bear Gulch Park John P. Quimby Park Cucamonga Creekside Park Beryl Park Demens Creek Trail Rest Red Kill Community Park Heritage Community Park Windrows Park Victoria Groves Park Lions Park Rancho Cucamonga City Park WHEREAS, it is necessary for these existing and proposed parksites to be officially named for proper park identification: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1: That the park names recommended by the Park Development Commission and included in this Resolution are hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. •;tee League of California Cities ' ■�- 140OKSTREET • SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 • 19181s44-5790 sir Sacramento, California June 13, 1984 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE Dear City Official: The most important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Session at which time the membership takes action on conference resolutions. It is especially important during these times of uncertainty for California cities to take the initiative in developing positive programs for the future. Annual Conference resolutions will guide cities and the League in our effort to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government within this state. All cities should be represented at the Bushels_. Session on Wedne_s_dav morning, September 26 at 10:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center. To expedite this important policy- making meeting, each City Council should designate a • voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Session. The League Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the City Council on the enclosed "voting delegate form." If the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please forward the enclosed "voting delegate form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time, so that the proper records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card in the League Registration Area, North Exhibit Hall, Anaheim Convention Center. If it becomes necessary for the voting delegate and the designated alternate to leave the Conference, the card may be transferred to another official from the same city, providing the transfer has been cleared with the Credentials Committee, which will be responsible for distributing voting cards. It is suggested that the Mayor and all Council Members from a given city try to sit together at the Business Session so that, if amendments are considered, there may be an exchange of points of view and a consensus arrived at before the city's vote is cast. Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate form" as soon as possible will be appreciated. Don Benninghoven Executive Director DB:nI Attachment ...over... Important Dates for Annual Conference Resolutions • July I - Sept. I — Cities designate Voting Delegate and Alternate, return form to League August 10 — Deadline for submitting Resolutions to the League Office * August 23 -24 — Policy Committee Meetings to make preliminary recommendations on Resolutions (Sacramento) Sept. 4 — Annual Conference Resolutions distributed to all cities Sept. 4 - Sept. 23 — City officials consider Resolutions and, where needed, city councils take action on Resolutions Sept. 23 -26 — Voting Delegates pick up voting card (North Exhibit Hall, Anaheim Convention Center) Sept. 23 — Policy Committees hold Hearings on Resolutions 0:30 p.m. - Anaheim Convention Center) Sept. 25 — General Resolutions Committee Hearing (Anaheim Convention Center) Sept. 26 — General Assembly (Anaheim Convention Center) • Policy Committee Meetings on Resolutions: August 23rd August 24th Administrative Services Employee Relations Community Services Housing, Community and Economic Development Environmental Quality Public Safety Transportation and public Works Revenue and Taxation L 11 /3 v3�� ya $OUtll COclSt AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT` 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818)572-6200 June 27, 1984 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I represent the cities of San Bernardino County on the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In that capacity I have been actively working to obtain an approval from the federal Environmental Protection Agency that would remove for the San Bernardino County and Riverside County portions of the South Coast Air Basin an EPA requirement that affects industrial growth in these areas. Elimination of this requirement is important to these counties since it would preclude the very real possibility of having a construction ban on • major industrial projects and restrictions on federal funding in the area. Further details are given in the attached resolution which was recently adopted by the Ontario City Council in support of this effort. To demonstrate the broad support of affected local governments I urge your city council to adopt a similar resolution and send a certified copy to: -- Mr. Gordon Duffy, Chairman California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 -- Ms. Judith Ayres, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I% 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Please send a copy of the adopted resolution to me at SCAQMD, 9150 Flair Drive, E1 Monte, CA 91731. I appreciate your cooperation in this effort. Very truly yours, •�, - C up ✓ Fay�Myers' Dastrup Councilwoman, City of Ontario FMD:ao Attachment • RESOLUTION NO. 84 -210 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING REDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT AREAS FOR FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE WHEREAS, all portions of a designated air quality control area are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be nonattainment areas for a federal ambient air quality standard if one portion is not in attainment of the standard; and WHEREAS, designated areas which are in attainment of the federal ambient air quality standards are not subject to the imposition of a construction ban or other sanctions; and WHEREAS, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are now in attainment of the federal ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide and have been since 1981; and WHEREAS, areas which are in attainment of the federal air quality standards may be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment areas by the provisions of the Clean Air Act; and • WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is the duly constituted air quality control agency for the South Coast Air Basin has, as required by the provisions of the Clean Air Act, requested the State of California Air Resources Board to recommend to the Environmental Protection Agency that the Riverside and San Bernardino County portions of the South Coast Air Basin be redesignated to attainment of the federal air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated its intention to consider imposition in the near future of a construction ban on major new and modified stationary sources of air emissions and consider federal funding limitations on the entire South Coast Air Basin even though only one county area within this basin continues to be in nonattainment of the federal air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide; and WHEREAS, emission control programs adopted and implemented by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County, San Bernardino County and the cities therein have been an integral part of the attainment of the federal air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide in these counties and cities; and WHEREAS, the entire South Coast Air Basin has been projected to be in attainment of the federal nitrogen dioxide standard by 1981; and WHEREAS, in its passage of the Clean Air Act, Congress did not intend to impose sanctions on an area which is making reasonable progress and good faith efforts towards attainment of the air quality standards; and WHEREAS, a construction ban would seriously hinder the construction of congeneration and other energy conservation projects thus increasing our dependence on foreign energy sources and decreasing our national security; and WHEREAS, a construction ban and funding limitations could hinder the present economic recovery in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and impairing the well -being of the citizens of these areas; and WHEREAS, a construction ban would hinder development of new and better air pollution emission control technology and delay the installation of improved emission controls and could impede the rate of emissions reductions in these counties; and WHEREAS, imposition of a construction ban thus could be counterproductive to the improvement in air quality in the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino: and WHEREAS, redesignation to attainment of the federal air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide for the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino would prevent the imposition of a construction ban and funding restrictions and resulting detrimental effects of such sanctions on air quality and the local economy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Air Resources Board is requested to immediately approve the pending request to redesignate the • Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino to be attainment areas for the federal ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide and promptly forward this request and approval to the Environmental Protection Agency; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon receipt from the Air Resources Board of the redesignation request and approval for the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino that the Regional Administrator for Region I% of the Environmental Protection Agency promptly approve the redesignation of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino to attainment areas for the federal ambient air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Beverly A, Authelet, City Clerk on D. Mikels, KdYn r • South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 �" 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818)572.6200 June 27, 1984 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I represent the cities of San Bernardino County on the governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In that capacity I have been actively working to obtain an approval from the federal Environmental Protection Agency that would remove for the San Bernardino County and Riverside County, portions of the South Coast Air Basin an EPA requirement that affects industrial growth in these areas. Elimination of this requirement is important to these counties since it would preclude the very real possibility of having a construction ban on major industrial projects and restrictions on federal funding in the area. Further details are given in the attached resolution which was recently adopted by the Ontario City Council in support of this effort. To demonstrate the broad support of affected local governments I urge your city council to adopt a similar resolution and send a certified copy to: -- Mr. Gordon Duffy, Chairman California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 -- Ms. Judith Ayres, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Please send a copy of the adopted resolution to me at SCAQMD, 9150 Flair Drive, E1 Monte, CA 91731. I appreciate your cooperation in this effort. FMD:ao Attachment Very truly yours, FaWmyer4' Dastrup Councilwoman, City of Ontario cEO"cc A, cocE O NGE RSC EE R R RUCE J ANC'L%. JA NESNM.c VAN �oNA E -s JAnesE�<.__ July 13, 1984 VINNEDGE. LANCE & GLENN.INC. A RRm Easio NAB L1. c_R . " '.A No"m sAN A,17 on o AICN ^E ONTARIO. CALIFORNIA 21762 11O .N1 gad -YSVn Charles Buquet P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca., 91730 Dear Mr. Buquet: This firm represents a number of homeowners who reside within that certain Rancho Cucamonga subdivision commonly known as Deer Creek and have expressed objections to and serious reservations concerning the proposed re- subdivision of that portion of the Deer Creek project previously recorded as final tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. This letter is intended to summarize their concerns and objections. On May 23, 1984 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved tentative tract map number 12650; this tentative map is a re- subdivision of the property previously subdivided by final tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. A review of the objections below set forth will disclose that although the Commission attached several commendable conditions to its approval of the map, its action failed to comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and was undertaken without satisfaction of minimum due process guarantees: (1) The Proposed Subdivision Map Must Be Conditioned Upon the Written Consent of All Existing Deer Creek Homeowners. California Government Code, 966430, provides that no final subdivision map may _ie _Tiled without the written consent of all parties having any record title interest in the real property to be subdivided. A - record title interest" is an interest in real property which is or may ripen into a fee interest. There is presently on record a final tract map (including tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -21 which encompasses the entire two hundred eighty three acre Deer Creek project. This recorded final tract map was incorporated into the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which encumber the deeds pursuant to which the existing Deer Creek homeowners acquired title. The existing final map identifies numerous common areas in which the fee interest must, pursuant to Articles I and II of the CC &Rls, be Mr. Charles euquet July 13, 1984 Page 2 conveyed to the Deer Creek Homeowners Association at some future point in time. Consequently, the Association and each existinq homeowner holds a "record title interest" in and to the property which the Deer Creek Company proposes to re- subdivide. The tentative map conditionally approved by the Planning Commission failed to include the condition that no final map may be filed without the written consent of the Association and all of the existing Deer Creek homeowners; as noted above, Government Code, §66430 requires that this condition be attached to tsaid enative map. (2) Due Process Requires That Notice and Opportunity Be Given To All Deer Creek Homeowners: In Horn vs. City of Ventura the California Supreme Court held that approva o a su iv ision map is an adjudicatorial function which, under the principles of due process, requires that both appropriate notice and appropriate opportunity to be heard be given to all persons whose property interests may be significantly affected and, further, that such notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. By the Deer Creek Company's own admission (see Planning Commission minutes of May 23, 19841, the Deer Creek Company's proposed re- subdivision was and is intended to affect the entire Deer Creek project and each existing homeowner. The same was noted by the Community Development Department in its March 20, 1984 letter to the Deer Creek Company. Notwithstanding the fact that the re- subdivision was and is intended to affect the entire Deer Creek community, she Deer Creek Company notified only those homeowners who reside within 300 feet of the proposed re- subdivision. Thus, while the notice conditions attached by the Planning Commission to the tentative map are in compliance with the mandate of Horn, the Planning Commission's May 23, 1984 hearing to review and act upon the tentative map was not properly or adequately noticed. This absence of notice to all affected homeowners renders the May 23, 1984 decision of the Planning Commission constitutionally defective. (3) A Conflict of Interest by the City Attorney Denies Due Process: The Deer Creek homeowners who did learn of the proposed re- subdivision and appeared at the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission hearing, were further denied due process inasmuch as Edward Hopson, the Assistant City Attorney, had a patent conflict of interest and Mr. Charles 9uquet July 13, 1984 Page 3 was not in a position to provide unbiased, independent legal advise and guidance to the Planning Commission. While Mr. Hopson and his firm may properly serve 'in their capacity as city attorney in matters involving former clients when the subject at issue does not directly or indirectly relate to a matter in which the attorney was involved and for which he was paid, it is beyond question a conflict of interest to sit as city attorney in a matter which involves persons and documents in which the city attorney has a real or possible personal interest. Mr. Hopson had been previously retained and paid by the Deer Creek Company to draft and, in fact, authored the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which govern the Deer Creek Project. These very same CCyR's give rise to the claims and objections set forth within item 1, above. As a result of Mr. Hopson's participation, the objecting homeowner's were denied their due process right to receive a fair hearing. (4) The Issue of Compatibility Was Not Fully Developed or Presented: Deer Creek's proposed re- subdivision is a significant departure from the Deer Creek Project which was sold to the homeowners and which was submitted to and approved by the Department of Real Estate [see enclosed May 18, 1984 letter to the Deer Creek Company]. The California Supreme Court in Scott vs. City of Indian Wells held that a city has the duty to consider a proposed development with respect to it's effect on all neighboring property owners. In the case of a planned community like the Deer Creek Project, the affected neighboring property owners includes, at a minimum, all property owners within this planned development. As noted in item 4, above, notice and opportunity to be heard was not given to all affected homeowners and, consequently, the issue of compatibility could not have been fully developed or presented. Notwithstanding the foregoing, my clients are in basic agreement with and strongly support the four compatibility conditions identified within page 7 of the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission minutes; however, they remain concerned that the developer's unwillingness to accept these conditions and the developer's history of changing positions after making representations and assurances to the homeowners unnecessarily subjects the homeowners to a continuing risk of incompatible development. Accordingly, the homeowners suggest that the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission be supplemented to require dwelling unit sizes comparable to the phase last constructed and consistent with the representations of the Deer Creek Company to the Deer Creek homeowners via it's letter of April 12, 1984 (a copy of which is enclosed) and, further, that the approval of any map be Mr. Charles Buquet July 13, 1984 Page 4 conditioned upon the incorporation of these conditions into the existing Ceer Creek CC &R's thereby assuring the homeowners that this natter has been brought to a final conclusion and will not be re- opened as a result of any subsequent waiver of any condition by the City, a sale of the property or the filing of yet another map. The Deer Creek Homeowners believe that the Planning Commission's action upon the proposed re- subdivision was a significant step in the proper direction but that it's actions, nonetheless, fall short of what is legally required and of what is needed as a practical matter in order to bring this matter to a final conclusion. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the decision of the Planning Commission relating to tentative tract number 12650 be reversed and returned to the Planning Commission for action consistent and in compliance with the items above noted, or, alternatively, that the City Council supplement the conditions to approval of the tenative map in accordance with the observations and requests hereinabove set forth. Very truly yours, VINNEDGE, LANCE & GLENN, INC. �7 WILLIAM A. VAN DYK WAV /sp VINNEDGE.LANCE d GLENN, INC. _- ONTARIOF GPLIFOONIA May 18, 1984 V 5 Mr. William R. Grigsby The Deer Creek Company P. O. Box 438 Alta Loma, California 91701 Mr. Paul Griffin The Deer Creek Company 9524 19th Street Alta Loma, California 91701 Re: Proposed Deer Creek Re- Subdivision Dear Mr. Grigsby and Mr. Griffin: This firm has been retained by numorous Deer Creek homeowners who have expressed objections to and serious reservations and concerns relating to your proposed re- subdivision of the real property located north of Hillside Drive and described as RecorJed Tract 'Cap 958.1 -1 and 9584 -2. A reviaw of your development and sales records will disclose that the purcha.,ers of the Deer Creek Homes were told by you and your staff that the Deer Creek project would consist of 293 homes constructed on 293 acres in approximately seven phases. A copy of the recorded tract maps, including the tract maps of the area which you now propose to re- subdivide, were prominently displayed in your sales office and shown to each homeowner as an accurate description to the project in which the buyer was investing; the verbal sales slogan given was "bigger and better up the hill "; the Planned Development Final Subdivision Public Report which you filed with the Department of Real Estate and delivered to each prospective buyer stated that the project "will consist of a total of seven increments containing 293 lots in approximately 293.2 acres "; your written advertising stated "Plans and designs encompass a site plan based on one [residential unit] for each raw acre... "; the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Deer Creek agreed upon between you and the homeowners were premised upon and drafted consistent with the custom lot subdivision of record at the time of sale. Now that you have, as a result of these representations and promises, secured from the homeowners a premium purchase price, you seek to withdraw the benefit of the bargain reached. Your Mr. 'William R. Grigsby Mr. Paul Griffin Page 2 May 18, 1984 proposed re- subdivision will significantly and adversely alter the traffic patterns, noise levels, equity values, lot size and configuration, common area utilization, common area maintenance costs, and numerous other factors which were considered and relied upon in the homeowner's election to purchase the existing Deer Creek properties. Many of the promises and representations made by you to these purchasers form equitable servituues which run with the land held by the homeowner and the land which you seek to re- subdivide. Even those promises which may arguably not comprise equitable servitudes nonetheless remain significant material representations of fact which led the homeowners to purchase their homes from You. The homeowners are cognizant of the concerns and reservations you have expressed as a developer. It was with that concern in mind that they have met with you in an attempt to seek an equitable and amicable resolution of your differences. Their proposals are without significant cost to you, will release you from the inevitable legal consequences of your proposed re- subdivision and will enable the homeowners to retain the community environment ,old to and expected by them and in which they have made a substantial investment. Notwithstanding these equitable proposals, you have apparently elected to ignore your obligations to and the rights OE these homeowners and have now requested the municipal agencies to assist you in depriving these homeowners of their significant property rights. We would strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to meet with the homeowners to seek an equitable and prompt resolution of this matter so that both you and the homeowners may amicably and expeditiously secure the beneifit of your respective significant investments in the Rancho Cucamonga community. We look forward to your response and working with you in bringing this matter to an appropriate conclusion. Very truly yours, VINNN/EDGE, LANCE 5 GLF;NN, INC. WILLIAM A. VAN DYK WAV /ml April 12, 1994 Dear Homeowner: The Deer Creek Company cordially invites you to a presentation on the proposed development for the remaining 146 acres of the Deer Creek community. To this date, this goal has been successfully achieved and a bee.utiful residential community This coal is still the same goal which The Deer Creek Company intents to attain for the last phase of the development. Over the last several years, we have become more aware of the buyer's preference for an estate size lot and home. The most significant input received is related to the lot size. A significant portion of potential buyers desire to have a lot size less than the current lot size existing in Deer Creek. In consideration of this and the inflationary aspect of the economy, The Deer Creek Company is proposing to re- subdivide the remaining 146 acres into slightly smaller lots. This proposal is in no way intended to alter the quality, value, and elegance of the Deer Creek community. The Deer Creek Company held an introductory meeting on Earth 28, 1984, to receive initial input and ideas on the proposal. Based on the discussions, we have revised the design of the project to address and mitigate the concerns that were raised. We welcome and encourage input and partic- ipation on the new design. The meeting will he held on April 26, 1984, beginning at 7:00 p.m. We will be meeting at the located at 0791 Pxre". u.. (please refer to map),. j Enclosed for your information, is a Fact Sheet, which contains statistical and design information for the proposed project. