HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/08/15 - Agenda Packetn
LJ
19
G��CAMp
�7
o
F 2
U >
1977
MY OF
RANCHO (UCANUNGA
CIT17 COUNGTL
AGENE A.
Lions Park Community Center
9161 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California
August 15, 1984 - 7:30 P•u.
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The
deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the
meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag.
B. Roll Call: Wright r , Buquet -i , Mikels v
Dahl_-, and King v_
C. Approval of Minutes: May 31, 1984
July 18, 1984
July 26, 1984
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ PRESENTATIONS
A. Thursday, August 16, 1984, 7:30 P.m. - PARK DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION, Lions Park Community Center.
B. Wednesday, August 22, 1984, 7:00 p.m. - PLANNING
COIMISSION MEETING, Lions Park Community Center.
C. Presentation of Service Awards
City Council Agenda -3- August 15, 1984
E
CUP 82-01 - located on 7th Street, west of Etiwanda
Avenue and on 4th Street west of Etiwanda Avenue;
owner, Etiwanda Investment Co.
Release: Labor a Material Bond $12,000.00
(4th Street)
Labor 6 Material Bond 9,000.00
(7th Street)
Tract 9658 - located on 9th Street between Baker 5 20
Madrone; owner, Richwood Development Co.
Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 21,891.00
Release: Faithful Performance Bond 218,900.00
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -221 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 9658
AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
• F. Release of Bonds S Deposit:
CUP 83 -04 - located on Sapphire north of Orange; owner,
Alta Loma Christian Church.
Release: Faithful Performance Security $49,000.00
(Road) (Cash Deposit)
G. Release of $150 T.O.P bonds for a sales office /garage
conversion on lot 3 of Tract 9432.
H. Approval of recommendation for City Historic Landmark 23
designation to be placed on the Stoebe Home, located at
6710 Beryl.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -222 24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE CHARLES STOEBE HOME. AS A SIGNIFICANT
HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A
CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK
I. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for appeal of
Planning Commission Decision denying Development Review
84 -08, R.J. Investments.
•
City Council Agenda -4- August 15, 1984
J. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for approval
of Development Code Amendment 84 -02, 19th Street
Corridor Study, Administrative Amendments.
R. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for approval
of Development Code Amendment 84 -03, 19th Street
Corridor Study, Administrative Amendments.
L. Set public hearing for joint Agency /Council meeting,
September 5, 1984 for review and consideration of Draft
Environmental Impact Report for CUP 84 -06, HFA
Associates.
M. Set public hearing for joint Agency /Council meeting,
September 5, 1984 for conceptual review of
Environmental Assessment and CUP 84 -06, HFA Associates.
N. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for appeal of
Planning Commission Decision denying Tentative Tract
12597, Lincoln.
O. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for intent to 25
. annex Tract Nos. 12530, 12238, 12332 -1, 12386 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 as
Annexation No. 6 and No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -223 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEERS
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -224 38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
J
City Council Agenda -5- August 15, 1984
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -225 40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -226 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
P. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for intent to 50
• annex Tract Nos. 12386, 12332 -1, 12238 and 12530 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. I as Annexation No.
19.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -227 57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -228 58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. l; PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
El
City Council Agenda -2- August 15, 1984
0
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 -08 -15 and
1
Payroll ending 7/22/84 for the total amount of
$710,970.93.
B.
Forward Claim (CL 84 -17) against the City by Rabin
6
Crosby, auto accident on August 5, 1984, at 19th and
Sapphire.
C.
Approval of Parcel Map 8653, submitted by Goldstein and
7
Mac Beth for their project located on the southwest
corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -219
9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
•
PARCEL MAP 8653.
D.
Approval of acceptance of DR 83 -20, Bonds and Agreement
10
for construction of street improvements on 8th Street,
submitted by Excellon Industries.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -220
19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -20
E.
Release of Bonds:
20
Parcel Map 7853 - located on the west side of Hellman
Avenue, north of Church Street; owner, Ron Martin.
Release: Faithful Performance (Road) $10,000.00
Labor 6 Material (Road) 5,000.00
Monumentation 1,500.00
City Council Agenda -3- August 15, 1984
S
CIIP
8? 81 - located on 7th Street, west of Etiwanda
Avenue and on 4th Street west of Etiwanda Avenue;
owner, Etiwanda Investment_Co.
Release: Labor 6 Material Bond $12,000.00
(4th Street)
Labor 6 Material Bond 9,000.00
(7th Street)
Tract 9658 - located on 9th Street between Baker d
Madrone; owner, Richmond Development Co.
Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 21,891.00
Release: Faithful Performance Bond 218,900.00
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -221
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 9658
AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
• F. Release of Bonds 6 Deposit:
CUP 83 -04 - located on Sapphire north of Orange; owner,
Alta Loma Christian Church.
Release: Faithful Performance Security $49,000.00
(Road) (Cash Deposit)
G. Release of $150 T.O.P bonds for a sales office /garage
conversion on lot 3 of Tract 9432.
H. Approval of recommendation for City Historic Landmark
designation to be placed on the Stoebe Home, located at
6710 Beryl.
REBOLUTIOM'"MO. 84-=
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING
THE CHARLES STOEBE HOME AS A SIGNIFICANT
HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A
CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK
I. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for appeal of
Planning Commission Decision denying Development Review
84 -08, R.J. Investments.
20
21
23
24
•
City Council Agenda -4- August 15, 1984
J. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for approval
of Development Code Amendment 84 -02, 19th Street
Corridor Study, Administrative Amendments.
K. Set public hearing for September 5, 1984 for approval
of Development Code Amendment 84 -03, 19th Street
Corridor Study, Administrative Amendments.
L. Set public hearing for joint Agency /Council meeting,
September 5, 1984 for review and consideration of Draft
Environmental Impact Report for CUP 84 -06, HFA
Associates.
M. Set public hearinig for joint Agency /Council meeting,
September 5, 1984 for conceptual review of
Environmental Assessment and CUP 84 -06, HFA Associates.
N. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for appeal of
Planning Commission Decision denying Tentative Tract
12597, Lincoln.
0. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for intent to 25
is annex Tract Nos. 12530, 12238, 12332 -1, 12386 to Street
Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 as
Annexation No. 6 and No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -223 33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. l
RESOLUTION N0. 84 -224 38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. l; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
12
•
City Council Agenda -5- August 15, 1984
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -225 40
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -226 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
P. Set public hearing for September 19, 1984 for intent to 50
• annex Tract Nos. 12386, 12332 -1, 12238 and 12530 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No.
19.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -227 57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S
REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -228 58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING
OBJECTIONS THERETO
i
•
City Council Agenda -6- August 15, 1984
Q. Set public hearing forte -for appeal of
Planning Commission decision requiring focused
Environmental Impact Report for Development Review
84 -27, Bentsen.
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8583 - Appeal of 64
Planning Commission conditions relating to utility
undergrounding, street construction standards and
phasing on Hellman Avenue. Request submitted by Lucas
Land Company.
5. NON- ADVERTISED HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF MOBILE ROB PAR[ RENT ADJUSTMENT 71
ORDINANCE - The City Council will consider an Ordinance
providing for a maximum rent adjustment allowed
annually in Mobile Home Parks.
ORDINANCE NO. 231 (first reading) 73
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVIDING
FOR AN ANNUAL MAXIMUM RENT ADJUSTMENT
B. DISCUSSION OF AMBULANCE MATTERS PERTAINING TO
REGULATIONS OF AMBULANCE SERVICE WITHIN TSE CITY OP
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Item continued from August 1, 1984
meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 230 (second reading) 79
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION
OF AMBULANCES
City Council Agenda -7- August 15. 1984
•
6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
A. REQUEST FROM Q.G. BARTROLONEUSZ FOR CITY COUNCIL TO 89
CONSIDER WAIVING DRAINAGE AND PARR FEES ON RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING ADDITION.