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call or drop by our office. Sinc,ereJly, `'btich / Vai Director of Administration and Planning THE DEER CREEK COMPANY POST OFFICER) 488 ALTA LOMA,CAUFORNIA 91701 (714)989-3323 .ti THE DEER CREEK TRACT NO. 12650 CONCEPTS: The Deer Creek Company concent is to build homes architecturally compatible with the existing Deer Creek homes, in order to maintain the value and quality of the Deer Creek community. This will be accomplished through the use of similar exterior building materials, colors, scale of buildings, and site layout. CONCEPTS: SITE SIZE: 176 acres PROPOSED NO. OF LOTS: 233 CITY ZONING: Very LOW Residential (2 du /ac). CITY GE14ERAL PLAN: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dulac). PROPOSED LOT SIZE RANGE: 20,000 - 38,000 square feet. PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY: 1.59 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING DEER CREEK DENSITY: 1.03 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY: 1.31 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT SIZE RANGE: Approximately 2,900 to 3,600 square feet. PROPOSED ARCNITECTURAL DESIGN: Similar as existing Deer Creek, use of exterior stucco, tile roofs, earth tone colors, etc. PROPOSED GRADING CONCEPT: Same as existing Deer Creek. PROPOSED TRAILS CONCEPT: Front trails, same fencing as existing Deer Creek, 27 feet wide (including parkway). PROPOSED LANDSCAPING CONCEPT: Same concept as existing Deer Creek. RAINTENANCE, CC&R's, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: Same regulations and controls as existing Deer Creek. LEER, CREEK HOMEOWNERS MEETING TRACT 12650 DATE: April 2-6, 1984 TIME: 7 :00 Pm PLACE: 9791 Arrow hwy. Thie letter is te- the teveaopeeet-Of- tAS =a0 we will be building- homes that now exist in t new flat plane we m 3r -km the =14rting homes. , hzvl* colors, etc. We also Snb planting and white rail f, development. continue the trail system, , a throughout the total »• i• We feel the change frew'jone acre to half acre lots will not substantially change the ambiance of Deer Creek. You may assure any concerned homeowners that we plan to carry on our same high.standards of design and construction throughout the development mid build a community they will be proud of. Sincerely William . wGAtpsq - The proposed lot size ranges from 20;000- 38,000 square feet, in com- parison to the existing lots which range from 29,000 - 40,000 square feet. The average will be well within the minimum average required by the City Code. The density equals 1.54 dwelling units per acre. The re- duced lot sizes are in no way intended to alter the quality, value, and elegance of the Deer Creek community. This phase of the development would contain the same concepts and quality with regard to grading, trails. landscaping and architecture. Our current thinking is to con- struct homes of approximately 2,900 -3,600 square feet. The architectural design will incorporate the same exterior materials and form. We have already processed the proposed design through the City's various committees and have revised it in accordance with their reco- mmendations. In addition, we have conducted two neighborhood meetings with existing Deer Creek homeowners. In response to the first meeting we have increased lot sizes adjacent to the.exieting hones for a � i... ?. eve th ti f'6we ti 4r t3" _ the" f1mat -res�daatial c 1e4KtF .. Tbx lest $16so -of the ° Optlt f the et'ee1jkli '!t'glsoty t:. We sere 146 Mrss-+fm14Ani vbiS js'sdowt. " north and ed2ece t to the existing units. .lie *ve several soothe designing a subdivision plac lorthir,ngkL* ^ Anr: the:. -. last couple, of years, we have become more e66W of the 6rreits p 8r- ence for an estate size lot'ind home. A Significant portion of borer's desire to here a lot sisa less than the curtest -lot ales: existing fn" Deer Creek. In consideration of this and the inflationary aspect of the economy, we are proposing to subdivide the remaining 146 acres into slightly smaller lots. The proposed lot size ranges from 20;000- 38,000 square feet, in com- parison to the existing lots which range from 29,000 - 40,000 square feet. The average will be well within the minimum average required by the City Code. The density equals 1.54 dwelling units per acre. The re- duced lot sizes are in no way intended to alter the quality, value, and elegance of the Deer Creek community. This phase of the development would contain the same concepts and quality with regard to grading, trails. landscaping and architecture. Our current thinking is to con- struct homes of approximately 2,900 -3,600 square feet. The architectural design will incorporate the same exterior materials and form. We have already processed the proposed design through the City's various committees and have revised it in accordance with their reco- mmendations. In addition, we have conducted two neighborhood meetings with existing Deer Creek homeowners. In response to the first meeting we have increased lot sizes adjacent to the.exieting hones for a -SW MU tbezpl bows at the PAM `t - �-2_4WMU to tb* QQZ 90. lead valveir llt6 sell the ham". We simply weal to inform the City that 'we development with the same quality and elegan*Ftor ig known. Car company name was founded an "41t to" way intend to jeopardize our repitatLon. .1W. We &ft our development package in order to be p1g6ed On the of May 23, 1984. If you have any questione *tor to feel free to contact us at your convenience. Michael S'- Director of Administration and Planning MDV/me VINNEDGE. LANCE 6 GLENN, INC GEO qOE N OGE n ggO.0 55iO rvnL Lnw cOq ✓agni ON rAgOLD •NCE 20A NOP.N SAN AN'FllO —ENUE E qSC 'E. R OLEN' qa cEL LAac E.L ONTARIO. CALIFORNIA 91962 P,C.APD A 0ONNEL'LE1 M[SN D m[CALL'�OnN a -1a E N E_S EE _A ICE July 13, 1984 Mayor Jon Mikels P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca., 91730 Dear Mr. Mikels: G� This firm represents a number of homeowners who reside within that certain Rancho Cucamonga subdivision commonly known as Deer Creek and have expressed objections to and serious reservations concerning the proposed re- subdivision of that portion of the Deer Creek project previously recorded as final tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. This letter is intended to summarize their concerns and objections. On May 23, 1984 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission reviewed and conditionally approved tentative tract map number 12650; this tentative map is a re- subdivision of the property previously subdivided by final tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. A review of the objections below set forth will disclose that although the Commission attached several commendable conditions to its approval of the map, its action failed to comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and was undertaken without satisfaction of minimum due process guarantees: (1) The Proposed Subdivision Map Must Be Conditioned Upon the Written Consent of All Existing Deer Creek Homeowners. California Government Code, 566430, provides that no final subdivision map may be fiTed without the written consent of all parties having any record title interest in the real property to be subdivided. A "record title interest" is an interest in real property which is or may ripen into a fee interest. There is presently on record a final tract map (including tract map numbers 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -21 which encompasses the entire two hundred eighty three acre Deer Creek project. This recorded final tract map was incorporated into the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which encumber the deeds pursuant to which the existing Deer Creek homeowners acquired title. The existing final map identifies numerous common areas in which the fee interest must, pursuant to Articles I and II of the CCy RIs, be Mayor Jon Mikels July 13, 1984 Page 2 conveyed to the Deer Creek Homeowners Association at some future point in time. Consequently, the Association and each existing homeowner holds a "record title interest" in and to the property which the Deer Creek Company proposes to re- subdivide. The tentative map conditionally approved by the Planning Commission failed to include the condition that no final map may be filed without the written consent of the Association and all of the existing Deer Creek homeowners; as noted above, Government Code, 566430 requires that this condition be attached to said -e map. (2) Due Process Requires That Notice and Opportunity Be Given To All Deer Creek Homeowners: In Horn vs. City of Ventura the California Supreme Court held that approva o a su ivlsion map is an adjudicatorial function which, under the principles of due process, requires that both appropriate notice and appropriate opportunity to be heard be given to all persons whose property interests may be significantly affected and, further, that such notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. By the Deer Creek Company's own admission (see Planning Commission minutes of May 23, 1984), the Deer Creek Company's proposed re- subdivision was and is intended to affect the entire Deer Creek project and each existing homeowner. The same was noted by the Community Development Department in its March 20, 1984 letter to the Deer Creek Company. Notwithstanding the fact that the re- subdivision was and is intended to affect the entire Deer Creek community, the Deer Creek Company notified only those homeowners who reside within 300 feet of the proposed re- subdivision. Thus, while the notice conditions attached by the Planning Commission to the tentative map are in compliance with the mandate of Horn, the Planning Commission's May 23, 1984 hearing to review and act upon the tentative map was not properly or adequately noticed. This absence of notice to all affected homeowners renders the May 23, 1984 decision of the Planning Commission constitutionally defective. (3) A Conflict of Interest by the City Attorney Denies Due Process: The Deer Creek homeowners who did learn of the proposed re- subdivision and appeared at the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission hearing, were further denied due process inasmuch as Edward Hopson, the Assistant City Attorney, had a patent conflict of interest and Mayor Jon Mikels July 13, 1984 Page 3 was not in a position to provide unbiased, independent legal advise and guidance to the Planning Commission. while Mr. Hopson and his firm may properly serve in their capacity as city attorney in matters involving former clients when the subject at issue does not directly or indirectly relate to a matter in which the attorney was involved and for which he was paid, it is beyond question a conflict of interest to sit as city attorney in a matter which involves persons and documents in which the city attorney has a real or possible personal interest. Mr. Hopson had been previously retained and paid by the Deer Creek Company to draft and, in fact, authored the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which govern the Deer Creek Project. These very same CC&R's give rise to the claims and objections set forth within item It above. As a result of Mr. Hopson's participation, the objecting homeowner's were denied their due process right to receive a fair hearing. (4) The Issue of Compatibility Was Not Fully Developed or Presented: Deer Creek's proposed re- subdivision is a significant departure from the Deer Creek Project which was sold to the homeowners and which was submitted to and approved by the Department of Real Estate (see enclosed May 18, 1984 letter to the Deer Creek Company]. The California Supreme Court in Scott vs. City of Indian Wells held that a city has the duty to consider a proposed development with respect to it's effect on all neighboring property owners. In the case of a planned community like the Deer Creek Project, the affected neighboring property owners includes, at a minimum, all property owners within this planned development. As noted in item 4, above, notice and opportunity to be heard was not given to all affected homeowners and, consequently, the issue of compatibility could not have been fully developed or presented. Notwithstanding the foregoing, my clients are in basic agreement with and strongly support the four compatibility conditions identified within page 7 of the May 23, 1984 Planning Commission minutes; however, they remain concerned that the developer's unwillingness to accept these conditions and the developer's history of changing positions after making representations and assurances to the homeowners unnecessarily subjects the homeowners to a continuing risk of incompatible development. Accordingly, the homeowners suggest that the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission be supplemented to require dwelling unit sizes comparable to the phase last constructed and consistent with the representations of the Deer Creek Company to the Deer Creek homeowners via it's letter of April 12, 1984 (a copy of which is enclosed) and, further, that the approval of any map be Mayor Jon Mikels July 13, 1984 Page 4 conditioned upon the incorporation of these conditions into the existing Deer Creek CC &R!s thereby assuring the homeowners that this matter has been brought to a final conclusion and will not be re- opened as a result of any subsequent waiver of any condition by the City, a sale of the property or the filing of yet another map. The Deer Creek Homeowners believe that the Planning Commission's action upon the proposed re- subdivision was a significant step in the proper direction but that it's actions, nonetheless, fall short of what is legally required and of what is needed as a practical matter in order to bring this matter to a final conclusion. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the decision of the Planning Commission relating to tentative tract number 12650 be reversed and returned to the Planning Commission for action consistent and in compliance with the items above noted, or, alternatively, that the City Council supplement the conditions to approval of the tenative map in accordance with the observations and requests hereinabove set forth. Very truly yours, VINNEDGE, LANCE & GLENN, INC. WILLIAM A. VAN DYK WAV /sp VINNEDGE, LANCE N GLENN .INC. n ' ONTARiO.CP 11. O'i, NiA .��•,nG t[.E, "„ "c o¢n�E�� May 18, 1984 Mr. William R. Grigsby The Deer Creek Company P. 0. Box 438 Alta Loma, California 91701 Mr. Paul Griffin Tt,, Deer Creek Company 9524 13th street Alta Loma, California 91'701 Re: Proposed Deer Creek Re- Subdivision Dear Mr. Grigsby and Mr. Griffin: This Eir:n has Moen nntained oy num:rous Deer Creek homeowners who 'na:re expressed objections to and serious reservations and cunr_erns relating to your proposed re- subdivision of the real property located north of Hillside Drive and described as ReCor3ed Tract Map 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. ,a : vl'w of your levetopment and sales re Cords will disclose that thr uurch a,;c rs Of the Deer Creek Romos were told by you and your staiE that the Deer Creek project would consist of 293 humes c.,n;truc teal on 291 acres in approxi.ately seven phases. A copy of t• cec„rded trio maps, including the tract maps of the area .stiioh you now propose to re- subdivide, were prominently displayed r1 sales office and shown to each homeowner as an accurate I,: r 11) t ion to the irojeet in which the buyer was investing; the ::rbal sales slogan liven was "bigger and better up the hill "; the 11ianned Develo ment Final Subdivision Public Report which you I i1e,i with the D.part:nent of Real Estate and delivered to each prospective buyer stated that the project "will Consist of a total of seven increments containing 293 lots in approximately 193.2 acres "; your written advertising stated "Plans and designs •.nC,IVpass a site plan based on o;•.,2 tresidential unitl for each raw acre... "; the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and tvateictinns for Deer Creek agreed upon between you and the homy owners •wcr -� premised upon and drafted consistent with the Custom lot subdivision of record at the time of sale. Now that you have, as a result of these representations and promises, secured from the hnmeownvr; a premium purchase price, you ,..A to withdraw the benefit of,, the bargain reached. Your Mr. William R. Grigsby Mr. Paul Griffin Page 2 May 18, 1984 proposed re- subdivision will significantly and adversely alter the traffic patterns, noise levels, equity values, lot size and configuration, common area utilization, common area maintenance costs, and numerous other factors which were considered and r=-lied upon in the homeowner's election to purchase the existing Deer Creek properties. Many of the promises and representations made by you to these ,purchasers form equitable servitudes which run with the land held by the homeowner and the land which you seek to re- subdivide. Even those promises which may arguably not comprise equitable servitudes nonetheless remain significant material representations of fact which led the homeowners to purchase their homes from you. The homeowners are cognizant of the concerns and reservations you havt expressed as a developer. It was with that concern in mind that. t!iey have met with you in an attempt to seek an equitable and amicable resolution of your differences. Their proposals are without significant .:ost to you, will release you from the inevitable legal consequences of your proposed re- subdivis_on and mill enable the homeowners to retain the community environment ;o Li t'i and expected by them and in which they have made d ,ubctantial investment. Notwithstanding these equitable proposals, v,,u have apparently ei•:cted to ignore your obligations to and the rcyht7 of these homeowners and have now requested the municipal rp ncies to assist you in depriving these homeowners of their .ignificant property rights. tJv wo u19 strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to fm_�•t with the homeowners to seek an equitable and prompt resolution of this natter so that both you and the homeowners may aairably and expeditiously secure the beneifit of your respective sinnif.icant invest;nents in the Rancho Cucamonga community. We look forward to your response and worKing with you in bringing this ^latter to an appropriate conclusion. V -ry truly yours, VIFj N' -'DGE, LANCE. S "N'F"41, INC. WILLIAM A. VAN DYN WAV /ml April 12, 1904 Dear Homeowner: The Deer Creek Company cordially invites you to a presentation on the proposed development for the remaining 146 acres of the Deer Creek community. To this date, this goal has been successfully achieved and a beautiful residential community _.._., ._ today. This goal is still the same goal which The Doer Creek Company intends to attain for the last phase of the development. over the last several years, we have become more aware of the buyer's preference for an estate size lot and home. The most significant input received is related to the lot size. A significant portion of potential buyers desire to have a lot size less than the current lot size existing in Deer Creek. in consideration of this and the inflationary aspect of the economy, The Deer Creek Company is proposing to re-subdivide the remaining 146 acres into slightly smaller lots. This proposal is in no way intended to alter the quality, value, and elegance of the Deer Creek community, The Deer Creek Company held an introductory meeting on March 28, 1984, to receive initial input and ideas on the proposal. Based on the discussions, we have revised the design of the project to address and mitigate the concerns that were raised. We welcome and encourage input and partic- ipation on the new design. The meeting will be held on April 26, 1984, beginning at 7:00 p.m. We will be meeting at the C.. auwnya :Se:.ig`.borheod 1aeil°ty, located at 9791 Arr_., p•. (please refer to map).` Enclosed for your information, is a Fact Sheet, which contains statistical and design information for the proposed project. if you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call or drop by our office. Sincerely, Michael Vair in, Director of Administration and Planning THE DEER CREEK COMPO POST OFnCE BOX488 ALTA LOMA,CAWORM 91701 (714)989-3323 THE DEER CREEK TRACT NO. 12650 CONCEPTS: The Deer Creek Company concept is to build homes architecturally compatible with the existing Deer Creek homes, in order to maintain the value and quality of the Deer Creek community. This will be accomplished through the use of similar exterior building materials, colors, scale of buildings, and site layout. CONCEPTS: SITE SIZE: 146 acres PROPOSED NO. OF LOTS: 233 CITY ZONING: Very Low Residential (2 du /ac). CITY GENERAL PLAN: Very Low Residential (up to 2 du /ac). PROPOSED LOT SIZE RANGE: 20,000 - 38,000 square feet. PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY: 1.59 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING DEER CREEK DENSITY: 1.03 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY: 1.31 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT SIZE RANGE: Approximately 2,900 to 3,600 square feet. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Similar as existing Deer Creek, use of exterior stucco, tile roofs, earth tone colors, etc. PROPOSED GRADING CONCEPT: Same as existing Deer Creek. PROPOSED TRAILS CONCEPT: Front trails, same fencing as existing Deer Creek, 27 feet wide (including parkway). PROPOSED LANDSCAPING CONCEPT: Same concept as existing Deer Creek. MAINTENANCE, CCSR's, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: Same regulations and controls as existing Deer Creek. DEER - CREEK HOMEOWNERS MEETING TRACT 12650 DATE: April 26,1984 TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 9791 Arrow Hwy. L ARROW n oc Cmomm fAGuTY NORTH 97% ARRM THE DEER CREEK TRACT NO. 12650 CONCEPTS: The Deer Creek Company concept is to build homes architecturally compatible with the existing Deer Creek homes, in order ty maintain the value and quality of the Deer Creek community. This will be accomplished through the use of similar exterior building materials, colors, scale of buildings, and site layout. CONCEPTS: SITE SIZE: 146 acres PROPOSED NO. OF LOTS: 233 CITY ZONING: Very Low Residential (2 du /ac). CITY GENERAL PLAN: Very Low Residential (up to 2 du /ac). PROPOSED LOT SIZE RANGE: 20,000 - 38,000 square feet. PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY: 1.59 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING DEER CREEK DENSITY: 1.03 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY: 1.31 dwelling units per acre. PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT SIZE RANGE: Approximately 2,900 to 3,600 square feet. PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Similar as existing Deer Creek, use of exterior stucco, tile roofs, earth tone colors, etc. PROPOSED GRADING CONCEPT: Same as existing Deer Creek. PROPOSED TRAILS CONCEPT: Front trails, same fencing as existing Deer creek, 27 feet wide (including parkway). PROPOSED LANDSCAPING CONCEPT: Same concept as existing Deer Creek. MAINTENANCE, CCAR's, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL: Same regulations and controls as existing Deer Creek. June 1, 1984 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline, Suic=_ C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Apneal of Planning Commission Conditions Imposed on the Approval of Tentative Tract 12650 Dear Council Members: The Deer Creek Company recently received approval from the Planning Commission for the final and last phase of the Deer Creek residential community, known as Tentative Tract No. 12650. The approval is generally acceptable and all conditions recommended by staff were agreed upon by our Company. However, as a result of the public hearing, the Planning Commission added 3 more con- ditions to the project for which we are requesting the City Council to review and modify. The first condition which we are requesting the City Council to consider, requires that all of the existing Deer Creek homeowners within the development be notified when the project is scheduled for design review before the Planning Commission. It is our view that the City's design process through the Design Review Committee as well as by the Planning Commission contains the necessary assurances to provide for well designed homes. Our fear in this condition is that this opens up a very subjective area to people who are not trained in the design field. We request that the council eliminate this condition and simply require this project to be subject to the City's design review process as stipulated in condition number one (1) of the resolution. The second condition which the Commission imposed requires us to build all of our homes at a minimum of 2500 square feet. This condition severely limits the variation of homes which we would like to construct within Deer Creek. In fact, this condition prohibits the construction of two of the floor plans which cur- rently exist in the Deer Creek community. These two floor plans range from 1950 to 2350 square feet. 20% of the existing homes in Deer Creek (29 out of 145) are of this size. The Deer Creek Company has always had a concern to preserve the integrity of Deer Creek and has voluntarily included in the C.C.6R's a restri- ction which does not allow homes to be built any smaller than THE PEER CREEK COMPANY POST OFFICE BO\ 4M ;UT.1 LOMA.0 I.IFORNIA 91701 (714)989-)V3 Page 2 (Cont.) 1800 square feet. Our intentions for this phase is to be able to offer the sale and construction of all our current floor plans and some new floor plans which we are currently designing. It appeared that the Commission's decision to impose this condition was to insure that a quality home of equal value will be built within the project. It is difficult to legislate quality and value on a proposed project. We believe that assurances of qua- lity lie within the design review controls of the Citv. We are requesting that the City Council provide us with flexibility in this condition which would allow us to build all of the current floor Dlans which exist in Deer Creek, including the plans which are less than 2500 square feet. A third and _final condition which the Planning Commission imposed requires us to eliminate 4 lots in this chase in order to orcvide lot widths of up to 140 feet. It appeared that the Commission wanted some assurances that there would be adequate lot widths to be able to construct some of the homes that are within the current develooment. The proposed subdivision for this chase does include no to 78 of the lots in excess of 140 feet, which are capable of handling the two largest floor plans within the existing project. All other lots are capable of accomodating the rest of the plans. The requirement to provide 140 foot wide lots is well in excess of the average existing lot width in the current subdivision (127- 130 feet). If it is the desire of the City to seek more variation in the lot width, then we would have the ability to adjust lot lines to create various lot widths without eliminating the lots since the City minimum lot width requirement in the very low zone is 90 feet. As evidence of the appeal field by two of the homeowners and the testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing, there are a few people within the existing Deer Creek Community who do not agree with our project proposal. However, there were other indi- viduals from Deer Creek who are in support of the project, which testified at the Planning Commission hearing, and boarder the new phase. Our proposal is not deviating from the original concept of the project as we are still providing the same style of housing, the same exterior materials, the same landscaping, trail and lance concepts. ��The Deer Creek Company has constantly achieved a high level of quality in our projects. We have no reason nor any pro- posal to start building what has been referred to as "cheap homes ". The Deer Creek Company would like to continue to fulfill a segment of the housing market for Rancho Cucamonga. We respectfully request your consideration of the conditions which were imposed by the Planning Commission and ask that you modify or eliminate them so that we may be able to complete this project. We appre- ciate your consideration and deliberation on these items and look forward to building this project. Sincerely, William R. wr gsby President cc: Rick Gomez, City Planner j� r 9� July 16,1984 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers: My wife and I purchased our DeerCreek home in May of 1983 after more than 3' years of looking for a house and neighborhood that met our expectations, namely a quiet spacious atmosphere with large homes on large lots. We looked at every major development in Clare- mont, Diamond Bar, and Upland. We looked at numerous custom homes. The only community which we found to fit our needs was Deer Creek. Fe were sold, and 'believed in, the promotional literature of the Deer Creek Company, which promised us a total developed community of 300 homes on 300 acres. Now, for reasons of his own, MR. Grigsby wishes to change the character of our neighborhood. He wishes to build smaller homes on smaller lots, and increase the density of the housing by approximately 5G %. If he is permitted to do this, he will destroy that which my wife and I have looked so long to find and worked so hard to achieve. I like my lifestyle, my home, and my neighborhood. I do not wish any deviation from the original concept of Deer Creek as Mr. Grigsby and the Deer Creek Company envisioned and so eagerly promoted it. Deer Creek is, as they were so quick to point out themselves, unique. No amount of clever architectural design can disguise the fact that a housing development with 53% more homes will look - and be - more crowded ... 