B. RECOMMEND A CLOSED SESSION TO REVIEW PERSONNEL STUDY 90
NO ITEMS SUBMITTED
•
CJ
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
a. P✓." w i., L114
FAhW
C,; 6Ws :E
PAU
... ,.
•
rA
171
hAhu A2AItillirAli r._
__ _51 Ff al la I! -ns _
.1. -F :1.
<45
I: .S.4C
Esc
11 -44
?cc .(C
141
UALIEL UKIniL oa'& 16w7EE
IJI'Ll_ a -ICM
11,47-
2,3=2.0 a
s:
Uhi. .IAL-L'- r,]:'- l_'.". L
1 :. -41 -1
'I, v.
..('C
+:4
E,Al
PLlll.% le:.._. :..chl]
'CT_ [L'. uA
- 417
iAIKL, :Inl:
'.li r<Ary %c•
af51'
1 ?.!L
415
ICKh,Z, 11TL
etr`INE
111 =.•
1C =1(^
411
93AnL1, aX.l
• ": -`
111'1
3(.(C
'
Y_lcn,
+i.
FL. =I i:.hLU,n, '.A'1-1
. �., .1, i—il'"
+3e
Li 111MFATir, .L:
34
B4 ail, MAI
C UM, L'.
11!(?
I[4.CG
:6C
'.kk
CL Yi 5AA L:Tk. F_AAV
C. UCiT i=i
114=2•
7.Gi'_.sc
13E
GLENL I.,:
Lcl _ r Fr: %I ..E4
116(5.
I,E iE.:C
+<_
AT .: AL
1 I'CrlS
F.ic ❑tAT::: 41 .ar rCr'1 •.�:.
_LC —.1 r," ci .r.
it•rr.
.,...
itiLL, JAL,
A. •I.L:7 --
L:5 ?:
- ill.F(
]5411
- 141CL
.17
A E EIh ..LY Ii: Y
!LC(T PLAN
;ALPS
A -AAB BL LE L.'._K E KEY
.n L'Cn:
1411.4
44.55
15
sa Y.]Lr1A_a
A-1,LN
11.1 [-1 l.ilr...i
.1F ;F fi -:'S
ltiis
1,i 4. .5.4
:4
InA.11 i.e r,_l
I.A.LL
ALTA
41r F1r: - e -na.� V :17 -;r.
1411.
iA
1S
AL1R LANs .nl:• 11T <:
L
'a i:l'_
14112
%CC
'47.(C
4L5
ANEKIJEL E11Pw c55
ln:yc!i`C �1M �.
U114
5.(C
l4k
AAEMI1E r FU AKEh] cK nl, �i
E.Ui
1-!If
15,•.44
7A
TED
ASSOC3 ALCU
1.115. L14A1 :V_p.Y i:.. Y:4.
roiSel PE
14711
1,.415.11
5
11:ihELA!
LEAF .ULCM c ] n...,
` "11 :I(
lEE
B[4 TC :AN, hL ht lCn
l'._ -_1: Cl. , nN. 1•.
'c. l:
4,
:55
BEKEFIUL CKG5LE1
InUV1. .
94
BEi1EN B¢l INLL! LLMP YLhK_I:.0
7LILL FAill
:4;:(•
:13
BILL Z AAG•! IbC
yEhL(L<_ dal\'. il•cn bt]
:4111
41.:(
96
BUI:GEI PLUMBING L POOIET
E[ILE KAKI
551
9U6A, fLLY.
rc: i• -AC:L.
14.11
-
BUFA, NUiIATT
=I. "'I1 Lr -Ii+
11;74
<It.i:
C .
;L . - .Ct" —L F.d..-1
F =G %c.l
14 /i:
76
CNk".1h U/ CGMMEKCE
AU'.51 PAY ✓'. 1
14126
1,C�L-
r - oz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
y
_LLV..
V1 -
14:al �l Li- !I.
ic C!1__
Iii 4.36 OC: •i
aft C.Lk&%, AIL,
Lv", LIA%4
it; amr-t. 10
!.I -, $1.$`1 _A%A
If ;CtkL, Aii
264 72F'.AA !-Fj iS4EVAL :::P
i11 L6fi1.�°
43 = c ra.Llk,
.4t cive:
331 QS%Ew-L
116 GL.M.lL
OWEI,
M :hit
SAW, I.
N"%Ea E�VJP-V.l
-54
XSLSIEC & kLoC"., 1%.
-47
kpx" A, _-tL*.k
T?
LII3
NIVELT,
'Ii "LL,V, t I-L
III KILLI. tLLIA- L.
V ips 6
aly -
!"!"l "AM
.t,:SLI Pahl
vtrL- -.1.1
K'i IloNi;'ll
13
ai
41
Al
:11.(4
F.Cv
14.E
i
4 7
IT!
?A%. 4F
-1v
Gj
, . 4
a•.3 I L
d i57 W - Mru''AM1(a
--------------------------------------------- r.,+
i5S I!.LAFL :Lit`.i :: M4w.a:IFt
y1 IFI.FAATICIA[ ati rCri u(.:
S3 N1sFC:, CFet A -r
a37 lY [ ;as
icL 1LLLOI r -t;
iCL :: Ax.: 111_!
lLwl• ".:N I(LL
lL Fll• ,
if+ K"LlIll iF„Ft:11
.1l Met 1SC
n!i 3.ClwA
413 7KILw3G APiL14A:: :!l lii?
lW C1a11)iw ^.a1 -rAal!
iQl CFlga It "7C F
47 f C .5s iA/_F
.74 FFAUf :. PFLCL =1i, i
Ill PAC.]FIL FLLR C +FAvll :(
111 rACIi1C SPe4T_c!
a4 ICK"A }FC_NK Sa. N:i
Ill Pa FA:
TS
a17 Pt: ai -1]i IF,1 Hal(•:
14 N C LW3: C.
________________ __
�rpc t � r-
� Sx: w' .;.� „..nYea. •.,f...:v tw vk -. 4'k`.�r'i'•�ta to - .. ,.
:Y.t{• .1 r5:C
..c1:
ML a! - :1, f ion •.
.II:F :1T;
:51 °�
(. ?i.i!
r[ "rpa TGJ 7
153!♦
•](.S'.
if pll l'E4T s; V! +7; )iR'
351![.
r.'}I
r. L• x-FSI_:: f/, I`rr:i
'S15t
A[
• 151
:.'[
i,i: .Y•
x_C 1V iIwr"T
:5117
1C1.5i
...:.li
-
.cr
' +i in :FL I=
1. - il'
35:1•:
:f•.rt
aicrali
15;:2
17.:4
laVi !Vfrlili
:51f?
1!,57
vl >_ :•sP C.`x'f ; +f
:5:[4
S,CCI it
. •I• .la •
'S.fl
I.(f
-.1, :II YI :. -: ..
•7n[r Ilr
34;(A
TC.if
•_IVrI a._. :_N•I7:
15 :V
p,!35. if
�rpc t � r-
� Sx: w' .;.� „..nYea. •.,f...:v tw vk -. 4'k`.�r'i'•�ta to - .. ,.
.C.;'W
�4
21"
--------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
44
I
sr j r
.1
Z p
I
e
ilt
R'VkiiJlci
U:
RI %E iI L F•11 -_I _L If
zzn
>ci
;Lz! , LE.:_ A— AiiC_1:7z
jr
&Oic-I.;j z.I% i PLY- H'i
IEFLN: FIL MO
1;1%
7:.5'
NLIi,I
N4 , PAk- 21_! FLAF
1-;,(
f 1.13
1
J1 F11 t t I t, A I
4a'21
17:.:6
-" 'il
:s.Ui.3;
.;4
JA% .1111
o". I I -
tt
SAAY.h :LLLL:-' AT PCrC114
IIF Zile 1 V'i
I
W;:
?4t.50
s3S
SIRFL-1. .111.1
It' t%$Iitclft.
14.21
.1 3 It
;26
SC%L% ;,I AU16 fAk)
.0- F.,ITS
-I.F.