53% more homes, 53% more people, 53% more cars, 53% more traffic on the streets, etc. Myy wife and I have virtually committed our life savings to the concept of Deer Creek. pease d, not Permit Mr. Grigsby's quest to produce a more marketable product and reap greater profits rob us of a life- style and community which we can never find anywhere else. Deer Creek fs an asset tp Ranch Cucamonga. Please do not permit Mr. Grigsby to destroy it. 4-0 `Thank you, / 3. 10701 Y,illside Road ,,, Alta Loma M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: July 17, 1984 RE: Deer Creek Appeals I have read a letter dated July 13, 1984 from Attorney William A. Van Dyk to Mayor Jon Mikels and which pertains to the appeals above - referenced. I am advised that Councilman Chuck Euquet received an identical letter, and I thus assume that the other members of the City Council also have. In item (3) of his letter Mr. Van Dyk accuses Assistant City Attorney Ted Hopson of being in a conflict of interest posi- tion when he responded to questions asked by members of the Plan - ninq Commission when that body considered Tentative Tract Map No. 12650 on May 23, 1984. Ted Hopson's prior memo to Lauren Wasserman on the conflict issue is enclosed in the Council Agenda packet, and I will be redundant only to mention that there is no legal conflict of interest inasmuch as Covington & Crowe has not represented the developer of Deer Creek for approximately five (5) years. Neverthe- less, Mr. Van Dyk frames his charge of conflict of interest as follows: "Mr. Hopson had been previously retained and paid by the Deer Creek Company to draft and, in fact, authored the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which govern the Deer Creek project. These very same CC &R's give rise to the claims and objections set forth in item 1, above." It is apparent that Mr. Van Dyk either never read or has -1- chosen to ignore the contents of the Minutes of the Planning Commis- sion meeting of May 23, 1984. Those Minutes show quite clearly that the claim that all existing Deer Creek Homeowners must consent in writing to the proposed Subdivision Map, was not presented to the Planning Commission for its consideration. Rick Gomez confirms that the claim in item (1) of Mr. Van Dyk's letter was presented for the first time by that letter. The Minutes also reflect that Ted Hopson was not called upon to make any comment as to the interpretation or effect of the CC &R's. I will now address the other items in Mr. Van Dyk's letter, beginning with item (1). The issues in item (1) can be resolved without reference to the CC&RIs, as I will explain. Nevertheless, because the claim of conflict has been raised, I have asked Upland's City Attorney, Don Maroney, to provide, at our expense, an indepen- dent analysis of the issues presented in item (1) of Mr. Van Dyk's letter. A copy of Mr. Maroney's letter is attached. I would first like to point out that Mr. Van Dyk has incor- rectly paraphrased Government Code §66430. That section, a copy of which is attached, does not define what a "record title interest" is. Section 66430 also indicates the existence of exceptions from its provisions, and this is not disclosed by Mr. Van Dyk's para- phrasing. The issues raised by item (1) in Mr. Van Dyk's letter are approached by first examining the nature of the interest, if any, that the existing Deer Creek Homeowners might have or might be entitled to acquire in the property covered by existing Tract Maps Nos, 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2. Mr. Van Dyk states "The existing final map identifies numerous common areas in which the fee inter- -2- est must, pursuant to Articles I and II of the CC&R's, by conveyed to the Deer Creek Homeowners Association at some future point in time." The foregoing is a misstatement of fact. An examination of the Final Maps of Tracts 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2 reveals that they contain no lots or common areas which are required to be conveyed in fee to the existing homeowners or their association. The only interest in those tracts which the Homeowners Association either has or is entitled to acquire are bridle path easements such as those found in the developed phases of Deer Creek. Government Code §66436(c)(1), a copy of which is attached, specifically provides that the signatures of persons who hold only a private easement may be omitted from a Final Subdivision Map. Thus, it is Mr. Maroney's opinion, in which I concur, that the sig- natures of the present property owners or their association are not required before a Final Map re subdividing Tracts 9584, 9584 -1 and 9584 -2 may be recorded. As previously stated, this conclusion can and has been reached without the need to interpret or comment upon the effect of the CC &R's. In item (2) of his letter, Mr. Van Dyk asserts that the notice given of the Planning Commission public hearing was inade- quate because notice of the same was not mailed to all existing property owners in the developed phases of Deer Creek. horn -vs- County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 665 (1979) did not establish such a notice requirement. In Horn the Supreme Court held that the mere posting of environmental documents in public buildings and mailing notice only to persons who requested notice was inadequate. The Court did not go on to rule as to what would be considered adequate 7�D notice of a hearing on a tentative map. Instead the Court said at page 618 of its Opinion: Other forms of notice appear better calcu- lated to apprise directly affected persons of a pending decision. We deliberately refrain from describing a specific formula which details the nature, content, and timing of the requisite notice. Rather, we leave to the affected local gov- ernments these determinations. . . . In 1980, the State Legislature responding to the Horn deci- sion, adopted as part of the Subdivision Map Act Government Code §66451.3. A copy of this section is also attached. Section 66451.3 provides for notice by publication and it requires notice by mail only in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real pro- perty into condominiums, etc. and then only to the tenants of the subject property. Section 66451.3 provides that a local agency can give additional notice if it chooses to do so. In this case the City of Rancho Cucamonga has opted to give additional notice by mail to those persons owning property within 300 feet of the boun- daries of the proposed subdivision. It is, therefore, my opinion that adequate notice of the Planning Commission hearing was given in compliance with State law. Whether or not a certain project is compatible with existing development is not generally an issue which presents legal questions. Accordingly, I will not address item (4) in Mr. Van Dyk's letter other than to point out that if Appellants believe that they did not fully develop and present the issue of compatibility to the Planning Commission, they now on this appeal have the opportunity to fully develop and present that issue to the City Council. RED:sjo Enclosures -4- r., .. ,,. 1 :,6n No. Eu,::; i A, o. 7. U. Box D� i U:: :VIII. CaMorniq 71716 DONALD E. MARONEY 592 N. Euclid Avenue P.O. Box 1350 Upland, California 91736 July 17, 1984 Robert Dougherty, Esq. Covington 6 Crowe 1131 W. Sixth Street P.O. Box 1515 Ontario, California 91762 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract No. 12650 Dear Mr. Dougherty: I have a copy of a letter dated July 13, 1984 from Vinnedge, Lance S Glenn, Inc. regarding the above - referenced tract, which is apparently a resubdivision of that portion of Deer Creek project previously recorded as final tract map Nos. 9564, 9584 -1 and 9584-2. In this letter the writer voices several concerns, however, you have requested that I address myself only to the issues which are raised in section (1) by reason of a conflict of interest alleged by the writer in relation to some work you did for the original subdividers some six years ago in writing the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the property. The question posed in section (1) is in reference to Government Code Section 66430, which provides that no final subdivision map may be filed without the written consent of all parties having any record title interest in the real property to be subdivided. The letter indicates that a "'record title interest' is an interest in real property which is or may ripen into a fee interest." I do not find the Latter quotation in Section 66430, but Section 66436 provides that owners of private easements which cannot ripen into tee title are not required to sign final subdivision maps. Robert Dougherty, Esq. -2- July 17, 1984 The question posed is whether a proposed subdivision map must be conditioned upon the written consent of all existing Deer Creek homeowners by reason of some ownership interest in the property. I have been shown the final maps of the existing subdivisions and it does not appear that there is any lot either owned or proposed to be owned in fee by the homeowners association. The only interest appears to be a bridal path easement granted to the homeowners association which crosses most of the lots in the subdivision. The only interest then that we show in any of the homeowners is an easement in the bridal path. This easement is neither a fee interest nor will it ever ripen into a fee interest. Under these circum- stances, neither the homeowners association nor any member thereof would ever have to sign any subdivision map in any respect whatsoever. Under these conditions, it would not make any real difference who drew the covenants, conditions and restrictions on the tracts in that none of the homeowners would ever be requested to either approve or disapprove of the subdivision. It is my understanding that their rights in the bridal trails will be preserved in the new subdivision, but that does not really affect the signing of the map. Respectfully yours, DONALD E. MARONEY City Attorney for the City of Upland DEM:gp § 66423 SUBDIVISIONS p, T. a er mat, il.. II Ii . ,. • vl �. r . pral:vuu.�n .li n L,•::.. .m. :ulr.,. .I Irma r.n M1n:nI .:.r urea. r.n L.•r n•III III rJIIJ rr u ul 11.e yna'li nl nrn •r: d :vr�l rurnr.,.'rr: rql., Inn•[, ugn•n..l o vl , i:Lri _n: nniinirn•Vr �, 1>,lin I I .nlry I r• I:, d r.:nu r• , Itlu:Y II yr �:J Ili II r.I,ol uul Ilua. .,L m uw.I rl:a.e. Id. 1'r IT I I I -I I I Tf n InnrI III . I IT r .ulu , I I ^II ., pn I r I II nLn: II uJ •'• I llin.r ll.•nl III TIP e .rllr` I ,I inrr Pdrl ,l\ dl I „nlul i], J.I. 7. r.11l,. u'nl pIIP I : • I I:. ..I. .. I�u utn '..I ri.IV Lrlurrl'.I 1dn nu Illy In rant III I:IIII r'I I III inr I I r mu r. I..i n.r.l, v nJL r a p u r I. .nil d nl,g, •'•pll�f •'a Lm ul Iln wnnv mil Lr Inl n nr IILI nI,. •III I,.. \: n�l :.n` III. I'Le I I:..> L. .r•.Il.n „L.0 nrdn l_e.a InarLlnd Title leer I l•:r If an l.. . ,n l• a r v.nu ,r.I [III ururrn ,1 Ian r •, •. �• • L:: Ills r.,,mr, Ir1 n;:r nil nndrr a .'.•:1' -I. InI 11 Il.�.r L.:, li:u .I ldn rI I. n.l. Ibn .I. .II InI .I r Lan l r,.II IT. I I,..I Iunp I. n'G:orv•I.rrul.- .• pno-�l I:.1 I ...I 11 11 I I ,, rl: 11 A I1,, 1 11 .L.. AI, rrdOa rIlrr- rl I I I IL I ..I. irp.l .al.. :5 .�k,I j. Asseswent pvrels \ \'le III i I:II Ir..,.Ir li.11, III rd Ivhu vL •10,, 1 >I ,I . \..I sell I .I II I.I nI I I .rl In r.. III .I.al an LAS I•unl, e n, =1 c l.• rl r l,' dn.I l ul L'd,r ,d vl,a III bl. e I I ,I I Ir`ur .I b, tlm I. r .In... un rnlmn. I erri ru 'I' r � I•r .. [.!III '`Ilse III. III w11llnr.. \n }!. 4. GnGemnation lalnl. enI I 111 . I I .... I .,I Ir r Ih, n II I ,Il -1 911 e n I'-I II IrIl vrd„rdl l a lh III11 n III L, Vurrrl lIi .nI �L elate n. rIP.•..V I II. 66429. It"ording final and parcel maps Of the maps required by this division, only final and parcel maps may be MIA for record in the office of the county recorder, ::Added by itat,,1971. c. 15::d. p.6468. § 4, operauce March 1, 19, 5.1 § 66430. Consent to filing No final map or parcel map required b} this chapter or local or- dinnnre which creates a subdivision shall be filed with the local agen- ry \without the written consent of all parties having any record title interest In the real properly proposed to be subdivided, except as oth- cr\vice pi o, ided in this division. Add. ;L•. stata. i7, 1. (. 151111. P. r.46N,; 1,.,cr an, ,\larch 1. 1975.) Historical Note Ilrrrrallnn, ,\ I'nd I'. e u I. Ili .t 1'111.4'. L, a III 25. :u lard k FnJ., 110.1'. 1'. .Irno-_1;, n I. � ka go M § 66435 SUBDIVISIONS Title 7 Historical Note 0 ...... Orr: R"'. & 14OTA'. f."n"', 11"t, 1'. I'll , I.J. L. 1 L.a, Review Carroaroolrics § 66435.1. Certificates and acknoviledziteents: WIMMInt i"Stni- ment; recording Notn%imslandmq any other provision of this article. local IUn- ties niaq require that these certificates and acknowledgments re- quirorl by Set-tiont; 66436 and 66443, be made by SePolole instrument to be recorded concurrently with the final map being filed for record. I Add,d Lc Stat,.19,-2. r. $7, § lo... wenG. of. Match 1. 1.j,,2.) § 66435.2. Certificates or acknowledgments; separate instru- nuent; reference on final nulf) Whcne%er a certificate Or acknowledgment is made lt� separate instrument, there shall appeor on the final mail a reference to the sePnrately re('01AM dMURICut. This reference shall be completeo by the county l0l-01-der Pursuant to Section 66,169.1. (Added be Stat-19S2, c. 17, 11. ufcenuy, off. March 1, I°S2.) 66436. Certificate of consent; exceptions A certificate, signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the real property subdivided, consenting to the preparation and recordation of the final map is required. except as follows: (it) Neither a lien for state, counly, municipal or local taxes. nor for special assessments. not, a trust interest under bond indentures, nor lnchnjos' liens constitute a record title interest in land for the purpose of this chapter at local ordinance. (a) 'rhe signature of either the holder of otniolk all interests un- der trust deeds or the trustee under such trust oveds, but not both, may he untitled. The sOmaluro of either shall constitute a full and complete sultan dina t lot, of the lion of the (Wed of trust to the map and an' interest created by the rual). (e) Skmatures; of parties ceiling the 10110MI19 types Of micce,'t" may be omitted if their names and the nature of then respective in- terests arc stated on the filial map: 226 �i r i ' = MAPS § 66436 ' i+ PI{hts -at -tray, easements or other nuvrests .vh:ch cannot ,ort rota a fee, e,ecept those owned hr 11 public ennn', prblie utilu" r :uhsniutr> of a public utility for ton ovtuice to sarh public niji1v ; n rc;hL <- nfacay. If, however, the legislative body or advisory ngen- d;i :r.:mex th;u d!vis on and rlevdopmcm of the property in the :'.:,nncr ;ot forth on the approved re (onditwnalir ,+pp raced tentain'e 11111 not unreasonably interfere with the free and onmnioto c\er- .e - -t the ltlUbc emibY or public uttlliy n,,,ht -of -wry or easement. >i; nature of such pub!!c entity or public utility may be omitted, lJ, h"1e such determination is mode, the subu velor cscul send, by cer- -led ntn:l, a sketch of the proposed filial man• together with a copy ihit section. to any public entity or public utility Knfch has nrcvi• "+�Iy acqunrd a right- of -ii -ny or easement. :f the public cooly m' utility objects to either it) recording the . :nap tv+thout Its signature: or lit) the diliemmaat+on of the !ts - nivrr N,,iy or advisory agency that the sh%Ision and dcyciopmenc of .. pronrrly will not unreasotably interfere with the full told con•: �a +,vrr<vse Of Its right -of -way or casement, it shall to notify the .., .. ;slier ;tnd the lecvslatn'e batty or advisor' agency within 30 days ..nrr reo•ipt of the materials from the subdivider. •f 'he public entity or utility objects to recording the final map hm:t •.ts signature. the public entuv or utility %a objecting may ai- ...; .r_ttnuuo to the final map within 30 rinys of filing its ob)ecuon nnh :i.r b,islauvo bad} a' advisory agency. .i •l:,• nnbiic Cluny or utility enhar lit does not file an objection i•,ii ihr Ioit +stable body m' advisory agency: or (ii) fails to affix its >una:nre within q days of filing its oblection. to recording the map anhotu its signature, the local agency may record the final map without such signature. It the public ennrc or UWRN files an objection to the determina- tion at the legislative liodv or advisory agency that the division and i;evclopmc•nt of the proporfy will not uneasonably interfere with the t,serc:.ac of its right -of -say or easement, the legis)auve body or advis- ary a ;anry shall set the matter for public hearing to be laid not less than It) nor more thin 30 days of receipt of the objection. At such bearing, the public entity or public utility shall present avidente in :.uppoll of its position that the division and development of the prop - orty will unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the objector's rightof -way or easement. fP the lorisiatlye body or advisory agency finds, following such hilai big, that the development and division will in fact unreasonably liner ere wish the free and complete exercise of the objector's right- or easement, it shall set forth these conditions whereby such 227 A i� a X 4 a Y § 66436 SUBDIVISIONS Title 7 unioasonable interference will be eliminated and upon compliance with such conditions by the subdivider, the final map may be reccord- cd with or without the signature of the objector. If the legislative body or advisor agency inns that the development and division will in fact not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the objector's right- of -u'ay or easement, the final map may be re- corded without the signature of the objector. notwithstanding its objections thereto. Failure of the public entity or public utility to file an objection pursuant to this section shall In no may affect its rights under a right -of -way or easement. (2) llichts -of -way. easements or reversions, which by reason of chanced condilions, long disuse or laches appear to be no longer of practical use or value and signatures are impossible or impractical to obtain. A statement of the circumstances preventing the procure- ment of the signatures shall also be stated on the map. 131 Interests in or rights to minerals, including but not limited to oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances. Idl Real property originally patented by the United States or by the State of California, which original patent reserved interest to er their or both of such entities, may be Included in the final map with- out the consent of the United States or the State of California thereto or to dedications made thereon. ,Added by Stat4.1971, e. I536, p. 346p, g A, oierative March 1. 197:7. Amended by 6tats.1976, c 928, p. 212. ti: i4tats.1070, c 1081, p. 400:3. § 9; Stat.,.1977, c. 23A, p. IDan, § 7, 1 July 7, 1977 ; SLata.1982, c. 87, § 12. ur- Yuney, eff. Mal,,h 1, 1992.: Historical Note The 11171; •ndmran 1 ...I snhd. Icn prelioo,p' nrgrlrrrd n nphpef,,1 of do, rr,le -i ao-d forrv,, mbda. 0, and r.eunrnt. 1 and I,h: rrx nr lv xnl.l If ILo poldhi, r m r1' rL- x1111 xb.ir'I1, a "llol. rLl ill, had read Inca m rr,o .W o 1, Perot nrr final 'lilehl.of loy. 1—i run and ntI n Illr• of. ow orl 11f nnrlr prlh1, vlltl(r or pr1.r x'lo I. ........ rll l:rn rnln a Irr. fl Ill.... wFlrnrrlrr• Lr nnhi \', I1 .Lodi el nnnfy ILr vuLdi\xl,r ,1 , rrd Ly a i"Whi nt\ r r nA IL, "All", uly ilio :ia aye pnbbr, nulnv nnlrl+ 1 r hr •Ifor, nr,nn Ibrrrrrf, mLrrx'ler Ili, . v 6., ir•,n d TI, ILr 1..111.rurr Fr..lr InM 1 r u Irr .......... i Fill, of hr Imlr� odrgnr ..f tlr. pnrlrr r lhr I hbr.vtnv or InLlo- mday nl ub", o r. ..n fortb rr tlu• LI1:J 1 xql nl unri1lr 'rrrrI Ihr find I.I., ,ill ein n11L rrl'I. un•b mrvnrr nrr .1 Idol r ahrrll r nifrrt 71.4 riG!rt�e�r III plr1.• rrd 'hr hurbha r nq' ar I.0b 'I,r n •In of 1x r r xrnwn C'I =' ubr ¢hI r•ho •nn pr. r rA,•t Ile 1nr ll "re0u 1.I.. lu• r .,lad .i..lrt rrd if nr thr n rxLgr ..f rIIIII rrrl Irr .r I. x1..1 n If , 11YI',x� 111 1nL Ill t e rrnl. II rldnr rinr. 1,n II rir' 11 tl Irr. r, p1 Ilre I'll it II riff of rill r oil Ilie •Il r Ill,o of tI, Ill ed. -!Ilef ... e, JI,AI ood In .rb f'.�I I I I I r of tlu. 1, 11'. or ill:• ... II'.n ad, 'k.11. 1. of 1h, p, op,rlrrl Iona, ul''Ip. Ibrr,uf. III I oollel o:m 11 1111 ern .11 nluy iiI I r 117 'npy of 1111 1 Irr o 1, nr...... I r,l, Ia pnOnlolyd Ip non' ool., Tony nr pnbI, Iln Llvlrwlur'M1 %oloi,g or other lord nnliomuw or ri 228 -ri a x 1 ,yy .l r t ry a.. 3 66451.1 srutitt lswss True V41e9 of neei :ions 1. In general 'I ".. r. r. Id.r, rr ..•, ,m .u•.lal •• •r Iv', +Ir nt .n i.. n. ru..u.n..: nn .x r.,m �•I 'I f'�V::d:ae1u a° 66451.2. Loral meenay prmrsdnC fm,: limitations The local aeonmy may esulbhi h reasonable fees for the piocuslnG of tenlati:e. final and p¢rrcl maps mad for other procedures required i ,nnhonzod by this dmFion or lernl ordhmn.e. but the fats Shull riot o�wi,,fi 1110 amOtmt ITaconnuly re(1Wre(f b \' u h a+SCUPV to n(IminiS- lcr aim nrDl¢JenS of this d{cl"lom The foes shall he Imposed pursu- ;mt to (hapter 1:; I("ommenclnq w;tn Section a1990) of Part 1 of Di- elvion 2 of Titlo o. Alts,!. I;: Slat,. 1971. c. UAII. p. ',1ain. ti S, operative Starch l- 11175 A ail, ndmi''ly 5t:tla.le31... 1p 1. 1, 6.1 IS15[OO II a It, I, I I. It .ulrl "d Inrt It I �, r n p.: •+ , arimun,f.•r :r ne m ni I':m at'1 "r,.r.0 Cil Note per,vatien: I ;v' +. er ('rnt,l'. (m,ucr l, 1LN i. neumdrriFv .rwx.19:J:. r \ +p. I:AIa. I ?11.:•. 1116, 1.. "'.5t 3 fl. Cross References I, A orr1I.1I,tm JeiieeJ. =nr,d CG121. News of (7CCISion, I. In general 9•:.- .. r n.a mn nn,4nnnn :Lr i:n. 'r bnrlp "c Imnun and n.prrrina rerh (:.�x •f i. it :,pd r L.• .bf:n, :.rl , :rr,rul rnnl:ry rrrrr „- nmd h� '•'unl inud r•rr rpr'x (nNm nr.•d. f.rt rm'. .r. .. npr•n .n fr:�t•r, f nrifr, , IrurP' •• n. ..del :n r•:nimf. . �.d .rr .:. Ir•In n:un: nrtlnc ' vfb or r f Ful•d„i.nm AIUV Ali :.0 r„ �rrr ..,:rqr Icon, Ile• ni,a, .r �n••1 r \. �IW., \ 1' art. '. Pn:n• L;uv nr f f rr nrq ornL m'.:n .�r�l ?,:r l'IA n, r,r,, I Ln ,r.Fna'L.r \C 116, n'.rn rrmmni„ Prrn r�nr,,. : < (rr 1'nrn rl!'Y•,51 191'ai.it Prr, +0. -.:J 1\.1.24 nll'n , r1n r m, •••' .,v bhnn.r. ::.um. ii rrl n( :mq: JILi. 66451.3. \otirc, of nearing Will"'eeer a public' hem'ing is hold pursuant to this (livh1on, no- tI of the limo ;Ind piece thereof, including a genial deseri lit ion of lho Inrnt ion of the subdivision or Proposed snhtliclsion, shall he given ai toast 10 flay, before the henrin',. Sin h notice shali he go, oil h}' 2w le 7 IM I'. .�,n. dn, ,red call nis- SU- Di- 975. •r 1 .uG. �. V. •v, 6 'vta. fee ItIme ere• Ifrt- Mall rt h \.':d no. I of ran by V bh'._ PROCEDURE a 66457.4 publication once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the total agency', or if there is none. by posting the no- tire in at least three public places in the local agent;v, ui if the,ubdi- vislnn lies within a city, published in a newspaper of general eireula- t ion printed and published in the county and circulated in the city. In the rase of a proposed toncrosion of resident in real properq in it 10.1nomIaiurn project. community apartment project, a stock coo ner- abte project, such notice shall also be given by 1--rritnd States mail to each tenant of the subject property, and. In addition to notice of the time and place of the public hearing, shall include notification of the tenant's right to appear and the right to he heard. Such notice to tenants shall be eoen b'v the local ne_ency, and mall be deemed satin. Led if the notice complies with the legal requirements for scmwe by maul. Pursuant to 5e, lion li5i. -,1.2, fees mny be collected from the suntilvider for expenses incurred under this section. In addition to nottl'c by publication, a local agency may grn'e notice of the hearing in such other manner as it nwy deem necessary or desirable, as pro - v,ded by local ordinance. Any interested person may appear it such a hearing and shall be heard. .1idrd lay tItat,.1074. c. 1536, p. :1 -G.1, t• 4, operatic - March 1, 1975. :1I Id 11 by Stats.11180. C. 1328, p. 06:31, i 2.) Historical Note .. ,r•.I 1.r t..d.I. ..I W'. -r. I ill" ,.rl. rW i•. u.. n.r.. ..I!.' I'I 1'J� \I. .let•. nrnvabon: Ilan.. .