1
14"27
3,I.10A
S;4.. —iLlA
It- *'."L'J_
U ',T PLLP—!'--
•1F.•L it I
if A
41Z
sc.1, __% :;,I;. LAN—!C.1-
f:: ,A! I _'i Lt
137
SQ61PL.1% :ALI"s,?.!A L:I*-
12.1. AN
tlk-i
14;3',
337
$0161%*911 CALIFCqk.A ECl Vlk C
w f A!zL11ZA4rFtLiA
LIISR
I if- .
1
11 +141
ill
16IT111trik _4LjFVM%:A ILI %.- C!.
ALLO;. tOW
'lPrA
IIFP-.
NC1.11
AL. -,NIA tAt
:4;3*
It
it PA.Z AT,. if i -L
LIP,
r;4.25
.aj
STAKCANIQ k.A.%" PAINT
P1,1VIL ikAIF!
31;37
1N..4
M1
SIAAI:.Rl.
V.KJ:Li P-I'T
;1--to
130
SIbIl.rifia :6J.F'_&AljE%
140FLIZ,
'INF.
llk�i
:';:4y
47.5e
333
1 ILA t 1:
Li 111I.-T NIL.-'-.4t;.Aa!
74
st. iAi..-K
- ii- U.:
14;4;
Cc
Lit,
.4FZ-'�. bi'114- - .11 I•L
. kt • t -, - to
'4 -w ;
i'37t
surmLYUS "NVIt!
;00v vtsl
21.7
144
I" UwzLr1`r1%j
with.
.24
Mli, IW.MV
�Z�
41.14
.11
L. $A j
.1
41
ti 1"'.
Ot
UMV-�-.117 �.'y
.141.1!
&I
V&AC: CC.FZAAIIU
34i44
s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - ..............................
---------------------------------
Ek i Cl_. IhC
12 *11 S--.VICj,
14, 54
Lkf
.,FAtk LAS I . . . . . . . ji
7#4 AC
h-F6%i i4l'
It
l'.IAl
s.
S�LMIA.n.��✓1
.p
CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR DLIM C L t' J I /
1. Claim for death, injury to person, or to personal property must be f led no later
than 100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
2. Claim for damages to real property must be filed no later than 1 year the
occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF RAOCHO CDCAIprd
sbei �i11 ;11i9SEeeAIR 9itea/ 9� is�h/6 39
Naas of claimanv Address Zip Phone Age
59"71:< a s S CaoU >-
Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
Y® did damage or injury occur? �e .
.5/a.es �i'4
/ (7
VH did damage or injury occur? 61'06011 Y.NOm -- "o ph�.f6
NOW and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? ry(L• onto 1pet Tiff
. lioal..te Qt "AWOX• dial do -1m --*16 0Z`--P2t 4aeY just .4FEvq aeszwriacEdmih; e2eawe
j1a/Fcr�ay dawn fAC 7106d QF'fee wAerW `tv,nCLsh1E1d
•YHAT particular action by the City, or 123 employees, c
injury? (Include names of employees, if known).
damage or
YHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as
it my be known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of
computation of the amount claimed. (Attach estimates or bills, if possible).
92 � /7)dfro,e5 -Cl /esf 1:OU /nQ- VO.':r`' -Aar s
Total Amount Claimed: 3
NAM and addresses of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals:
c?-6'y
Date
903(478) -RC(H)
�9
c
Signature of Claimnt
0
0
I'll nL n \ Tinian 1110 A \ fnTrn ,
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 15, 1984
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Approval of Parcel Map 8653 submitted by Goldstein and MacBeth for
their project located on the southwest corner of 9th Street and
Archibald Avenue
Approval of Parcel Map 8653 submitted by Goldstein and MacBeth for the
division of 5.717 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3) located at the southwest corner of 9th Street and
Archibald Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 8, 1984.
Street improvements with the exception df drive approach, street lights and
sidewalk are existing. These missing improvements will be constructed at time
of development of the parcels.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same.
Resp ctfui` submit
LBH: :jaa
Attachments
tiffs n Y� u..
T I• r�
11
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MINI
STORAGE
•rr.w.11r
�JY
TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP
NO. 8653
J
iWWLrr.�� rm
I
G..
tiffs n Y� u..
T I• r�
11
•rr.w.11r
�JY
tiffs n Y� u..
T I• r�
11
I
iWWLrr.�� rm
G..
I
RESOLUTION NO. Iy — -Z `''
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8653
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8653)
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8653, submitted by Goldstein and
MacBeth and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the southwest corner of 9th
Street and Archibald Avenue being a division of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 1528,
as per plat filed in Book 14, Page 56 of Parcel Maps, records of said San
Bernardino County, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 8653 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 8653 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 th 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
jaa
40
I
Jon 0. M i e s, Mayor
r 1
U
is
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r�cnsio
STAFF REPORT \�.
� III
DATE: August 15, 1984
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of D. R. 83 -20, Bonds and Agreement for construction of
street improvements on 8th Street submitted by Excellon Industries
The developer, Excellon Industries, has submitted the attached bonds and
agreement to guarantee the off -site improvements on 8th Street, west of Haven
Avenue.
The project, 0. R. 83 -20, consists of a manufacturing building on 5 acres of
land in the Medium Heavy Industrial Zone (Subarea No. 5) and was conditionally
approved as a Minor Development Review by the City Planner on March 9, 1984.
The developer has submitted the following securities to guarantee the
construction of required street improvements:
Faithful Performance Bond: $15,000.00
Labor and Material Bond: $ 1,500.00
RECONNENDATION
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 s b�mit�ted,
r BD laa
Attachments
/0
I L
R
�I e
•
•
n
e
0
1
61%1(64 ST,
Imo CITY OF RANCHO
c
b
1m
h— Ji
I ! 1
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
VICINITY
MAP
�J
A
N
page
11
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
,3 -20
KNOW ALL MEN By THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is
made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions Of the
Man ici pal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of Calif -,n, a, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referr-
ed to as the City, by and between said City
and E•ce'ler Irds;n es. Inc. hereinafter reI,erred to is
the Deve oiler.
THAT, WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop certain
real property in said City located 10310 Oth. St., Rancho Cucamonga 91130
, and
WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements
s'
to be met by said Developer as prerequisite to granting of final
approval; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of
improvement secure ty as hereinafter cited, and approved by the
:ity Attorney, are deemed to be 111ivalent to prior Completion Of
said repo l relents far the purpose of securing said approval.
NOW, THERE ?CRE, it is beret, a ^reed by and between the
City and the Developer as follows:
1. The Oeveldoer hereby ^ees to construct at
develmoer•s exoense all improvements c:..ribed on page 1 hereof
within 1? months `'ar the date hereof.
•
+is lgreement snal'. - e e°fect"d - • date 0, the
O
"to L. In Of •nn ',U,Cll - said -' t, _purp nog this
eg eenent. 'pis agreement stall be n default on a day follow -
ing the fl rst a9n iversary date of 5]`1 Sp,,,v31 In1 +S5 do exten-
sion Of time has been granted by so`d'a ty as here',ndite, orovid-
ed.
3. The Developer may request additional time in which
to Complete the orovisions of this agreement, in writing not less
than 30 days prior to the default date, and including a statement
Of circumstances or necessity for additional tire. In considera-
tion of such request, the City reserves th r
e right to evi ew the
Provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost
estimate, and sufficiency Of the improvement seruri by, and to
require adjustments thereto mhen warranted by substantial changes
therein.
a. If the Devel oiler fails or neglects to comply with
the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right
at any time to cause said provisions t0 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 Devel.
oper from the office of the City Engineer Prior to start of any
work whirr the public right -of -way, and the developer shall
conduct S,Ch wore ie full carol ionce with the regal atidns
contained therein. Non-COmoiiance may result in stopping of the
work by the :icy, and assessment of the venal ties provided.