\ rl'n.L1. 1, :, I. iJ 1, + 1. ILA" .rl In x.lbC: I;rej'i TL n.. I ICL...,i.,. Ivrr. t 7. 'J 1-,;. a _. FtntclPnl, , 191. P. Cross References ......... I! .. ... ........ ...... III , IT r• . Ipxu. ..Umn. rlri "l rn f:ururc m Ir,rw,,..r a nil.�i.a. Notes of In nenerel n r. rr n,•r•r r.1 I..r n r.n1 n r �, ed,a• :•m .i !I :, I I r i, l . :rbdnl•u,u r nJ.l .nL.r :urunlL r e �.n n:nml err u In nn wmFl Ir n. r n. I�crr lr'�prl plr.pr. tr.h nr .r nLr.rl Decisions d�'p rain env .cure Lin l.. '..rrb•t.rnn.r l" o- pne r.Llnd •Fr.' lur r..... pn /.r arm •n mglr.. peel of , r Iu o I r b.' br.anl pence M1. Iran dlggm u n r .rduP „uun err Ilan 1 r, r , I 1pin: 1]G I l.Ignr a.r'i ell :Id INCr 66457.4. N'D1ire of appliratioa In owners , bbin %oil feet bit In addition to the notice required by Section 664:71.1, ohen. Q'Ie nip1mal of a lentntit'Cnlllp N \Illtvnstitutea sllbstantialorsienifi. cum dcprfvntion of the properU' rights of other landowners, the local 215 I c! ,' FAIN 9 aims k� I rt 6Rl`l0 \' DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CITY COUNCIL on D. Mike s, Mayor Richard Dahl, Mayor Pro -Tem Charles Buquet, II Jeffrey King Pamela J. Wright CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dennis L. Stout, Chairman E. David Barker, Vice- Chairman Larry McNiel Herman Rempel • Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director SUPPORT STAFF FOR DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Rick Gomez, City Planner Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner Curtis E. Johnston, Associate Planner Linda D. Daniels, Project Manager, Assistant Planner Janice Reynolds, Planning Secretary John Meyer, Graphics, Planning Intern r- IL JUNE 1984 • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Page No. I. INTRODUCTION ..................... ..............................1 Purpose and Intent ........... ..............................1 Legislative Authority ...................................... 1 Organization ................. ..............................2 Public Participation ......... ..............................3 II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ....... ..............................3 III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS .......... ..............................5 IV. HOUSING DEMAND ................... ..............................5 V. VACANT LAND INVENTORY ............ ..............................7 VI. HOUSING AVAI LABILITY ............. ..............................9 VII. HOUSING ASSISTANCE REEDS ......... .............................10 • VIII. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS .... ............................... 10 IX. CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING .....................11 CHAPTER TWO: I. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PRDGRAMS ....................13 -23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ........... 6 TABLE 2 VACANT LANDS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT .....................8 • • HOUSING ELEMENT 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose and Intent The Housing Element is intended to provide residents of the community and local government officials with a greater understanding of the housing needs in Rancho Cucamonga and to provide guidance to the decision- making process in all matters relating to housing. The document analyzes existing and future housing needs, develops a problem - solving strategy, and provides a course of action to achieve the stated housing goals and objectives. This document is required by State Law to update the Housing Element originally approved with the General Plan in 1981. This update incorporates . the most recent demographic information and housing trends to accurately assess the state of housing in Rancho Cucamonga. Legislative Authority The Legislature of the State of California has identified the attainment of a decent home and a satisfying environment for every resident of the State of California as a goal of highest priority. Recognizing that local planning programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this goal, and to assure that local planning effectively implements Statewide housing policy, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties include a Housing Element as part of their adopted local General Plan. Section 65583 of the California Government Code requires the preparation of a Housing Element "to consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing 1 All support data and sources are cited in Chapter 3, Technical Appendix. 0 -1- needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled • programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing ". The Housing Element must also identify and make "adequate 'provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community ". The State Housing Element guidelines require three basic components to be included as follows: I. An assessment of local housing needs and an inventory of local resources and constraints relevant to meeting these local needs. Ii. A statement(s) of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. III. A program which sets forth a five -year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. • Organization The format of separating the data from the housing strategy programs has been chosen so that the importance of the City's programs is not lost or diluted with the calculations, graphs or other technical information. Chapters One and No contain a brief synopsis of the technical data collected as well as statements identifying the City's goals, policies, quantified objectives and the five year housing programs. The third chapter contains in detail the technical data and calculations described above in the first basic component of the Housing Element. The information provided in the combined document is based on the best available background data and acts as a framework for the City's identified housing needs and subsequent policies and programs. -2- • • It is the City's intent to continually monitor and expand on the established housing programs and to prepare a complete update again in 1989. The goal, objectives, policies and programs of the Housing Element have been prepared so as to be consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. Public Participation Section 65583(c) of the California Government Code states that local jurisdictions must make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. To achieve this goal, during the preparation of this document both the Technical Appendix, and Objectives and Programs sections were reviewed by the Planning Commission at regularly scheduled public meetings. A 90 -day review period followed completion of the Draft Housing Element and comments were received from the State Housing and Community Development Department. In addition, review of the document was advertised in The Daily Report newspaper and public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and City Council to • receive public testimony prior to adoption. II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Rancho Cucamonga is located in the San Bernardino - Ontario Regional Housing Market area. This market area is in one of the fastest growing regions in Southern California. Between 1970 and 1980, the population of this market area grew by 25 %, marking it as one of the fastest growing areas in Southern California. Estimates by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCO), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the State Employment Development Department reveal that the west end of San Bernardino County has captured much of the market area's growth in both population and jobs and that this trend is likely to continue. • -3- Rancho Cucamonga's role is gradually shifting from that of a "bedroom suburb" • for the broader region to a more economically integrated city with a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial development. Between 1970 to 1980 the population grew from 16,043 to 55,250, an increase of approximately 344 %. Most of the growth occurred between 1975 and 1979 when the City grew by 28,988 persons. The Southern California Association of Governments provides individual communities with population projections to the year 2000. Based on SCAG's calculation, the City is expected to increase by approximately 4.6% per year to a total of about 127,500 persons by the year 2000. This estimate is predicated on an average household size of 2.9 persons (established by SCAG). These estimates indicate that the buildout of the City is expected to occur around the year 2010. Of course, the housing market, interest rates, and general availability of money has a significant impact in determining build out and when it will occur. The projected compounded annual average 4.6% population growth rate is indicative of a strong demand for future housing in the west end area of San Bernardino County. It is reasonable to • assume that this projected growth rate may moderate downward and will be evaluated periodically in the course of the General Plan review. The demographic profile of Rancho Cucamonga residents differs little from that of the County. The median age of the community was 26.6 years according to the 1980 census. The City had a slightly higher percentage of younger people, Whites and Spanish sur -named than the County. About 39% of the residents were under the age of 19, and about 57% were between the ages of 20 to 64 years. Whites represented about 88% of the total population and Hispanic persons 6.1 percent. Of the total population in 1980, 55,250 people, approximately 45.1% or 24,930 were employed in the labor force. The two major types of industrial employment sources in Rancho Cucamonga are durable manufacturing and retail trade. Of the occupational employment sources most of the labor force was in clerical positions followed close by with craft /repair positions. -4- • • Of the working labor force living in Rancho Cucamonga in 1980, approximately 10% worked in the City, based on commuter patterns. The majority of workers commuted to Los .Angeles County. III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS The 1960 Federal Census established the total number of dwelling units in Rancho Cucamonga to be 17,839. In conjunction with the SCAG population projection estimates, the expected unit count in the year 2000 is 45,750 with the build out unit count estimated to be about 59,814. Of the existing units, the majority are of single - family nature and are owner occupied. As of January 1980, 85% of the housing units were owner occupied and 15 percent renter occupied. Single family units accounted for 84% of the City's housing stock; duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes accounted for 28 %; multi - family units with more than 5 units equalled 5.7% and mobile homes • constituted 7.6% of the total stock count of 17,839. As fast as construction has occurred, the overall vacancy rate for the City's housing stock, as shown by the 1980 census, was 4.8 percent. The vacancy rate for single family type units averaged 5.1 while multiple family units averaged 4.5 percent. Mobile home unit types experienced the lowest vacancy rate of 1% in 1980. Residents in Rancho Cucamonga had the highest median household income, $24,868, as compared to all 37 communities and the unincorporated areas of the County. The most prominent source of income in 1980 was the standard wage or salary with just over 50: of all residents receiving this type of income. IV. HOUSING DEMAND The major factor that will affect the demand for housing in the City is the expected employment growth in the commercial and industrial sectors. During is -5- the next 20 years the industrial and commercial areas in the City will . generate a demand for approximately 21,058 to 27,452 housing units in the region. 'Within the next five years approximately 8,166 to 11,296 new employees are expected to be generated thus creating about 5,103 to 7,060 new households. Employment projections are shown in the following Table. It is the City's desire to provide suitable and affordably priced housing in order to allow as many locally generated employees as is feasible to reside in the City. According to 1980 commuter trends it can be estimated that about 10% of the labor force living in the City also worked in the City. This trend is hoped to be improved upon as the City's industrial, commercial, and residential land develops. It is the City's strongest desire to provide housing which is desired by the projected employment base so that more workers can live and work within the City. • 6- TABLE 1 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 1984- 1989- 1994- 1999 - Employment Type 1989 1994 1999 2004 Commercial /Office Professional 2,551 6,260 5,063 1,574 Industrial 5,615- 5,035- 4,000- 3,595- 8,745 7,775 6,340 5,615 Total New Employees 8,116- 11,295- 9,063- 5,169- • 11,296 14,035 11,403 7,189 Total New Households 5,103- 7,060- 5,664- 3,231- 7,060 8,772 7,127 4,493 * See Appendix Tables A -4 and A -5 for detailed breakdown by employment type and sources. It is the City's desire to provide suitable and affordably priced housing in order to allow as many locally generated employees as is feasible to reside in the City. According to 1980 commuter trends it can be estimated that about 10% of the labor force living in the City also worked in the City. This trend is hoped to be improved upon as the City's industrial, commercial, and residential land develops. It is the City's strongest desire to provide housing which is desired by the projected employment base so that more workers can live and work within the City. • 6- • V. VACANT LAND INVENTORY As described previously, the 'West End of San Bernardino County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is expected-to be a highly desirable area for residential, commercial, and industrial growth. The commercial and industrial employment forecasts described in Table 1 indicates a good demand for housing especially when the City desires to have as many employees as possible to work and live locally. The most prominent resource needed by a community in order to meet the demand for housing is vacant residential lands. As shown in Table 2, the City contains approximately 6,670 acres of vacant residential land suitable for development within the City. This vacant acreage allows density ranges of between less than two dwelling units per acre and going up to 30 dwelling units per acre. As can be seen with the present vacant acreage in the density ranges permitted there is being provided an adequate diversity of lands for the development of all types of housing. The • vacant land, if developed at mid -point of each density range, could yield 40,609 new units. Buildout of the City is expected to occur by the year 2010. -7- TABLE 2 • VACANT LANDS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE CORRESPONDING OW LLIN NI GR WTH CITYWIDE AND IN DESIGNATED AREAS Vacant Residential Developable Landsl - Rancho Cucamonga citywide (not incl. sphere) I Vacant and /or underutilized residentially designated land was calculated as part of the City's assessment of vacant lands in December 1983. Aerial photographs of the City dated January 1982 were used to show vacant parcels. Monthly status reports from January 1983 to December 1983 were used to eliminate residential acreage which had been developed after the aerial photograph was taken. 2 Mobile home parks are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in all residential zones, except for vacant properties in the Etiwanda community. -8- 0 Estimated Potential Development Units at mid -point District (Density) Acres of Density Range ER .1 -1 du /ac) 130 96 HR .1 -2 du /ac) 173 134 VL (.1 -2 du /ac) 2,305 3,724 L (2 -4 du /ac) 1,211 4,099 LM (4 -8 du /ac) 1,309 8,336 M (8 -14 du /ac) 1,067 12,884 MH (14 -24 du /ac) 346 7,104 H (24 -30 du /ac) 129 4,232 6,670 40,609 I Vacant and /or underutilized residentially designated land was calculated as part of the City's assessment of vacant lands in December 1983. Aerial photographs of the City dated January 1982 were used to show vacant parcels. Monthly status reports from January 1983 to December 1983 were used to eliminate residential acreage which had been developed after the aerial photograph was taken. 2 Mobile home parks are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in all residential zones, except for vacant properties in the Etiwanda community. -8- 0 • Lands suitable for affordable housing have also been identified by the City. Within the two planned communities of Terra Vista and Victoria a commitment has been made whereby up to 15 percent of the total number of units will be made economically available to families of low and moderate incomes. The total number of affordable rental or ownership dwelling units that can be provided by these two projects is 2,529 units, approximately 667 by 1989. VI. HOUSING AVAILABILITY The most prominent type of residential construction in the City for the last five (5) years is single family, both detached and attached. Approximately 76% of all units constructed were of this type with about 24% being multiple family unit types. This trend is expected to remain consistent as the general City, along with the two planned communities, continues to develop. This is exemplified by the types of projects that are being reviewed. Currently, 1,219 multiple family units have been approved for construction at the present time (January 1984). Approximately 2,328 single family units have been • approved for construction with permits for all but 433 of these units being issued (January 1984). The two planned communities will play a large role in the future housing availability in the City. Between the two planned communities there are a total of 1,785 acres of vacant residential land. This vacant acreage is expected to provide about 14,475 dwelling units with approximately 2,529 units being planned for families of low and moderate incomes. During the next five years (1984 -89) approximately 667 affordable units should be provided in Terra Vista and Victoria. 0 -9- VII. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 1983 • Regional Housing Allocation model (RHAM) there are 1,746 lower income households who are paying disproportionately high percentages of their income on housing. Both the State Housing and Community Development Department and the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department have raised the acceptable percentage of gross income spent on housing from 25 percent to 30 percent. The R4A4 provides projections fer the City as to the number and type of units that are needed by 1983 in order to avoid a housing impaction. According to SCAG approximately 10,368 units are needed between 1983 and 1988 in order to minimize any housing constraints and provide adequate housing to persons wishing to locate in the Rancho Cucamonga area. To obtain a five year projection for the Housing Element this figure was extrapolated one year to 1989. The housing need for 1989 is estimated to be 12,442 units. The SCAG RHAM also establishes that 43 percent of the units constructed should be affordable to households earning 120 percent or less of the established median • income. The Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) is required to be prepared in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program efforts. The purpose of the plan is to state quantified goals to meet low income needs. In the plan, lower income small families were cited as being the largest household group needing assistance. As of October 1982 the HAP identified 792 small families, 213 large families and 97 elderly families needing housing assistance. VIII. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS Overall, the housing stock of the City is in good condition. Approximately one percent of the total dwelling units in 1980 had no plumbing or heating according to the Federal Census. This is probably attributable to the fact that all but 2,250 dwelling units have been constructed since 1960. -10- • • Based on a windshield survey, approximately 47 units or one -third of one percent of the 1979 housing stock are considered delapidated. About 130, or one percent, are at a deteriorated level with the remaining 14,277 units being considered sound. According to City records and in conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant program four areas have been identified and targeted for rehabilitation assistance. These four areas are identified on Map A -4 in the Techinical Appendix. Emphasis on rehabilitation programs in these four identified areas as well as throughout the City, to maintain the sound quality of the housing stock, are explored in the programs section. IX. CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING There are both public and private market constraints that interfere with the development of housing for all income levels. While there are some constraints generated by local, state or federal government, there are also a number of constraints controlled by the market place. • The City, through its attempts of reducing the local government constraints and providing incentives for the construction of affordable housing has prepared programs in the areas of subsidizing development fees and infrastructure, lowering land prices through land write downs, and providing density bonuses should a project merit such types of benefits. There are, however, some constraints beyond the complete control of the City government such as school overcrowding and conventional interest rates. It is clear that the cost of housing, including financing and production costs, have increased more rapidly than household income thereby pricing potential home buyers out of the market. lower interest rates for both construction and purchasing would be a significant asset in providing affordable housing and there are ways that the local government can provide incentives which will help to reduce housing constraints and housing costs. Through such methods of redevelopment tax increment monies the City can offer incentives and programs, as described in the following pages, to developers in is the community so that a diverse type of housing and price mix can be provided. -11- CHAPTER TWO I. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS The goal, objectives, policies, and programs outlined below shall act as a guide for the City in its efforts in providing decent, affordable housing and its encouragement of a variety of housing types. In order to move towards attaining the overall housing goal through the corresponding objective areas, the City must commit itself to specific action programs and stated policies. The housing goal has been broken down into seven (1) objective areas; Housing Opportunities for Projected Commercial and Industrial Employee Households, Conservation and Rehabilitation of the Housing Stock, Opportunities for a Broad Range of Housing Types, Residential Energy Efficiency, Housing Opportunities for Households of Low and Moderate Incomes and Special Yeeds Groups, Promoting Fair Housing Practices, and Reduction of Governmental Constraints. The action programs listed below also include the • maximum target number to be assisted (where quantifiable), the responsible agency for overseeing the program, the appropriate source of financing and the approximate time schedule. The action programs are the most feasible actions which this City can take in order to satisfy the identified housing needs described in Chapter 3, the Technical Appendix. These programs are based on the present and anticipated resources of the City, as perscribed under Section 65583 (b) of the California Government Code, with the quantified targets being guidelines and not necessarily being requirements of the City. It is the City's policy of this plan to take a diligent approach in satisfying the housing needs of the existing and future residents. • -13- The overall goal of the Housing Element, for the most part, is consistent with • the goal of the 1981 Housing Element. The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a - variety of housing types for all economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex or income group. In addition to the objectives and action programs, the City has identified policy areas which contribute to the pursuit of the housing goal. These policies are as follows: 1. The City shall use development agreements as a procedure with projects providing affordable housing which utilize incentives offered by the City. 2. Over concentration of very low and low income household units in any single project shall be • avoided. For this policy, the number of very low and low income subsidized housing units shall not exceed 25 percent in any one project. 