6. Public right -3f -way improvement work required shall
be Constructed in conf,^,rmance with approved improvement plans,
Standard Specifications, and Standard
Drawings and any special
1
•
S,F., D.R., Res., P.M.,CUP
0
•
amendments thereto. Construction shall include any transitions
and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or
public safety. Errors or ommissions 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.
7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligent-
ly pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to
complete any and all wort 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.
S. The Developer shall be respa,si ble 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 resoons lble 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 guarant'+ completion of the terms Of this agreement
shall be subject to : f approval of the City attorney. The prin-
cipal amount of said l,p,ve.ent security snail not be less than
the amount shown ;*d -]a•r •"
2
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE l'
ype: AI S, 000`�
Naie and address of surety:
MATERIAL AND LABOR
Type: Pr:ge'Icsl :-o Unt: I.7 -SoC`=
flame and iddro55 Of surety:
CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTATION
Type: „ "c'o31 Aunt:
Name and address of surety:
TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY
IH MITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be dUly executed and acknowledge with all formalities
required by law on the date: set forth opposite their signatures.
r.,.
Oa[ d+ i.. /. %OF': A.r� i v..ar' Develope
S r
- g' ature
Pr1n ='c
Date_!
R
rn r.n
Ac[eoted:
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Californ!a
A Municipal Corporation
By; Mayer
Attest:
�C it ark
—
' Ity attorney
DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
-3-
/y
e ve to o
I
i�
Caro, Ack.
STATE OF Cyri/yM��„
COUNTY OF
On this.......) /,.�....... ...�.]ddy Jc....
p�/
..... ....:i0.%.eefarp "n
anr5 ono 'r
CI!'!"!!!!'./.M+'!:`.!'�]2`
�
cane ...... ........
.......................
to me known. who, being by de duly swarn, and depose and say; rre,jes 'n. ....
ha
"tna't'he
V1.4 �i!
ip1�!+I�M._ tthat 1s the...
.....
.. .......
of the..., . ✓!I!""�"" ^f�Ase".[he
cor con tion I!e scn te; In
av: o4icw
executed the above Instru^,ent; that '^ knows t,2
seal 1, llid c,,A, n;
: ^,t _
seal affl led to Said Inatrent 15 .. n C're'te
ieal; 'h,lt ',. was Sa
•
Order of the Board of Aire Ctor5 cf said Cnrcoratl
:n, Ir-0 tnlr rn slCred his
qa ^p
theneto by like orde'.
(Seal)
t
i�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Far Inorovement: t�.;r q• g.. Panc hn Cuca-enna. Cal•'. r5; -
Date: :,I !o=sn sonpu tea
File Reference: - -
-� - Qty Orawtng •w. _
NOTE: Does not include current Tee for
writing permit or pavemtnt deposits
QUANTITY UNIT ITEM
oo'-E C'J Ni
L.F. C. curb 12" r 24" gutter 7.25
L.F. P.C.C. curb - 8" C,F. 24" getter
L.F. P.C.C. curb pn lY 6. Co
L.F. A.C. Seen m0
S.F. Drive say itcewalk 1. 5
pproacn 2.50
S.F. 8" P -C. C. cross gutter (ine. curb) 3,40
C.Y. Street excavation ;, S
C.Y. lmooruea embankment
S.F, Preparation of sbbgrade 0.15
__ S.F. Crashed agg. Dale (per Inch thick;
TON A.C. (over vJDO tons) O.OI
TOY A.C. (900 to 1300 tans) 27.Op
TON A.C. '1,00 to 900 tons) 35.00
TON A.C. (under 500 tons) 46.00
5�
0 0 S.F. A.C. (3" thick) 60.00
S.F. Patch A.C. (tench) 0.55