3. Provide input, such as cost /benefit bzlance, and recommendations to the California Energy Commission in its preparation and updating of energy efficient residential guidelines. The remainder of this Housing Element is broken down into seven objectives which when combined with the stated policies are intended to meet the housing goal of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. -14- • • OBJECTIVE 1: Promote and encourage housing opportunities so that it is desirable for 30 percent of the projected commercial and industrial employed households in the City to live and work in the City. Program 1.1: Determine the income levels of future commercial and industrial employed households in order to identify the affordable housing ranges in all income groups of the expected new households. Target: 30 percent of all new employee household formations Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: General Fund, City Budget Schedule: 1985 Program 1.2: Expand the City's data base management system to include a residential, industrial and commercial • monitoring system of proposed projects. Target: Not applicable Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: General Fund, City Budget Schedule: 1986 Program 1.3: Encourage an "equity share" program for local employment participation. Target: 30 percent of all new employee household formations. Responsible Agency: Public and Private Sector Financing: Public and Private Sources Schedule: 1984 -1989 OBJECTIVE 2: Conserve and improve the existing housing stock, and • eliminate the causes and spread of blight and deterioration by encouraging the investment of public and private funds in housing rehabilitation and public improvements. Program 2.1: Identify areas of the City with concentrations of older housing units which may be targeted for rehabilitation and improvement programs. Target: Identified areas citywide Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: General Fund, City Budget Schedule: 1984 Program 2.2: Develop a Redevelopment Agency rehabilitation loan program which would provide rehabilitation and repair assistance to low and moderate income households. • Target: 120 low and moderate income households, approximately 30 annually Responsible Agency: Redevelopment Agency Financing: 20 percent tax increment Schedule: 1985 -89 Program 2.3: Operate a grant program for senior citizens and disabled or handicapped persons for minor home repairs. Target: 100 households, approximately 20 annually Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Community Development Block Grant ? $28,000 annually Schedule: 1984 -1989 -16- 0 • Program 2.4: Operate a housing rehabilitation and repair loan program that offers both defferred loan payments and low interest loans at below market rates to low income households. Target: 100 low income households, approximately 20 annually Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Community Development Block Grant t $48,000 annually Schedule: 1984 -1989 Program 2.5: Provide public improvements /community facilities such as street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping, in qualified target areas. Target: City -wide target areas as identified Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga • Financing: Community Development Block Grant Schedule: 1984 -1989 OBJECTIVE 3: Allow and create new opportunities which enable a broad range of housing types, site designs, construction methods, and maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units. Program 3.1: The City shall facilitate the opportunity for a variety of housing types through the implementation of the Land Use Plan, Development District Map and the Community Plans on the remaining vacant land resources of the City. -17- VACANT LANDS RESOURCES - 1984 • Potential New Units Maximum No. of New Development at Mid -Point of Density Units Estimated District (Density) Acres Range 1984 to Buildout 1984 -89 ER (.1 -1 du /ac) 130 96 0 HR (.1 -2 du /ac) 173 134 38 VL (.1 -2 du /ac) 2,305 3,724 958 L (2 -4 du /ac) 1,211 4,099 673 LM (4 -8 du /ac) 1,309 8,336 4,254 M (8 -14 du /ac) 1,067 12,884 800 MH (14 -24 du /ac) 346 7,104 1,305 H (24 -30 du /ac) 129 4,232 0 6,670 40,609 8,028 Target: 8,028 units • Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Not Applicable Schedule: 1984 -1989 Program 3.2: Maintain and administer a condominium conversion ordinance which establishes a maximum annual limit for the number of multi - family rental units that may be converted to ownership type. Target: Consistent with 1983 SCAG -RHAM projections and update Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Not Applicable Schedule: 1984 -1989 -18 • • OBJECTIVE 4: Promote energy efficiency in all residential developments. Program 4.1: Enforce and regulate the existing State residential energy design guidelines through existing California State Building Code. Target: All affected residential construction Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Not Applicable Schedule: 1984 -1989 Program 4.2: Implement through the Development Code energy efficient design procedures and specifications for such things as solar techniques, landscaping standards, house orientation and sun angle exposure. • Target: All new residential projects Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Not applicable Schedule 1984 -1989 OBJECTIVE 5: Provide housing opportunities which meet the needs of households of low and moderate incomes and identified special needs groups. 9 -19- Program 5.1: Administer and continue to develop Residential 40 Mortgage Bond programs whereby low interest loans can be issued to first time home buyers earning at or below 120 percent of the established median income level. o In 1983 apply for a mortgage allocation of $36.2 Million. o In 1984 apply for a mortgage allocation of $45.8 Million. o In 1985 and thereafter apply for a mortgage allocation consistent with the developer and home buyer demand. Target: 1983 Bond Program - 180 first -time low and moderate income households, 60 annually 1983 -86 1984 Bond Program - 300 first -time low and moderate income households, approximately 100 annually 1984 -87. 1985 - Determined based on demand for Residential • Mortgage Revenue Bond program and applicable legislation. Responsible Agency: Redevelopment Agency Financing: Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Schedule: 1984 -1989 Program 5.2: Through the development approval process the City shall consider the use of Multiple Family Residential bonds when requested provided that 20 percent of the units are to be made available to households of low and moderate incomes. Target: 1984 - 46 units; 1985 - 50 units; 1986 - 55 units Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga in conjunction with County of San Bernardino Financing: Multiple Family Residential Bond Program Schedule: 1984 -1986 • -20- Program 5.3: Through the requirements of the Terra Vista and Victoria Community Plans, a maximum 15 percent density bonus shall be provided for the development of low and moderate income housing in the following manner: for all units built under the bonus program, one -third shall be for families earning 100 percent to 120 percent of the median income, one -third of those making 80 percent to 100 percent of the median income and one -third earning 50 percent to 80 percent of the median income. Target: 667 units by 1989 Responsible Agency: Private Sector Financing: Public and Private Sector Cooperation Schedule: 1984 -1989 • Program 5.4: in conformance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code, the City shall provide development incentives to an individual project when 25 percent of the units are available to low and moderate income households or special needs groups. The conditions of the incentives will be prescribed through the use of development agreements and are to be specific to the project needs and characteristics. Such incentives may include: deferral, waiver or reduction of fees, reduction of appropriate development standards, and density bonus. 19 Target: Determined at time of individual request Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Not Applicable Schedule: 1984 -1989 -21- Program 5.5: Encourage private developers to utilize rental • assistance programs to assist those groups in need as identified by the Housing Assistance Plan. Target: 16 large families, 113 small families, 16 elderly families Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga and Private Sector Financing: Rental Assistance Programs Schedule: By 1985 OBJECTIVE 6: Promote equal housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Program 6.1 Provide financial support for Inland Mediation Board, or a similar non - profit fair housing organization, which assists in the resolution of tenant /landlord disputes and housing discrimination. Target: Citywide • Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Community Development Block Grant Schedule: Ongoing, 1984 -1989 OBJECTIVE 1: Where possible eliminate governmental constraints. Program 7.1: Implement a computer fiscal analysis system which identifies the fiscal impact of new developments and which suggests financing alternatives and methods for the identified costs. Target: New residential development Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Financing: Community Development Block Grant (Establishing system and alternative financing suggestion), Mello -Roos and Tax Allocation Bond • (suggestions for alternative financing) Schedule: Develop system in 1984, carry out program to 1989 -22- • Program 7 -2: The Redevelopment Agency may assist in providing incentives for residential projects, such as payment of building and development fees, provide infrastructure improvements and land cost write downs, wh— o 25 percent of the units are available to low and moderate income households. Target: Determined at time of individual request. Responsible Agency: Redevelopment Agency Financing: 20 percent of Tax Increment Money Schedule: 1984 -1989 • • -23- CHAPTER THREE TECHNICAL DATA APPENDIX 0 0 • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER THREE 1. INTRODUCTION .................. ............................A -1 II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ... ............................ A -3 Demographics .............. ............................A -4 Employment ............. ............................... A -8 III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ...... ...........................A -11 Existing Housing and Projections ..................... A -12 Persons Per Household ..... ...........................A -14 Owner /Renter Characteristics ......................... A -14 Vacancy Rates ............. ...........................A -15 Income................ ............................... A -15 Percentage of Income Spent on Housing ................A -17 • IV. HOUSING D04AND ............... ...........................A -21 Regional Housing Demand ... ...........................A -22 Local Housing Demand ...... ...........................A -22 V. VACANT LAND INVENTORY ........ ...........................A -27 Vacant Residential Land .............................. A -28 Lands Suitable for Affordable Housing ................A -32 VI. HOUSING AVAILABILITY ......... ...........................A -33 RecentConstruction ....... ...........................A -34 Costs Associated With Hew Housing .................... A -34 Cost of Resale Housing .... ...........................A -36 Short -Term Projected Types And Tenure of Housing ..... A -36 Planned Communities ... ............................... A -38 Condominium Conversions ... ...........................A -39 Fair Housing .............. ...........................A -4n VII. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS ..... ...........................A -41 • Regional Housing Model Assessment .................... A -42 Housing Assistance Plan .............................. A -46 Development Block Grant Program ......................A -49 VIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ....................... A -51 Title24 .................. ...........................A -52 DevelopmentCode ...... ............................... A -52 IX. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS ............................. A -55 Housing Conditions .... ............................... A -56 X. CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING ............... A -63 Governmental Constraints .. ...........................A -64 Schools................ ...........................A -64 DevelopmentFees ....... ...........................A -64 Annexations........ ............................... A -65 Water Supply ....... ............................... A -65 Sewer Systems .......... ...........................A -65 • Flood Protection ....... ...........................A -66 Market Constraints .... ............................... A -66 GLOSSARY ................. ............................... A -69 11 ii LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND MAPS Table A -1 Employee Characteristics ......... A-9 A_2 Place of Work. Head of •,,,A -10 Household - 1919 .............. ........... A -3 Vacancy Rates......... ..........................A -15 iii Page A -5 FigureA -1 Regional Housing Market Area ............ . ........ A_2 Population Trends in Rancho Cucamonga............ A-6 A -3 Rancho Cucamonga, Distribution of 1980 ...A -7 Population by Age Group - ............. A -4 San Bernardino County, Distribution ..A-7 of Population by Age Group ..............• A -5 Ethnicity - 1980 ............................. -13 A -6 Housing Trends in Rancho Cucamonga ..............A A -7 Distribution of Dwelling Units by A_12 Structural Type ............... A_8 Distribution of Household Income •.A_16 Rancho Cucamonga /County ..................• A -9 Distribution of Households by Source A -16 ofIncome ................. A -10 Mortgage Costs per Month -Owner .. ....... .. . A -17 Occupied........................ A -17 A -11 Gross Rent Payments - 1980............ ........ .. A -12 Owner Households Paying 25% or ............ A -19 Greater on Housing ............... A -13 Renter Households Paying 25% or A -19 Greater on Housing.......... A -25 A -14 Distribution of Commute Times ................... A -15 Commuting Mode of Workers • ,A -25 16 Years and Older .................•••••••• A -16 Summary of Sales Activity ............. Table A -1 Employee Characteristics ......... A-9 A_2 Place of Work. Head of •,,,A -10 Household - 1919 .............. ........... A -3 Vacancy Rates......... ..........................A -15 iii A -4 Commercial Employment Projections ............... A -23 • A -5 Industrial Area Employment Projections ... ............................... A -24 A -6 Vacant Lands Available for Development ....... ........................A -29 -30 A -7 Expected New Dwellings by District, 1984- 89.....A -32 A -8 Residential Construction 1979- 1983 ..............A -34 A -9 Current and Future Households Needing Assistance ........................... A -44 A -10 Income Levels - 1980 (Rancho Cucamonga/ County) ....................A -45 A -11 Minority Housing Needs .......................... A -47 A -12 Special Needs of Handicapped Persons............ A -48 A -13 Survey Results of Housing Condition .............A -60 A -14 Housing Condition Data Augmented to Citywide Scale ............................ A -60 • A -15 Residential Development Fees .................... A -65 A -16 Estimated Land Costs by District ................ A -67 Map A -1 Vacant Land /City Map . ...........................A -31 A -2 Mean Value of Noncondominium Housing ........... ...........................A -37 A -3 Median Age of Housing Stock by Year Built ........ ...........................A -57 A -4 Target Areas for Housing Rehabilitation - 1984 ........................ A -58 11 iv 0 I. INTRODUCTION The following technical appendix data is intended to provide the assessment of housing needs, constraints, and an inventory of resources for the promotion • and development of housing. This Technical Appendix is aimed at providing the background and technical conclusions for the development and preparation of the community's goal, quantified objectives and five year housing program. J This portion, Chapter Three of the Housing Element, should be used in conjunction with Chapters One and Two so that a complete overview of the City's housing assessment can be understood. A -1 n u II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS This section provides demographic information relative to past and future population growth trends, age distribution, and ethnic background. In addition, employment data is discussed including employment by industry, occupational characteristics, and commutting patterns. The following are the highlights: • o Population growth, as predicted by SCAG will average a 4.6% increase per year through the end of the century. o New household formations tend to be younger in age and the number of persons per household is decreasing. o The majority of heads of households work outside of Rancho Cucamonga, while an estimated 10% lived and worked in the City in 1960. A -3 Demographics • The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the San Bernardino - Ontario Regional Housing Market area, as shown on Figure A -1. The area encompasses Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) 27, 28, 29, and 45, which are used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to project population, housing, and employment growth in this area. This market area is in one of the fastest growing regions in Southern California. Between 1970 and 1980, the region increased in population by 25% to .14,700. In Rancho Cucamonga the population increased from 16,043 to 55,250 during that same time period. The rapid growth in Rancho Cucamonga was directly related to a decade of residential and economic development in Orange and Los Angeles counties, which increased housing costs dramatically as land became less available and more expensive. In response to the continued pressures to develop, employers and home builders looked eastward toward the western end of San Bernardino and Riverside counties where land was available a- less expensive, as compared to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. • The population of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as of January 1984 was estimated to be 61,624 according to the State Department of Finance. Figure A -2 shows the population growth in Rancho Cucamonga since 1960. The greatest population increase occurred from 1975 to 1980 when the average growth rate per year was 22 %. During this time span, the population increased from 26,262 to 55,250. However, since 1980 the growth rate has dropped dramatically to about two and one -half percent per year. The decline is attributed to significantly increased housing costs created by high interest rates and the general economic recession that the entire nation was experiencing. The 1982 population projections provided by SCAG to the year 2000 reflect an approximate 4.6% population increase per year. Based on this estimate and assuming a decrease in the household size to 2.9 persons per dwelling, SCAG anticipates that the City's population will be 93,000 in the year 1990 and 127,500 in the year 2000. SCAG also establishes five year growth projections in conjunction with the Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM). The most • recent RHAM update was done in April 1983 and indicated that from 1983 to 1988 A -4 Figure A -1 REGIONAL HOUSING MARKET AREA , g ��A �M Siol RANCHO /s siy CUCAMONOA 1... e 1 HOUSING MARKET AREA VAN 11m BOUNDARY UI, All a1O,,, 29 / SCAG REGIONAL •:..,,.:. 1 ; .27 i._•• 1 / STATISTICAL AREA rcrrtaNA. BOUNDARY / 1Cl AIH KIM'YaI. ONTARIO a I 11110" 27 E. SAN GABRIEL TIXANOS i_S.� RL,,.tT_v. C 28 WEST VALLEY i } I,INp28 45 wn�+i'�GC� ,9 'I 29 EAST VALLEY wll ��nq 1 11 �a SaTIMP;aRl,, Valley 45 JURPURA ,_ nvM'4, ^ C II ,\ y �� FIIVf flSllrt I.,,1 .N) I� T— fi•. �• ♦9 � /NirvN Ia J nvnnl lM \Y �'[) OF Al 11 �AIY�•a ��R(NI vZ '�, .;a•n } CITY pP CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN 140,000 120,000 100,000 e ° 90,000 n 0 n 80,000 40,000 20,000 Figure A -2 • • POPULATION TRENDS in RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ylef 1980 1985 1970 1975 1980 Household Size SOURCE: U.S. Census, SCAG ' 82 Growth Forecast Sao 1985 1990 1995 2000 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 • • 40 the City's population will increase at a faster rate of approximately 8% per year. Figure A -2 illustrates the above- described growth trends to the year 2000. Figure A -3 illustrates the City's age distribution based on the 1980 census. The median age in Rancho Cucamonga in 1980 was 26.6 years. An examination of the average for both males and females combined for each age group, in relation to 1979 Department of Finance data, shows the proportion of the population under five years rose slightly from 9.3% to 10.9 %. The 5 -19 age group dropped from 31% to 27.9 %. The 45 -64 age group dropped from 15.8% to 13.20, while the 65 and over category also decreased from 6.9% to 4.1 %. These trends indicate relative stability in the you Eger age groups (under 19 years) with a decrease in the 5 -19 age group caused by persons moving up to the age 20 -34 category, The middle age groups 20 -34 and 35 -44 are mildly increasing in proportion and the older age groups, 45 -64 and 65 and over are decreasing in proportion to the rest of the population. In comparison to San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga's population is younger in all age groups and considerably so in the 45 and over categories as shown on Figure A -4. Figure A -3 Figure A -4 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 1980 _— ___._ —.- a.lir is 10� _ r•11 M -N • -Y 00 -y ' ❑ •.M' VED ranW A -7 as 10 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 1980 u.la ❑ ranaN .r�• ili] �.. � tit Figure A -5 shows the population percentages by race in Rancho Cucamonga. • According to the 1980 census information on race, 88% of the population in the City was white, 6.1% hispanic, 2.3,% asian and pacific islander, 2.2% black, and 1.4% other races. In terms of ancestory as opposed to race, 16.3% of the total City population were 'hispanic. This category includes persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other Hisoanic backgrounds. FIGURE A -5 ETHNICITY 1980 88% WHITE 2.3% ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER • SOURCE: 1980 Federal Census Employment The population of Rancho Cucamonga in 1980 was 55,250. Of that total, 45.1% or 24,930 were employed at the time the census was taken. Table A -1 shows the type of industries and occupations these residents of Rancho Cucamonga were associated with in 1980. The two largest percentage groups are durable manufacturing, 17.9 %, and retail trade, 17.3 %. The remaining employees have a broad spread of work affiliation, the largest being education, construction and health. • A -8 L • n lJ TABLE A -1 EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS Total Population 55,250 13.7 Total Employment 24,930 12.8 Technical /Sales: Percent Industry 644 2.6 Agriculture 501 2.0 Construction 1,760 7.1 Manufacture: 2,633 10.6 Nondurable 1,387 5.6 Durable 4,464 17.9 Transportation 1,043 4.2 Communication 1,077 4.3 Wholesale Trade 1,143 4.6 Retail Trade 4,322 17.3 Finance 1,593 6.4 Business /Repair 1,017 4.1 Personal 730 2.9 Professional: Health 1,669 6.7 Education 2,059 8.2 Other 907 3.6 Public Administration 1,258 5.0 Occupation Managerial: Administrative 3,427 13.7 Specialty 3,183 12.8 Technical /Sales: Technicians 644 2.6 Sales 3,188 12.8 Clerical 4,026 16.1 Service 2,633 10.6 Farming /Forestry 386 1.5 Craft /Repair 3,926 15.7 Operator /Laborer 3,517 14.1 SOURCE: 1980 Federal Census A -9 Occupational characteristics also show a broad spread within various • categories. The single largest group, 16.1% are clerical positions within the technical /sales field. Craft /repair jobs are also prominent with 15.7 %. Other significant occupations are administrative managerial 13.7 %, specialty managerial 12.8 %, and sales positions 12.8 %. The State Department of Finance special census conducted in 1979 looked at places of work for heads of households in Rancho Cucamonga as shown in Table A -2. Just over 31% of the household heads worked in Los Angeles County. Another 27.2% worked outside of the City and in San Bernardino or Riverside Counties. The 1979 survey indicated that 12% of the heads of households worked and lived in Rancho Cucamonga. in 1980, based on cormnuter patterns and trends of the Federal census, it was estimated that approximately 10% of the population worked and lived within the City. TABLE A -2 PLACE OF WORK OF • HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 1979 Location Household Percent Los Angeles County 4,827 31.3 San Bernardino /Riverside County* 4,187 27.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga 1,856 12.0 Orange County 624 4.0 San Diego /Imperial County 23 0.2 Other ** 3,931 25.5 *Excluding the City of Rancho Cucamonga "Includes 13.6% no response and not elsewhere classified, and 11.9% not in labor force. SOURCE: State Department of Finance Special Census (April, 1979) • A -10 0 III. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS This section provides information regarding dwelling unit growth, both past and present, and general demographics relating to housing and household growth. This related information includes such things as breakdowns of existing dwelling structural types, owner /renter characteristics, vacancy rates, and household incomes in comparison to housing costs. The following five points are the highlights of this section. o The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) housing unit growth forecasts show a continuous and steady construction rate • through the year 2000. 9 0 Of the existing housing stock in 1980 about 84% are in ownership type. This trend will continue to be the predominant housing characteristic. o Rancho Cucamonga's median household income of $24,868 was higher than any other City in San Bernardino County in 1980. o The 1980 vacancy rates for housing units are within the norms established by HUD for both single family and multiple family structures. o Significant numbers of lower income renter and owner households are paying more than the recognized Federal standard for housing affordability. A -11 Existing Housing and Projections The 1980 Federal census established the total number of dwelling units in Rancho Cucamonga to be 17,839. The Department of Finance estimates for January 1, 1984 indicate a dwelling unit count of 19,205, see Figure A -6. The 1980 census data breakdown of housing type is contained in Figure A -7. As can be seen, the majority of housing units are single family. Paralleling the previously noted population growth between 1977 to 1979, housing units also increased. A total of 4,486 units were constructed and completed during this two year period. This averages approximately 2,243 units per year. According to SCAG estimates between the years 1985 and 1988 approximately 2,000 units are expected to be completed each calendar year in order to keep pace with the expected population and general growth in the region. However, during 1983 the growth rate lagged thus affecting the overall SCAG estimate. T Ll Figure A -7 • DISTRIBUTION OF DWELLING UNITS BY STRUCTURAL TYPE RENTER VS OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS aP n � ETN Y�YVY r \vq yy µvv Erm .'L n. ❑ n ❑ nYr. A -12 E FIGURE A -6 50,000 HOUSING TRENDS IN 45,000 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 40,000 y 35,000 f z 30,000 f7 z w25,000 3 O LL 20,000 O z 15,000— 12 10,000 5, 5,000 45,750 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR SOURCE: SCAB 1982 Forecasts Census Data 1970, 1979, 1980 Dept. of Finance, Jan. 1984 City Building and Construction Records In keeping with the SCAG '82 population and housing growth forecasts, Figure • A -6 also shows the expected number of units that will be completed in the year 2000 in order to support the estimated population of 127,500. The year 2000 is not anticipated to be the buildout year for housing as there is a residential capacity of 59,814,dwelling units based on the available vacant residential land at median density in the City at the present time. Estimates show, however, that these vacant lands will not be developed at the maximum allowable densities. Realistic housing and population growth estimates show the holding capacity of the City to be about 59,814 dwelling units. This is expected to occur between the years 2007 to 2010 based on the City current projected population and housing growth trends. Persons Per Household According to the 1980 census there were 16,989 households in the City, or about 5.5% of the County total. The average number of persons per household was higher (3.3) in the City than the County (2.82). The best available data from the SCAG 182 forecast shows that the average number of persons per • household is expected to decline in future years. Figure A -2 shows that the estimated persons per household in the year 2000 will be 2.9 as an average for the entire City. Owner/Renter Characteristics The majority of the housing units in the City are single family type and owner occupied. Figure A -7 depicts a breakdown of the percentage of owner versus renter occupied dwelling units by structural type. Of all renter occupied structures in the City in 1980 approximately 53% are single family detached units, 13.6% are attached and those with 2 to 4 units in a building, 30.1% are structures having 5 or more units and 2.7% are mobile homes. For owner occupied structures, 91.1% are single family detached units. The distributions depicted in Figure A -7 shows a characteristic common to all communities, that single family detached units tend to be owner occupied and multiple family units renter occupied. • A -14 Vacancy Rates The 1980 Federal census did include some information on vacancy rates by dwelling unit type. According to the census the City had an overall vacancy rate of 4.8 percent, as shown in Table A -3. The vacancy rate for single family, both detached and attached unit types, averaged 5.1 %, while it averaged 4.5% for multiple family units. Mobile home unit types experienced the lowest vacancy rate of 1 %. With the exception of the vacancy rate for mobile homes these figures do not differ greatly from the HUD vacancy standards of 5% for single family and 3% for multiple family. The City's average vacancy rate in 1981, 1982, and 1983 for all dwelling unit types was 4.56 %, 3.33 %, and 3.21 %, respectively, as estimated by the California State Department of Finance. A -15 TABLE A -3 Vacancy Rates Occupied by Unit Un'4,447 Vacanc its Vacancy an__.. -T— • SF Detached SF Attached 58n 7 2 Units 3 & 4 Units 88 279 33 11% 5 or more 1,085 28 3% 6 1% Mobile Home Citywide Overall 888 6, 9 - - - -�T 4•i3�% Income Generally, households in Rancho Cucamonga are wealthier than those living in San Bernardino County proper. In 1980, Rancho Cucamonga had the highest median household income, $24,868, of all 37 communities and in the unincorporated areas of the County. This is compared to the $17,463 median household income for the County as a whole. The City had the third highest median family income, $25,731, as compared to the same group for 1980. Income levels for the City in comparison to the County are graphically shown in Figure A -8. The most prominent source of income in 1980 was the standard wage or salary, just over 50% of all income received by Rancho Cucamonga residents was earned by this means. The next most common source for income is from A -15 ao 1 ]. ]0 FIGURE A -8 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME RANCHO CUCAMONGA /COUNTY I .1. Figure A -9 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SOURCE OF INCOME 1980 ]1.1e Y41 ul c..... •......L. ae.as] O o-.. cm x......w. n,.n '1U F. —I ]in] interest and rent payments at 21.4 %. The mean income earned from this source is $2,400 per year. Self- employed persons comprise approximately 6.9% of the population, with a mean annual income of $18,300. Approximately 7.4% and 10.6% of the population received monies from social security and public assistance, respectively. The mean income received from social security was $4,500 per person per year. The public assistance averaged $2,700 per person per year. Income levels in relation to the income source for households within the City are graphically shown in Figure A -9. Poverty level is defined by the Federal Census Bureau as less than 80% of the national median household income. Of the total population for Rancho Cucamonga, approximately 5.5% (3,037 persons) fall below the income poverty level. This represents 4.6% of the total number of families in the City. A -16 • • • Percentage of Income Spent on Housing The 1980 census has provided information on mortgage costs and rental payments for residents of Rancho Cucamonga. This census data also indicates the amount, and corresponding percentages, of household incomes which goes to pay for both rental and ownership housing. This information is shown in Figures A -10 and A -11 and further described below. For owner occupied units that had a mortgage the largest group of residents, 29.3 %, were paying $450 to $499 per month, roughly 20% were paying $300 to $449, as was also true for the $600 to $749 range. Almost 17% of the ownership households were paying more than $750 per month in 1980 (refer to Figure A -10). For rental units, both multiple and single family dwelling types, the largest group of renters (33.1 %) were paying $200 to $299 per month in 1980. Almost 20% paid $300 to $399 and approximately 23% paid more than $500 per month for a rental unit (refer to Figure A -11). • Figure A -10 MORTGAGE COSTS PER MONTH Figure A -11 OWNER OCCUPIED GROSS RENT PAYMENTS 1980 0 •OM1iMt IM1t �tM1} A -17 YOI,LML IM1L�tF1 �'nf•([ 'tN �•n.r�� . but For both owner and renters, the City -wide median monthly payment was $538 and $342, respectively. While the general monthly mortgage or rental payment range is important to know in terms of meeting housing affordability, it is more important to inspect the percentage of income that goes to pay for housing costs. The percentage of a household's income spent on housing costs can be a significant social indicator. Figures A -12 and A -13 show the breakdown in percentages of income that owners and renters are paying for housing. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has established as a guideline that not more than 30% of the monthly gross income should go for paying housing costs. Banks and other lending institutions have also raised their standard. The 1980 census data does not provide a separate category of those paying above 30% and those paying below, rather, a category of 25% to 34% and a category of 35% and over was calculated. The data still depicts the • significant number of lower income renter and owner households that are paying a disproportionate amount of their monthly income for housing. • A -18 ro .o . o0 ac as FIGURE A -12 OWNER HOUSEHOLDS PAVING 25% OF INCOME OR GREATER ON NOIICINr • ..o.. 13 . ... ... 1.0 L... .......... N. � v .m. a..., w.e.... n...m. SJIi[[ 19'A i.ur.l 4n. �. • FIGURE A -13 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS PAVING 25% OF INCOME OR GREATER ON HOUClmn reo w w .o .o ro I 1 U Incon onou. • r.n.. a.. u m n m.... .. x.om. MCI 9M 11.nl femur A -19 IV. HOUSING DEMAND This section provides information on the general need or demand for housing in the future. This topic is covered both on a regional and local level. The main factor affecting housing demand at the local level is expected to be the increase in employment base from both industrial and commercial developments. The following statements point out the highlights of this section. • o Rancho Cucamonga is considered one of the fastest growing cities in the region by SCAG with a projected dwelling unit count of 45,750 by the year 2000. 10 o High employment growth from commercial and industrial development is expected to create between 8,166 to 11,296 new workers and between 5,103 to 7,060 new households in the next 5 years (1989). o Although currently a substantial percentage of residents do not live and work in Rancho Cucamonga this trend should be improved as the City develops its industrial, cummercial, and residential lands. o Providing housing which is affordable for the projected employment base, so that more workers can live and work within the City, is desired. A -21 Regional Housing Demand • The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has also prepared current and projected estimates for housing in the Southern California Regionl, the Regional Statistical Area - RSA 28, of which Rancho Cucamonga is a part of, as well as for the individual communities. According to their data, the RSA -23 will grow at a faster pace than the region as a whole. More important than this, 'however, is SCAG's forecast that the City will grow at a faster rate than both the region and the RSA -28. This conclusion is consistent with State projections that the West End of San Bernardino County, San Diego, and the Sacramento region will be the fastest growing areas in the state. Local Housing Demand The major factor which will affect the demand for housing in the City is the expected employment growth in the commercial and industrial sectors. During the next 20 years the industrial and commercial areas in the City will • generate a demand for approximately 21,058 to 27,452 housing units in the region, as shown in Tables A -4 and A -5. This data is based on a study of potential square footage growth protential in conjunction with existing vacant developable commercial and industrial designated lands. Assuming a 10% city capture rate2 of the locally generated employees, as it was estimated to be in 1980, there would be an overall housing unit need of between 2,105 to 2,745 over the next twenty years. This translates into an average annual housing unit need of between 105 and 137. It is a goal of the General Plan to increase the capture rate as much as feasible. The annual average projected housing stock of 1358 units appears to be sufficient in terms of overall 1 The Southern California Region includes the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. 2 Capture rate in this rase refers to the percentage of persons employed in • the industrial and commercial uses who also have the opportunity to live in the City. A -22 numbers for providing an adequate supply of units for all types of economic groups. Therefore, there does not seem to be any constraint as far as overall housing capacity. As a step in determining the viability of making a realistic effort to increase the capture rate, the City will be making an economic study of Rancho Cucamonga's major employers. As part of this study, concentration will be given to current industrial and commercial employees salary ranges. From this projected employee incomes will be estimated and compared to housing costs for the City. It is hoped that this study can identify the maximum realistic capture rate for the community. Source: City vacant land study Dec. 1984; past development trends showing comparison of building square footage to acreage (1980 -1983) and Urban land instute methodology of employees per square foot estimates as explained in footnote 1. Summary: 15,448 new employment @ 1.6 employed persons per household (SCAG employees /household in year 2000) = 9,655 new households by 2004. 1 or, Gen r 1 Commer i 1 Comm u itv C mmercial Neighbarhpod Co rcia and Reg ionag �ommerciaf laan'd use URN, a r'at in project ion oi"�"f emp�oyee per 700 sq. ft. of office area was used. For Office Professional land use, a ratio of 1 employee /250 sq. ft. of floor area was used. Floor areas were based on vacant land and building square footage projections as of January 1984. A -23 TABLE A -4 COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 1 New Employees Generated: 1984- 1989- 1994- 1999 - Land Use 1989 1994 1999 2004 General Commercial 300 1,297 2,328 1,095 Community Commercial 164 123 87 58 Neighborhood Commercial 231 225 620 115 Regional Commercial 1,286 429 -0- -0- Office Professional 570 4,186 2,028 306 Total New Employ. Generated 2,551 6,260 5,063 1,574 Number of New Households 1,594 3,913 3,164 984 Source: City vacant land study Dec. 1984; past development trends showing comparison of building square footage to acreage (1980 -1983) and Urban land instute methodology of employees per square foot estimates as explained in footnote 1. Summary: 15,448 new employment @ 1.6 employed persons per household (SCAG employees /household in year 2000) = 9,655 new households by 2004. 1 or, Gen r 1 Commer i 1 Comm u itv C mmercial Neighbarhpod Co rcia and Reg ionag �ommerciaf laan'd use URN, a r'at in project ion oi"�"f emp�oyee per 700 sq. ft. of office area was used. For Office Professional land use, a ratio of 1 employee /250 sq. ft. of floor area was used. Floor areas were based on vacant land and building square footage projections as of January 1984. A -23 Total New Households 3,509 -5,466 3,147 -4,859 2,500 -3,963 2,247 -3,509 Source: City vacant land study, December 1983; past development trends showing comparison of building square footage to acreage (1980- 1983), and Urban Land Institute methodology of employees per acre of developed industrial land as explained in footnotes 1, 2, and 3. Summary: Projected new employment range for industrial development is • 18,245 to 28,475 persons. At a 1.6 employed person per household, new households by year 2004 generated by industrial development is 11,403 to 17,797. 1. Industrial Park (IP) employee ratio per acreage is 30 -45 persons per acre. 2. Industrial, General (IG) employee ratio per acreage is 15 -25 persons per acre. 3. Industrial, Heavy (IH) employee ratio per acreage is 5 -10 persons per acre. Establishing a realistic capture rate has two objectives. The first is to provide employment and adequate housing for persons who wish to work and live in this area. The second is to provide employment and housing in proximity to one another so commuter patterns are lessened, thus having a beneficial domino effect on air quality, transportation networks, public transit and general energy efficiency. • A -24 TABLE A -5 INDUSTRIAL AREA EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS • New Employees Generated: 1984 -1989 1989 -1994 1994 -1999 1999 -2004 Land Use IP 1 3,750 -5,625 3,870 -5,805 2,790 -4,185 2,580 -3,870 IG 2 1,830 -3,050 1,080 -1,800 795 -1,325 855 -1,425 IH 3 35 -70 85 -170 415 -830 160 -320 Range of 5,615 -8,745 5,035 -7,775 4,000 -6,340 3,595 -5,615 New Employment Generated Total New Households 3,509 -5,466 3,147 -4,859 2,500 -3,963 2,247 -3,509 Source: City vacant land study, December 1983; past development trends showing comparison of building square footage to acreage (1980- 1983), and Urban Land Institute methodology of employees per acre of developed industrial land as explained in footnotes 1, 2, and 3. Summary: Projected new employment range for industrial development is • 18,245 to 28,475 persons. At a 1.6 employed person per household, new households by year 2004 generated by industrial development is 11,403 to 17,797. 1. Industrial Park (IP) employee ratio per acreage is 30 -45 persons per acre. 2. Industrial, General (IG) employee ratio per acreage is 15 -25 persons per acre. 3. Industrial, Heavy (IH) employee ratio per acreage is 5 -10 persons per acre. Establishing a realistic capture rate has two objectives. The first is to provide employment and adequate housing for persons who wish to work and live in this area. The second is to provide employment and housing in proximity to one another so commuter patterns are lessened, thus having a beneficial domino effect on air quality, transportation networks, public transit and general energy efficiency. • A -24 • According to the 1980 census, more than 55% of the 19,230 persons who did travel to work had a travelling time of 30 miniutes or more. Figure A -14 graphically shows the commuting times for 'workers over the age of 16 who lived in Rancho Cucamonga and travelled to work. 14hat is even more significant than this is the mode of transporation which is used. Figure A -15 shows the variety of transportation means available and the corresponding use by workers in 1980. 4hile it cannot be disputed that the car is the most convenient means of travel, the amount of travel time needed from home to work, as shown in Figure A -14 can be decreased with a higher capture rate than the present estimated 10 %. An objective of the Housing Element is to provide housing opportunities to those people wishing to live and work in the community as well as help the air quality and general energy efficiency. By achieving the highest possible capture rate of existing and anticipated employees, the City feels that this objective can be accomplished. ,o T Figure A -14 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUTE TIME FOR WORKERS 1e VEARS- fiM Tyr" xn new JW Lt 1>r. Mum aoarwo 40 A -25 a S T Flgure A -15 COMMUTING MODE OF WORKERS 16 YEARS o uoer a wwun n, mou _ } `, uoer a wwun V. VACANT LAND INVENTORY The most prominent resource needed by a community in order to meet the demand for housing is vacant residential lands. This section describes this resource and includes descriptions of vacant residential lands in the general City, the two planned communities and the sphere of influence. Lands feasible for affordable housing are also discussed. The following three points identify the highlights of this section. • o City has 6,670 acres of vacant residential land suitable for development within the City. o The total number of residential units in the City will be approximately 59,814 at buildout which is expected between the years 2007 to 2010. o Further growth in the area shown as the Planned Communities generally will provide a variety of housing opportunities through the build out period. A -27 Vacant Residential Land 1] Within the City there are approximately 6,670 acres of vacant or underutilized and developable land in eight residential districts. Table A -6 identifies the density range of each district and the amount of developable land. Also shown is the potential number of dwelling units which could be constructed assuming all land is built out at approximately the mid -point of the density range in each district (40,609 new units). Combining the figure for potential units (40,609) with the January 1, 1984 Department of Finance estimates for existing dwellings (19,205), the potential number of units in the City at buildout is 59,814. It should also be noted that within the unincorporated sphere of influence, north of the City, there are 5,012 acres of land which could accommodate another 6,012 potential units (Table A -6E). Table A -7 indicates the City's estimates of the number of units be be built in each district from 1984 to 1989. Eight thousand and twenty -eight units are • anticipated. This projection was based on City data, input from the development community, and overall expected growth and development for the region. A -28 • TABLE A -6 VACANT LANDS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE CORRES NDIN6 ELLING UNIT GROWTH • CITYWIDE AND IN DESIGNATED AREA VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LANDS I - RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY14IDE (NOT INCL. SPHERE_ I Vacant and/or ur�detru�ilized residen�iallcya �eii�r�ated la9d w�s.cabculabted as part o the i y s assessment o va n a s calcu ate in ecem er 1983. Aerial photographs of the City dated January 1982 were used to show vacant parcels. Monthly status reports from January 1982 to December 1983 were used to eliminate residential acreage which had been developed after the aerial photograph was taken. Source: Vacant land survey conducted by City staff December 1983 using aerial photographs and building permit activity records 2 Mobile home parks are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in all residential districts, except for vacant properties in the Etiwanda Community. 0 A -29 Potential New Units At Mid -Point of Density District (Density) ,_res Range - 1984 to 8uildout_ ER (.1 -1 du /ac) 130 96 HR (.1 -2 du /ac) 173 134 VL (.1 -2 du /ac) 2,305 3,724 L (2 -4 du /ac) 1,211 4,099 LM (4 -8 du /ac) 1,309 8,336 M (8 -14 du /ac) 1,067 12,364 MH (14 -24 du /ac) 346 7,104 H (24 -30 du /ac) 129 4 232 �b 609 6.67-0 TABLE A -6A VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LAND - GENERAL CITY Potential New Units At Mid -Point of the Density District 2 Acres Range - 1984 to Buildout HR —I!3 VL 1,428 2,423 L 578 2,410 LM 341 2,485 M 331 4,731 MH 157 3,525 H 6 199 TW —f5- r I Vacant and/or ur�detru�ilized residen�iallcya �eii�r�ated la9d w�s.cabculabted as part o the i y s assessment o va n a s calcu ate in ecem er 1983. Aerial photographs of the City dated January 1982 were used to show vacant parcels. Monthly status reports from January 1982 to December 1983 were used to eliminate residential acreage which had been developed after the aerial photograph was taken. Source: Vacant land survey conducted by City staff December 1983 using aerial photographs and building permit activity records 2 Mobile home parks are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in all residential districts, except for vacant properties in the Etiwanda Community. 0 A -29 TABLE A -6B VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LAND - ETIWANDA Potential New Units at • Development Mid -Point of the Density District Acres Range - 1984 to Buildout E_R 96 VL 877 1,301 L 360 966 LM - 285 1,836 M 219 2,409 1�_8 % 6,608 TABLE A -6C VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LAND - VICTORIA Potential New Units at Development2 Mid -Point of the Density Districts Acres Range - 1984 to Buildout L 271 355 LM 454 2,638 M 260 2,920 MH 92 1,645 H T M 40 1 552 TABLE A -60 VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LAND - TERRA VISTA Potential New Units at • Development Mid -Point of the Density District Acres Range - 1964 to Buildout L 68 LM 229 1,377 M 257 2,824 MH 97 1,934 H 83� _2, 481 TABLE A -6E VACANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE LAND - SPHERE Potential New Units at Development Mid -Point of the Density Districts Acres Range - 1984 to Buildout RL TI-481 VL 1,430 1,730 L 785 2,575 LM TI-N-2 310 1 416 A -30 • L U Gofferal q1ty, H1W.LAND AVC -, I V�ltolrla MltigkINE NO All' -=I-j A; Tina Vista t,-b Planned POOTK[LL CpmmW > AiROHW HWY[ Q 1.0 1. 1 51 IL R. ei $T General City 4TH ST �j CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAP A-1 VACANT LAND/CITY MAP I Spe cMe Plan fed .F — 8. ---- LEGE111111 TABLE A -7 EXPECTED NEW DWELLINGS BY DISTRICT 1984 -89 * • District /Dens it Range New Units R - du/ac 0 HR (.1 -2 du /ac) 38 VL (.1 -2 du /ac) 958 L (2 -4 du /ac) 673 LM (4 -8 du /ac) 4,254 M (8 -14 du /ac) 800 MH (14 -24 du /ac) 1,305 H (24 -30 du /ac) 0 TOTAL _FM * Growth projections were based on refinement of City data, input from the development community and overall expected growth and development for the region. Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division; The Land Economics Group. Lands Suitable for Affordable Housing In addition to the noted vacant residential acres, lands suitable for • affordable housing have been identified by the City. Within the two planned communities of Terra Vista and Victoria, a commitment has been made whereby 15% of the total number of units will be made economically available to low and moderate income families. In both developments, the affordable housing units will include mixes of attached and detached dwellings. The units are anticipated to be dispersed throughout the planned communities to avoid over - concentrations of low and moderate income families in any one area. The total number of affordable rental or ownership dwellings that can be provided by these two developments is 2,529 units. Other vacant lands could become available and feasible for the development of affordable housing. The methods and programs to encourage this are contained in the Element itself and its corresponding program. • A -32 0 VI. MUSING AVAILABILITY This section provides an overview of the factors contributing to housing availability such as recent and future construction activity, housing prices, and the residential capacity of the two planned communities. The following highlights are included in this section: o Recent and short -term anticipated housing construction is diversified both in structural type and cost with approximately 75% of new units being of an ownership type. • o The two Planned Communities combined provide almost 1800 acres of vacant residential land which will provide a wide range of housing types and densities. 9 o Development incentives in the Planned Communities could provide a total of over 2500 affordable housing units, appoximately 667 units by 1989. A -33 Recent Construction • Since 1970, the number of dwelling units in the City of Rancho Cucamonga has increased over 300% from 5,195 to 19,205. The most rapid increase occurred between 1970 and 1975 when 7,275 units were constructed while under the County's jurisdiction. From 1979 to 1983 the number of new units added to the housing stock has dropped considerably to 2,185. The fewest number of units -instructed in any one year was 1982 when only 247 units were built. The high was in 1983 when 736 units were added to the housing stock. The following Table A -8 illustrates construction activity in the last 5 years (1979 - 1983). During this period, 75.6% (1,652) of the new units were single dwellings including single family detached and attached structures, condominiums and townhouses. Multi- dwellings or apartments made up the remaining 24.4% (533 units). TABLE A -8 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1979 -1983 (units /% of yearly total) • Years 5 -year Unit Type 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Single Family 368 277 141 130 736 1652 (incl. detached (63 %) (100 %) (41 %) (53 %) (100 %) (75.6 %) & attached) Multi- Family 216 -0- 200 117 -0- 533 (Apartments) 24.4% Total 2, 8 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Division Cost Associated With New Housing In the fall of 1983, new housing sales for Upland and Rancho Cucamonga showed a median sales price of $135,000 for detached units and $74,324 for attached units as shown in Figure A -16. The median prices for both attached and detached units was $89,166. L A -34 FIGURE A -16 SUMMARY OF SALES ACTIVITY SOURCE: The Housing insider, San 6ernardino County Edition Fall, 1983 • P.j nllnl ulu I/n +l •,.FXrI nI [[I XAI.1 \I NXIX 1v n1an�11•. all \Ia - ' ♦I X;,.R MI ;A 1'IN n 1 nIn` MI\1 - unnl - � «II♦ NI1111\ -.a 1. vNNI .uXX�x tII RM.t nlla l`IP 1 n.111u Ni �1 u 11 • ar. MI III \a 1 \IIG _ 1`aNl a II _l G [IM:II I] moon• u:v I'll Al .+u. n SII m \1. Nl al 11[ rxul SORMARRPI XV IM. - WI '9 SAN In RN ARUI >u 41 (51 SIV a I Pa Inn (1 nsi XI Ills[[[ ('hill..- (111nn IRII. IJ Il a! it III: (.'1 MnlAd.ul . nnl.11m 0111 M(PX1 tl,mne - AmI 1 /mIa . R.III.n•. 1 -na.ln .Lr.I u n v1. nPJXXI %%I Si S:O'lll llNAIt UI5p3L l'SI1 _aF tlA\ _ __ - 3-1 ____ IIX.3a) SnI1101A1 AVX I I la IS 1'AS' SAN' III RNARIIIN11 ( (jt:NI ' pry <n FP AXP to n 12 n] ]x [pi POn..... - Illonmfnkl'nI pP_Crl li n5l Rxl x } -Ixl RIrRO n Olxl 0 X « n e W ms San Ilan;uJmn � (�'lem OR _IA X n In n ntlJxxl Grand Ic,rl<0 - 1 nnla I Indt. 1X1 O.M 10t MFII n n:a sX X]A'X Rcdland[ x II N :d 11? fl0 vn�altla N'i SI SA \'III RVAiI P(NO (T)1 Sit p 0.11 1]9 x\ [Sx 11111101AI TOTALS, \N RF:NNARnINO CtII•NT1' IOd 0.17 _ - 63, _ 041100 - - - • P.j nllnl ulu I/n +l •,.FXrI \I NXIX 1v n1an�11•. all \Ia - ' ♦I X;,.R MI ;A 1'IN n 1 nIn` MI\1 - unnl - � «II♦ NI1111\ -.a 1. vNNI \I NNIR Ill nlanol. \II \I♦ tII RM.t nlla l`IP 1 n.111u Ni �1 u 11 • ar. MI III \a 1 \IIG _ 1`aNl a II _l G [IM:II I] Il as WI Wi:' I« n SII 1111 XII I'![ tll 111 /. IMI XV IM. a I Pa Inn `[Id] 0111 M(PX1 In niX 101 X: al: v nm 1 V ]1 :1 eP AVX I I la IS aI�01X1 pry <n FP AXP pP_Crl n Olxl 0 X « a 'I .1 11. SIU OR _IA M}Y - Il OAi 3]1 11.11] 1X1 O.M 10t MFII • P.j In comparison to the West End of San Bernardino County, the median sales price • of detached units is significantly higher, whereas there is little difference in the sales price of attached units. For the West End, the median sales price for detached units was $95,000 and $74,347 for attached units. The median price for both attached and detached units was $86,612. This information was based on the sale of 633 detached units (including 96 units sold in Upland and Rancho Cucamonga), and 275 attached units (110 in Upland and Rancho Cucamonga). The price of new homes constructed in 1984 is expected to increase slightly. The new State energy regulations now in effect are expected to increase construction cost approximately $2 to $3 per square foot. Other costs associated with home building in Rancho Cucamonga, such as permit fees and land costs, are identified in the governmental and market constraints section of this Technical Appendix. Cost of Resale Housing According to the 1980 census, the mean value of non - condominium housing in • Rancho Cucamonga was $89,733, and the median value of all housing for sale was $81,800. Map A -2 shows the mean value of non - condominium houses by block group in Rancho Cucamonga. Prices in the northern Alta Loma area are considerably higher than other areas of the City because of the larger homes and minimum half -acre lot size. Short -Term Projected Types and Tenure of Housing a. Apartments: Currently six apartment projects with a total of 1,219 multi - family units have been approved by the City. Two hundred of these units (Fredericks Development) will be completed and ready for occupancy by February 1984. Another 535 units (Calmark and Butler) including 233 senior citizen apartments, are expected to begin construction in mid -1984. 11 A -36 92 2 S Cy .. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAP A -2 MEAN VALUE OF NONCONDOMINIUM HOUSING '109.96'4 93,040 ..... 6 ! 1 132,885 ° i 40 00,000 - 8 Value by Slack Group Can" Tracts o0 s•u••• Block Groups RCE: 1980 W Cens 88 08.:i : • in 113,863, 12, Pt�1 ,•..-- ��Nei.... o..• �ji�f• n`.. uiSW4 {i�r♦�'�i'i.......... •...... . vw.. r..•.0 r 9 }� 2 .:. r O: 3- 4 S ... . .I -.71,702 64 1j ............ : o ..9 ..� r.nw .w. ••.awW4— t 891 s • 60486.,.. 163,520 21 45,133 - -- S. t • • X13 i r ` 40 00,000 - 8 Value by Slack Group Can" Tracts o0 s•u••• Block Groups RCE: 1980 W Cens b. Single Family: Relative to single family construction, final tract maps • for 2,328 units are recorded. Of these units, 1246 are single family detached, 54 are duplexes, and 1028 are condominiums or townhomes. Grading and /or building permits have been issued for all but 433 of these units. C. Second units: In accordance with State legislation, in 1983 the City approved an ordinance allowing for second dwelling units to be located on developed lots in the single family residential districts. The ordinance permits 640 sq. ft. maximum "granny flats" which are temporary /removable structures. In addition, the ordinance permits permanent second dwelling units up to 640 square feet in size. To date, no applications for either type of unit has been submitted. Planned Communities Two large - scaled planned communities, totaling nearly 3200 acres of land were submitted by developers and have been appproved by the City; Terra Vista by • Lewis Homes, and Victoria by The William Lyon Company. Both planned communities provide a mixture of residential, commercial, and public land uses. Residentially planned property in Terra Vista equals approximately 721 acres, while Victoria has approximately 1,063 acres of residential property. The distribution of vacant residential land in the Planned Communities by district is shown on Table A -6C and 6D. Within both plans nearly 70% of residential land (1200 acres) permits a density range of 4 to 14 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 15% (273 acres) is low density residential (2 -4 du /ac) with 17.5% (312 acres) at a range of 14 to 30 dwelling units per acre. In total, both Planned Communities have 1785 acres of vacant residential property. • A -38 • Both Terra Vista and Victoria have incentives to provide 15% affordable housing which is dispersed throughout the various neighborhoods 'within the planned communities. For each unit provided by the developers which is affordable to low and moderate income households, the City will grant a bonus of one additional unit, up to 15% of the maximum density permitted in the planned communities. In Terra Vista this incentive could provide up to 1,200 affordable units and in Victoria 1,329 affordable units at buildout of the planned communities. 9 During the next five years (1984 - 1989), it is anticipated that approximately 667 units will be made available for low and moderate income households in the two planned communities. This number of units represents 15% of the number of dwellings to be constructed within Victoria and Terra Vista during the five year period as estimated by the City with input from the project developers. Condominium Conversions The City adopted a Condominium Conversion Ordinance in 1980 which limits the number of multi - family rental units converted to ownership type. The intent of the ordinance is to: (a) Encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing in the community and a variety of choices of tenure, type, price, and location of housing. (b) Maintain and encourage a supply of affordable housing, both ownership and rental, for low and moderate income persons and families; and, (c) Promote the residential stability and quality of the community by developing neighborhood identity, discouraging displacement of residents, and facilitating ownership opportunities for the community. A -39 The maximum number of units converted in one year is based upon the number of • new apartments added to the housing stock in the previous year. The ordinance also provides for legal notification of tenants of the owner's intent to convert, tenant right of first refusal to purchase a unit, and establishes requirements for physical "upgrades of the subject property to assure compliance with current City standards. Fair Housing To promote fair housing, the City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts with the Inland Mediation Board. The Board is a non - profit organization which helps citizens (both tenants and landlords) resolve housing disputes without the need for costly and time - consuming court action. The Board trains community volunteers in the art of negotiating, who in turn conduct mediation sessions between parties. The Board also provides mortgage default counseling, and assists with complaints regarding housing discrimination and refers cases to the District office of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and conducts housing workshops to inform the community of tenant /landlord rights • and responsibilities under State and Federal laws with repect to fair housing. From July 1982 to June 1983, Inland Mediation Board assisted with 145 cases in Rancho Cucamonga. This number is expected to increase to over 200 cases in Fiscal Year 1983 -84. E R -40 is VII. HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS This portion of the technical appendix refers to the estimated existing and projected households that need some form of housing assistance. Two major sources have been used to complete this section; the Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) prepared by SCAG and the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) prepared by the City for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The following are the highlights associated with this section. o The RHAM shows the current lower income households who are paying disproportionately high percentages of income on housing costs. o According to the SCAG /RHAM, approximately 43% of the units constructed between 1983 and 1989 should be affordable to households earning 120% or less of the established median income. o The largest group of households needing assistance is lower income small families as identified by the 1982 HAP. A -41 Regional Housing Model Assessment The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Allocation Model (RHAM) is a detailed housing needs assessment used to assign responsibilities to jurisdictions to help meet the percentage of the region's low and moderate income housing needs for a five year period. The most recent RHAM update was done in April 1983. At that time, data showed that Rancho Cucamonga had 1,746 very low and low income households in need of housing assistance. Households needing assistance were defined as those income groups paying more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. This figure was further broken down as shown on Table A -9 Part I. This data somewhat correlates to Figures A -12 and A -13 which show the households housing cost as a percentage of their income. • Part Two of the Regional Housing Allocation Model provides an estimate of the number of units which must be constructed by 1988 to avoid a housing impaction situation. Since housing elements are required to set forth a five year action program, the 1988 RHAM figures were required to be extrapolated one • year to 1989 in accordance with methodology provided by HC0 and SCAG (see Table A -9, Part II). The housing estimates originally presented in the RHAM for 1988 were revised downward by the City and approved by SCAG. The City's methodology for reducing the 1988 housing need to 10,368 units was based upon a reduced annual growth rate from 10.6% to approximately 8 %. The adjustment was based upon an over- estimate by SCAG of the growth which was to occur from 1980 -1983, and the results of a market demand study prepared by Empire Economics in February 1983, Appendix "8 ", for the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency's single family residential mortgage revenue bond program. Included in the market demand study was an analysis of: (a) market demand for housing; (b) employment opportunities; (c) commuting patterns; and, (d) the type and tenure of housing lJ A -42 • needs. The study specifically analyzed the growth expectations and market demand within Rancho Cucamonga and the surrounding region for the years 1983 -1988. The results of this study indicated a reduction of approximately 4300 units from SCAG's estimate for 1988. • 41 According to the RHAM approximately 17% of the housing stock in 1988 should be of a multiple family type and 83% of a single family type. Presently, the City has a 17% percent rental housing and 83% ownership housing division. This corresponds to the basic percentage needs of owner /renter households for the future. In terms of actual unit type, approximately 85% are single family and 15% are multiple family according to the 1980 census. These existing unit types and densities appear to be consistent and meet the housing needs for the various economic groups in Rancho Cucamonga. In order to achieve the projected unit type split for the next five years, the City will continue to encourage a diversity in housing types in its housing programs. A -43 TABLE A -9 CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSEHOLDS NEEDING ASSISTANCE PART I - CURRENT HOUSEHOLDS NEEDING HOUSING ASSISTANCE 1. Total 1983 Households 18,275 2. Total 1983 Housing Units 18,895 3. Unoccupied Units 620 4. Households Needing Assistance 1,746 Total Ownership Rental Very Low Low Very Low Law Very Low Low Income Income Income Income Income Income 85 -79-61- -719 -7m 3'66 400 PART II - FUTUR €9909NMNEEDS 1. Households 27,814 2. 1983 Households 18,275 3. Growth in households from 1983 9,539 4. Market vacancy goal 1,135 5. 1983 Market vacancies 318 6. Vacancy surplus or deficit 817 7. Units lost from stock from 1983 12 B. Future housing unit needs; 10,368 breakdown for income type shown below Very Low Low Moderate Upper Income Income Income Income 1988 RHAM T 2T� %) T, S6i -1;M- %) 5,922 %) (11.67 (13.13 %) (18.09 (57.11 1989 Estimate 1,452 1 634 2 251 7,105 (11.67 %) (13.13 %) (i8.09 %) (557.11 %) 1989 Estimate 29,723 18,275 11,448 1,213 318 980 14 12,442 • 1 To obtain a sixth year estimate (1989), the 1988 projections for housing • needs were multiplied by 1.2. The income distribution for future needs is based on the RHAM 1988 percentages for each category. A -44 • As shown at the bottom of Table A -9, the RHAM also provides a breakdown of the future units which must be affordable to various income categories. The number of 1989 units in each income category is based on the same percentages used in the RHAM 1988 projections. Of the 12,442 projected units, approximately 43 %, or 5,337- units, should be at ranges affordable to households of very low, low, and moderate incomes. As defined by the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department, a very low income household is one which makes below 50% of the established median household income indicator. A low income household is categorized as those persons who make between 50% to 80% of the median household income. A moderate income level is the range of 80% to 120% and an upper income level are those households which make over 120% of the established median household income indicator. Table A -10 illustrates, using the 1980 census data, what the various income ranges would be for Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino as a whole. It is the 5,337 projected households that the majority of the Housing Element programs are targeted for in providing either direct monetary • assistance, rehabilitation programs, or the encouragement of affordable priced housing. • TABLE A -10 INCOME LEVELS - 1980 (RANCHO CUCAMONOA /COUNTY) A -45 Very Low Low Moderate Upper Income Income Income Income T°w Tw --ff% W-PfO %) Over 120 %) Rancho Cucamonga* $0- 12,434 $12,434- $19,894- $29,841- 19,894 29,841 and over County of San Bernardino $0 -8,510 $8,570- $13,712- $20,569 13,712 20,569 and over * The 1980 Federal census data shows the median household income for Rancho Cucamonga as being $24,868 and the County of San Bernardino as $17,141. A -45 During the period of 1980 to the present, the City has taken a good faith • effort in attempting to meet the current and future needs of low and moderate income households. In 1993 alone, two multiple family developments were completed which utilized HUD Section 8 rental subsidization. These two developments contain 157 new housing units, out of 317 total units of the two developments, 'which have been made available under the Section 8 program. The approval and development of these two projects are directly related to the housing programs prepared in 1980. A third project, which is approved but not as yet been constructed, is a development targeted to meet the needs of senior citizens. Proposed for development is a 233 unit apartment complex. Of this total unit count 70 %, or 163 units, are "reserved units" for senior citizens of very low and low income households (0 -80% of the County of San Bernardino median household income) for a period of 20 years. A fourth project which is utilizing a low interest Multiple Family Revenue Bond program will provide 20 %, or 46 units, at affordable rental rates to low income households. The rental rates will not exceed 3G% of the median family income for a period of not less than 20 years. It is hoped that the prospect of development such as those described will continue to be made available within the City. • Housing Assistance Plan The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared as part of its Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) a Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). The HAP identifies the housing needs of various special groups (elderly, small family and large family), minority groups, and also identifies the breakdowns between owner /renter households and lower income households versus all households needing assistance. In addition, the HAP shows the goals which the City is to undertake in the CDBG program in areas such as rehabilitation of substandard units, new construction of affordable rental units, and rental subsidies to the various special needs groups. The HAP, as of October 1982, identifies a total of 1102 lower income households needing rental subsidy assistance. This can be broken down by identifying 97 elderly lower income households (8.8 %), 792 small family lower income households (71.9 %), and 213 large family lower income • households (19.3 %) needing rental subsidies. Clearly, rental assistance is a major area of focus which the City needs to pursue. A -46 The HAP is divided into three year and one year goals which identify numerical actions to help reduce these special groups needing assistance. By September • of 1984, it is the City's goal to have provided rental assistance to 36 small families and by September of 1985 a total of 113 small families are expected to receive rental assistance. Also, within the one year goal period it is estimated that 10 large family households will be receiving some type of rental assistance. By late 1985, this number is expected to increase to a total of 15 large families receiving rental assistance. The last identified special needs groups, the elderly, are expected to receive assistance by two methods. By late 1985 it is a goal to provide 16 lower income elderly households with rental assistance and 25 elderly households with rehabilitation assistance. Other factors which this HAP identifies are the efforts in providing ownership assistance and general home improvements. During the next four years it is the City's intent, through Mortgage Revenue Bond Programs, to provide low interest mortgage loans for first time home buyers for approximately 500 households. It is also the City's intent to assist 75 lower income households with home improvement assistance. is By meeting these above -noted goals, the City will be assisting the various special and minority household groups in the City. While the HAP tables do not identify minority groups and handicapped households needing housing assistance this information is provided in Tables A -11 and A -12. TABLE A -11 MINORITY HOUSING NEEDS Source: 1980 Census, minority by tenure type as a percentage of total housing • needs. A -47 Lower income Lower Income Lower Income Owner Renter elderly Small Family Large Family Black 8 1 1 9 2 Spanish Origin 45 13 12 93 24 American Indian, Alaskan Native 3 1 12 9 1 Pacific Asian or Islander 9 1 1 6 1 Other Minority 23 5 5 39 10 Total —8$ _1Ti- ___I_ --TS€— 38 — Source: 1980 Census, minority by tenure type as a percentage of total housing • needs. A -47 Source: California Department of Rehabilitation Statewide Study of Disabled, 1978. According to the 1980 census, there is a total of 1,055 single parent families in Rancho Cucamonga comprising about 6.2% of the total households. A 1979 report by the Fair Housing Project called The Extent and Effects of Discrimination Against Children in Rental Housing shows that female headed low income renters with children tend to be inadequately housed about 30% more often overall than lower income households in California. Hence, about 94 single parent households with children are estimated to need rental assistance in the City. About 78% of all single parent households are female headed, and • 22% are male headed, according to the 1980 census. This situation of single head of household families with children needing rental assistance is hoped to have been reduced through the recent legislature disallowing discrimination on the part of apartment owners to families with children. The total number of households in the HAP showing a current need for housing assistance (1102) does differ greatly from that of SCAG (1,746 households). This 644 household difference might be attributed to the difference in dates when the two studies were conducted. In formulating the housing programs, therefore, the City will be examining both the HAP and the SCAG -RHAM forecasts. In this way the programs can be developed such that the most needed groups can be assisted properly. • A -48 TABLE A -12 • SPECIAL NEEDS OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS Low Income Renters Needing Total Assistance Single Individuals —71ST - Mem. of small families 912 42 Mem. of large families 101 5 Totals 1726 �6' Source: California Department of Rehabilitation Statewide Study of Disabled, 1978. According to the 1980 census, there is a total of 1,055 single parent families in Rancho Cucamonga comprising about 6.2% of the total households. A 1979 report by the Fair Housing Project called The Extent and Effects of Discrimination Against Children in Rental Housing shows that female headed low income renters with children tend to be inadequately housed about 30% more often overall than lower income households in California. Hence, about 94 single parent households with children are estimated to need rental assistance in the City. About 78% of all single parent households are female headed, and • 22% are male headed, according to the 1980 census. This situation of single head of household families with children needing rental assistance is hoped to have been reduced through the recent legislature disallowing discrimination on the part of apartment owners to families with children. The total number of households in the HAP showing a current need for housing assistance (1102) does differ greatly from that of SCAG (1,746 households). This 644 household difference might be attributed to the difference in dates when the two studies were conducted. In formulating the housing programs, therefore, the City will be examining both the HAP and the SCAG -RHAM forecasts. In this way the programs can be developed such that the most needed groups can be assisted properly. • A -48 • Community Development Block Grant Program The vast majority of the City's housing stock is sound; however, there are deteriorated units in older parts of Rancho Cucamonga which require immediate attention. With some improvement efforts these units can continue to serve the housing needs of the City. - The Development Block Grant programs developed by the City are designed to; (a) focus efforts within the designated target areas; (b) upgrade the existing housing stock; and (c) improve inadequate and substandard public improvements. The intent of this approach is to eliminate the causes and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration, and to support the investment of public and private funds and rehabilitation. Currently, there are four targeted areas in the City for rehabilitation programs (as shown on Map A -4). Below market rate interest loans are available for major repairs and emergency repair grants are available to Senior Citizens and handicapped or disabled home owners. Although these • programs are targeted for specific areas, grants and loans are approved in other neighborhoods which meet the intent of the CDBG program. The programs are administered by San Bernardino County pursuant to an agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In fiscal year 1984 -85, the loan program will provide applicants with the option to repay loans on a regular monthly installment basis or to defer payment until the house is sold. The deferred loans will be available to home owners whose income is too low to qualify for the monthly payments. r1 U A -49 0 VIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES Energy conservation in the home has changed dramatically in the past few years with the adoption of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. This section describes the opportunities associated with new State legislation, as well as opportunities which the City is encouraging as part of its Development Code. The highlights of this section are provided in the list below. • o Optional development standards are recently incorporated to provide energy conservation appliances and features and an alternative solar energy system. o Solar access and rights are encouraged as part of the 1994 Development Code. 9 o Enforcement of State energy requirements (Title 24) has begun as a part of the building plan check process. A -51 Title 24 • Under Section 65583(a)7 of the California Government Code, a City's Housing Element must contain an "analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development ". Since the adoption of the Housing Element statutes, the California Energy Commission has established and adopted energy improvement specifications for both single family and multiple family structures under four stories. These energy specifications require both active and passive energy features for all residential developments. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has already begun enforcing these State energy requirements for Zone 91 for both single family and multiple family unit types in September and December of 1983, respectively. Development Code In addition to the State requirements, the City has also incorporated as part of the recently adopted Development Code passive and active solar energy requirements. By using established optional development standards higher densities are allowed than with the conventional development standards. In • view of this added dwelling density, it is required that energy conserving appliances and Features (i.e. reduced water consumption shower heads, water conserving toilets, etc.) and an alternative solar energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating a swimming pool or spa be provided. A specific section on solar access is also included in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. This provides suggestions and opportunities to developers in the preliminary site planning and site designing of a residential development. In the solar access section it is encouraged that consideration be given to the following areas; 1 Rancho Cucamonga falls into Climate Zone 9 as established by the • California Energy Commission. A -52 I . That new residential developments provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. This can be approached through such listed examples of lot size and configuration permitting orientation of a structure in an east -west alignment for a southern exposure, or by establishing lot sizes and configurations which permit orientation of a residential structure such that it can take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes. 2. Consideration to local climate, to topography and land contour, to lot configuration and to other design and improvement requirements are encouraged. 3. Consideration to the long axis so the majority of individual lots are within 22.5 degrees east or west of true south for adequate exposure for present or future solar energy systems is another energy conservation opportunity. 4. Landscape specifications such that no tree or shrub can be placed or grown in such a manner as to interfere with any existing solar collector. 5. Residential planning should consider the ability to provide all new units with receiving sunlight across adjacent lots or buildings should a solar collector be desired and installed in later years. This would include the establishment of solar easements in the declaration of restrictions for the development. The easements in essence would preclude the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object. The City feels that these special solar conservation criteria of the Development Code in conjunction with Title 24 energy requirements of the State provide maximum opportunities to developers of all residential unit types. The programs established by the Housing Element merely reiterate the State and present City opportunities. It is felt that in this way energy conservation is achieved while still providing flexibility and creativity in residential building design. A -53 0 IX. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS This section provides information on the condition of housing units and the extent of overcrowding in Rancho Cucamonga. The following are the highlights: o Overall, the housing stock is in good condition; however, there are • pockets of older areas with concentrations of older units in need of repair. • o Emphasis must be placed on rehabilitation programs to maintain the sound condition of the housing stock. o Approximately 7% of the City's population live in overcrowded dwellings, as defined by the 1980 U.S. Census. A -55 Housing Conditions The 1980 census indicated that there were 17,839 dwelling units in Rancho Cucamonga. fifty -seven percent of this figure, or 10,089 units, have been constructed since 1975. Since 1960 88% of the total, or all but 2,250, dwelling units in the City have been constructed. As a result, the general condition of the City's housing stock is very good. Map A -3 shows the median age of the housing stock by year built. Map A -4 shows four specific areas where older units in need of rehabilitation are most likely to occur. This information can be used to target areas for the City's rehabilitation programs. Through rehabilitation and maintenance programs for low and moderate income households, the City can help to maintain the currently sound condition of the vast majority of the housing stock. • A housing condition windshield survey was conducted by the Planning Division staff in December 1979. The survey focused on older areas where poorer housing conditions were likely to be found. • To identify the older areas, an inventory of all subdivision tracts in the City was conducted. Each subdivision tract is issued a tract number and these numbers are issued consecutively as the tracts are filed. Thus, older tracts would have smaller numbers. It was then possible to determine the appropriate issuance dates of building permits by looking at the respective tract numbers. All tracts with numbers less than 8000, for example, corresponded with issuance dates prior to 1971 and were considered areas of potential older housing. The tracts were listed and located on a map for use in the windshield survey. All tracts identified in the inventory were visually surveyed for evidence of new homes. The reason for this step was to eliminate older tracts that may have not had building permits issued until recently. Tracts with new housing were eliminated from further consideration in the survey. The data from the survey was arranged according to block groups, street boundaries, and other geographical features. The condition of the individual • units was based on the following criteria: A -56 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAP A -3 .Jr..- •. - -...i MEDIAN AGE OF HOUSING STOCK BY YEAR BUILT 20 �a 21 SOURCE: 1980 U.S. LEGEW year built ® 1939 or before ® 1940 -49 0 1950-59 ® 1980 -69 1970 -74 Q 1975 -78 Insufficient date Census Tracts •messes oo Block Groups .......... o SOURCE: 1980 U.S. MAP A -4 TARGET AREAS FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION 1984 [xFifA [Ol l(CF CVIF app init axF FiC VIt aia1011 SOURCE: Planning Oiviision Staff January 1984 0 • •' CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA G. — . Sound - For those housing units which were in relatively good condition. This condition is based on a visual analysis that indicates the dwelling is in good repair, with recent painting and no major or minor missing structural elements. Deterioration - For those housing units establishing more serious defects but which could reasonably be considered rehabitable. This term generally depicts a dwelling unit showing three or more of the following conditions: 1. Flaking, peeling paint. 2. Missing or loose surface material. 3. Worn, torn or patched roof material. 4. Broken windows, frames worn or broken, or screens torn. 5. Minor structural deterioration. Delapidated - For those housing units which were so far deteriorated that rehabilitation efforts would probably be precluded by cost. This term • includes all structural elements that hold the building together. Any two of the following would be sufficient to indicate a delapidated condition. ID 1. Sagging roof line. 2. Walls out of plumb. 3. Cracked or missing foundation. 4. Settled wing or porch. 5. Uneven settling of the dwelling. As shown in Table A -13, approximately 83 percent of the units surveyed were judged to be in sound condition, 12 percent were deteriorated, and 4 percent were dilapidated. When these survey results were extrapolated to the citywide scale, as shown in Table A -14, the City estimated that 98.8 percent of the 14,454 structures with 3 units or less were in sound condition. There was an estimated 130 deteriorated units and 47 delapidated units. A -59 Other information from the 1980 census indicated that 104 persons resided in 43 dwellings with no plumbing, and 100 units have either no bathrooms or only a half -bath without a tub or shower. The vast majority of dwelling units have central heating (85 %), and use utility gas for heating (87 %), cooking fuel (76 %), and water heating (92 %). Forty -nine units have no heating equipment and 107 dwellings have no kitchen facilities. In terms of the total number of housing units in the City, the dwellings without heating or plumbing represents only one percent. Condition Sound Deteriorated Delapidated TOTAL TABLE A -12 SURVEY RESULTS OF HOUSING CONDITION Single Family No. % SIT 32.96 127 12.51 46 4.53 1,015 TO.60 2 -Plex No. % 2T- 90.3 2 6.5 1 3.2 '3T Tbo.00 *Includes 4, 4 -Plex units and 1, 6 -Plex unit. 3 -plex 4 or more No. % No. % 3— 68.33 3* 68.33 1 16.67 1 16.67 0 --- 0 ---- 6 Mom 6 TOO -.0 TABLE A -13 HOUSING CONDITION DATA AUGMENTED TO CITYWIDE SCALE (Does not include vacant units or apartments with 4 or more units) T e of Uni t Citywide Survey Sample a y 1 I Sound 14,060 842 Deteriorated 127 127 Dilapidated 46 46 Deteriorated TT, M T,o16 Duplex 47 14-1 W 47 Sound 185 28 Deteriorated 2 2 Dilapidated 1 1 Triplex Sound 32 5 Deteriorated 1 I Delapidated — — 0 TOTAL Sound 14,277 921 Deteriorated 130 130 Delapidated 47 14-1 W 47 • • Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga; Housing Condition Survey; ,/ 6/80 and /1//9 - Special Census, Department of Finance A -60 • Regarding the number of bedrooms, the 1980 census indicated that the majority of units in the City (13,500 - 76 %) have either three or four bedrooms. Fifteen percent of the units have 2- bedrooms, while 6 percent have 1- bedroom. • 11 Overcrowding is defined as occupancy in excess of 1.01 persons per room. Overcrowding is a housing problem primarily restricted to older sections of Rancho Cucamonga. According to the 1980 census, 591 units were overcrowded, 396 owner occupied and 195 renter occupied. The number of persons per room was between 1.01 -1.50 for 416 units, while 175 units were more seriously overcrowded with 1.51 or more persons per room. According to the 1980 census 3,628 persons, or 7 %, of Rancho Cucamonga's population lived in overcrowded units. A -61 X. CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING This section discusses the potential governmental and market constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. The constraints include areas such as public services and development fees, school overcrowding, timing and financing of infrastructure, housing prices, and the effect of interest rates on home buyers. The following are the highlights: • o Although development fees add 7 -8% to the cost of new housing they are necessary to assure that new development will have adequate public services and improvements. i� o Timing and financing of school construction, and sewer and water facilities must be coordinated with residential growth to provide adequate services. o Major storm drain and channel projects require long -term financing techniques in order to eliminate development constraints. o The cost of housing including financing and production costs have increased more rapidly than household income thereby pricing potential home buyers out of the market. o Lower interest rates are critical to providing affordable housing. A -63 0 Governmental Constraints Schools: As a result of the rapid growth prior to incorporation the local school districts face severe overcrowding. To assure for adequate school space the City requires developers to obtain written certification from elementary and high school districts in which the project site is located stating that adequate school capacity is available before a residential tract map is recorded and /or building permits are issued. The concern among the school districts is their inability to finance the construction of new school facilities due to Proposition 13. The districts are currently relying on developers fees to pay for the cost of temporary facilities for new students, The approved fees total $1,700 for each single family dwelling unit, and $850 for each multi - family dwelling unit. However, in late 1983 the Central School District, one of five elementary districts in Rancho Cucamonga • determined that the above - stated fees were inadequate and is currently requiring developers to pay an additional $900 in fees for each single family unit and $450 for each multi - family unit before the capacity certification letters are issued. Development Fees: The City of Rancho Cucamonga charges a number of fees which affect the price of housing. However, the fees such as drainage, schools, sewer, and water are necessary for public safety and for the City and other public agencies to maintain an adequate level of public services for new development. Table A -15 illustrates fees in Rancho Cucamonga for a 1,200 square foot single family home with a 2 -car garage on an 8,000 square foot lot. The fees total $6,938 and represent 8% of the total cost of a new home at the median price of $86,612. • A -64 • TABLE A -15 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES (1200 Sq. Ft. home with 2 -car garage, 3000 sq.ft. lot) Building Permit $ 304 Plan Check 228 Drainage 769 St. & Hwy Systems 537 Beautification 320 Parks 905 Elem. School Dist. 1100 High School Dist. 600 Water & Sewer Dist 2 175 Total * Note: Fees equal 8% of the $86,612 median price of new home. Source: 1983 Building Department Fee Schedule Annexations: The City is approximately 34.3 square miles in size and only about 40% developed. For this reason, annexations are currently not necessary to provide adequate sites for affordable housing; and therefore, do not represent a short -term constraint. • Water Supply: The existing water supply system presents no immediate constraint in housing development. The average water demand per day in the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) varies from 7 million gallons in the winter to 38 million gallons in the summer, with the average daily consumption of approximately 22 million gallons. This compares with a total water availability of 67.45 million gallons per day. Although the City's water demand is expected to exceed available ground water supply, the CCWD plans to meet this demand using surface water diversions treated by the Royer- Nesbit treatment plant and through imported water sources. Sewer Systems: A limited capacity of existing sewer system presents short -term constraints in housing development. Currently, the Regional Treatment Plant kl in Ontario was recently expanded to 36 million gallons per day (MGD). However, by mid -1984 an additional 3.6 MGD from Fontana will enter the plant and growth in the surface area will contribute approximately 1 MGO of added flow per year. Therefore, the Chino Basin Municipal 'dater District is in the process of expanding the Ontario plant to 44 million gallons per day. The plant facilities to be expanded include primary, secondary, tertiary and solid treatment systems. A -65 Flood Protection: Inadequate and missing storm drains and channels present a major contstraint to development in the City. The cost of major storm drain • projects, such as construction of the Day Creek and Alta Loma Channels are well beyond the financial capabilities of developers and requires long -term financing commitments such as establishment of assessment districts as permitted by the 1982 Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act and the Improvement Act of 1913. Short -term flood protection measures, such as construction of diversion levies and retension basins are feasible for some projects, but reduce the amount of buildable acreage within a project and increase the cost per unit. Market Constraints Rising housing costs are a constraint to providing adequate housing for all economic segments of the community. Between 1970 and 1980 the increase in housing costs rose three times the growth rate of household incomes. This increase has forced renters and homebuyers to spend greater proportions of their monthly income for housing and to seek smaller, less expensive units. According to the 1980 census, the mean value of non - condominium housing was is $89,733. Assuming the buyer is able to put 10% down and the mortgage rate is approximately 12 %, the monthly payment including principal and interest, tax and insurance would be approximatley $925 per month. The qualifying income for this mortgage would be approximately $37,000 per year based on maximum monthly payments equal to 30% of the gross household income. Eighty -six percent of the City's households in 1980 would be priced out of the market under these circumstances. Thus, unless the factors contributing to the high cost are reduced, the home ownership market will remain beyond the financial capability of the vast majority of households in the City. Land prices, construction costs, and financing are major factors which contribute to the price of housing. Local residential developers with a variety of unit types in planning and construction phases in the City were surveyed in January 1984 by the Planning Division staff to determine raw land prices and construction costs. These costs averaged approximately $30 per square foot for both single family and multi - family projects, but land prices • varied by District as shown on Table A -16. As the density range on land A -66 increases so does the price. However, in terms of land cost per dwelling • unit, the "VV District (less than 2 du's /ac) is the most expensive. Public improvements, not included in the land prices shown, are also higher per unit with lower density projects. TABLE A -16 ESTIMATED LAND COSTS BY DISTRICT, 1984 • Source: Planning Division Staff survey of local developers, January 1984 lJ A -67 Cost Range District (Zone)_ Per Acre VL (less than 2 du /ac) $35- 40,000 L (2 -4 du /ac) $50- 80,000 LM (4 -8 du /ac) $80- 100,000 M (8 -14 du /ac) $100- 135,000 MH (14 -24 du /ac) $160- 175,000 H (24 -30 du /ac) $175,000 + • Source: Planning Division Staff survey of local developers, January 1984 lJ A -67 • GLOSSARY Affordability - The number of very low and lower income 'households occupying units at a cost greater than 30 percent of household income. Avera a Persons Per Household- - The total number of persons living in househo s in a locality divi ea by the total number of occupied units. Beautification Fee - A fee charged to developers for installation of landscaping and other aesthetic features by the City. Buildable Land - Land which is capable of supporting physical structures. Buildout - The maximum amount of development possible within a given geographical area. Capture Rate - The opportunity to house locally generated employees within the City Limits. Constraints - Factors which prevent or inhibit the development of housing in the City. Council of Governments - The organization created pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement to undertake planning and whose membership is composed solely of elected officials of local governments within the planning jurisdiction or their representatives and which is recognized as the areawide planning agency by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. • Developable Land - Land which is physically capable of being developed for residential, commercial, or industrial use. Development Densities - The number of housing units per acre. DU'S - Dwelling units. Elderly - Persons 62 years of age or older. "Fair Share" Allocation - The number of housing units designated by SCAG which local governments must provide for non - market rate households who do not live in the locality, but whose housing opportunities are affected by the planning decision of the locality. Fixed Market Costs - Development costs over which the City has no power or authority. Gross Acreage - The total number of acres of land which can be developed. Group Quarters - Persons in living arrangements other than households. Group quarters are located most frequently in institutions, rooming houses, military barracks, college dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals, monasteries and convents. Growth Potential - The availability of land for future urban development. Hi ndica Pe d. - Persons determined to have a physical impairment or mental iS2VidCer which is expected to be of long- continued or indefinite duration and is of such a nature that the persons's ability to live independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. • Household - All persons occupying a single dwelling unit. A -69 Housi nq Unit (or Unit) - The placement of permanent or customary and usual abode of a person, including a single - family dwelling, a single unit in a • two - family dwelling, multifamily or multipurpose dwelling, a unit of a condominium or cooperative housing project, a nonhousekeeping unit, a mobile home, or any other residential unit which either is considered to be real property under State law or cannot be moved without substantial damage or unreasonable cost. Jobs -To- Housing Ratio - The proportion between the number of jobs and housing units in a particular geographical area. A ratio greater than 1 indicates more jobs than housing units in an area, or the potential for overcrowding, long distance commuting, and a shortage of housing. Large Families - A family of 5 or more persons. Lower - Income Household - Household whose income, with adjustments for household size, does not exceed 80 percent of the median household income of the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), or outside SMSA's, the county. Marketability - The attractiveness and saleability of a housing unit. Market -Rate Households - Those households who, as determined by the allocating entity, have the financial capability to meet their housing needs without sacrificing other essential needs. Median Household Income - The amount which divides the distribution of annual household income into two equal groups. For families and unrelated individuals, the median income is based on the distribution of the total number of families and unrelated individuals, including those with no income. • Moderate- Income Household - Household whose income, with adjustments for household size, is between 80 percent and 120 percent of the median household income of the SMSA, or outside SMSA-s, the county. Neeng Rehabilitation - A housing unit which, in its present state, materdiia y ell dangers the health, safety or well being of its occupants in one or more respects, and which is economically feasible to repair. Neeng Replacement - A dwelling unit which meets the above conditions, but is ndi ot economically feasible to repair. Net Acreage - The actual number of acres of buildable land, minus land for roads, sidewalks, parks, schools, open space and utilities. Non - Market Rate Households - Households who, as described by SCAG, do not have the financial capability to meet their housing needs without sacrificing other essential needs. Off -Site Construction Costs - Development costs above actual site preparation an i ing costs bu , such as sidewalks, utilities, landscaping, etc. Overcrowding - A housing condition where there is 1.01 or more persons per room. Purchasing Power - The level of purchases which can be made by individuals and household, usually defined as net (after tax) income. • A -70 • Re Tonal Housing Market Area - The geographical unit, established by the allocating entity or the Southern California Governments), within which local interaction has resulted in social and economic interdependence in the areas of housing, employment and service opportunities. Regional Statistical Area (RSA) - The geographical unit used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planning division for compiling U.S. Census and other statistical data. SCAG Pr0 o " ections - The Southern California Association of Governments provides - growth projections for population, housing, employment and land use for the southern California region in its SCAG '83 Growth Forecast Policy /Oeve lopment Guide, approved April 1983. These projections are use by local governments for planning purposes. Small Families - A family of four or less persons. SMSA - Acronym for Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. An area, which includes the the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside and the City Ontario, which is used for data collection by governmental agencies for such things as housing, population, employment, and income levels. S eeSial Needs - Attention to the special needs of large families, minority ouseh holds, the elderly, the handicapped and persons displaced as a result of public activities, and others as the locality deems appropriate. Sphere of Influence - The geographical area within which the City has the ability to affect development or growth. Suitabi lit /Habi__� tabilit� -The number of households living in housing needing rehabTtation or replacement. Underutilized Land - Land which is not presently developed to the fullest and best use possible under the General Plan designation. Upper Income Household - Household whose income, with adjustments for ohusehold size, e,- exceeds- 1207 of the median household income of the SMSA, or outside SMSA's, the county. Ver Low Income Household - Household whose income, with adjustments for house o size, oe� s not exceed 50 percent of the median household income of the SMSA, or outside SMSA's, the county. We%I Absor tion Rate - The number of housing units of a particular type or price which is sold by realtors in one week. A -71