S.F. 1" thick A,^ overl 1.75
ay
EA, Aej cult sear manhole :o grade 250.00
EA. Adjust sewer clean Ovt to grace :50.00
-�- EA. Adjust water valves to grade 75. ^0
EA. Street Ilgnts `
L.F. Sur, icades ider
1O'D'..O
L.F. o ss 4" redwda eset. 55 10
S.F. Removal
of A.C. pavement '
L.F. Re-.'al o/ R.C.C, c .Ei
L.F. Removal of s, C, Dermr"
--_ ` Street signs
EA. Reflectors and oasts 5.70
L.F. Concrete block all S.F. Retaining Ball i°
704 Aggregate base 20.`0
C.Y. Concrete struc::res .'CO
L.F, 18" RCP (2000-D) 425, JO L.F. 24" RCP (1500 O) 29.)0
L.F, 36" RCP (2OCO O) 35.)0
L.F. 48" RCP (1200 0) 49.10
EA. Catch basin R = 4• 76"0
EA. Catch basin N = 8' 2000.00
EA. Catch basin A 22' 2900.00
FA, local depression 4` 4500.90
__ EA. Local depression 12' 500.00
__ EA, Junction strudtare 1000.00
5000.00
EA. Outlet structure, Std #506
-_ EA. Outlet structure, Std -507 1SOO.D0
EA. Guard poses SOD. DO
L.F. Guard panel (woad) 40.00
L.F. Sawcut 25.00 I
EA. Headwall 148" wing) 2'00
-- L.F. Redwood header 4000.00
S.F. Landscaping t irr lgac+on 1.75
L.F. Roll Curb ,p. 2,75 2,75
.50
ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE If' SUO TOTAL
'RESTORATION /DELINEATION CASH 14834
DEPOSIT (REFUNDABLE) ") CONTINGENCY COSTS
MONUMENTATION SURETY (CASH) -0- FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL B BOND (100 %) ISOIjO
LABOR AND ATE
R IA BONG (50 %) ]50)
Bernardino C City of a Tito Cucmaanga Nun IC1PAl Code, Title 1, Chapter 1.09. adopting San
be made pride too tsSu cTetofs�NCEapterf I•S, A cash restwattonTaline . eton apmlt small
vagia 1119 Construction permit.
ReYlsed 3/84 / �'
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the CityC inch rf the C,ty of Rancho .,.eronpa,
a•
State Of Callfcrna,
'a,I;I and __
tgrael^.iftef -eb }n at to dS 'brinC l'Jd� an
)gruo'nont xheroby pf'na pal a'ir e25 to �'nso a''.: ))r O+ C n-pieta
Cart a In Cesi :hated pool To improvements, which said agreement,
Gated '.98 ; and •dentIliac as
Project - is hereby 'eft r r ed to and
-wade a pert 'hered -;and,
'daER =.AS, said or,,Cioal IS regvi red the terms of said
ad- eenent td fu 1115h d b0 1 for the faithful rp.If,,, nce of se in
agreement.
104, THEREFORE, we the principal and E'- aboard Screb; Cornary
as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the II[y o Rancho
C do amonga ;horelnafter called "Cl ty ") i the penal su of
:p' irs
l 1awr 0 money of the Jn ited b)t-— payment
of mnlCh SJn fie 11 and tr'a I t0 he made, me o "d du,se Ives, our
he lIs successors, axa:utors and acrid, It -ato" , jointly and
Severally, flr".liy by these presents.
The Condition of this obligation :S such that If the above
bounded principal, his Or Its Heirs. e1acjto,s, ) Olin istrator5,
Successors or assigns, shall in all thinnv stand to and abide by,
and wail and truly keep and perform the c": 'pints, conditions and
Oro vlsiors In the Sald agreement and any )Iteration thereof made
as therein pro Vide C. On his Or the,' sort, to 9e kept and
ber•ormed at the time and In the -anner [here spec;41ed, and In
all 'espy acts according to their tl,- ind -'e,n I,,, and
shall indemr • ( .' and save harmissr City, 'its :pants and
e -o oyees, as there In t,pula:ei, '-' h,4 :• rpo; +at' :n shall
o-u
become 1 and void; 7t,ermise, it s-_'I to a -1 remm,e I1
for..a and effect.
is a part of the obligation secured hared, and ,n a;'llt'on to
the face a-0'ent SOe Cifi ad therefor, there S -aI1 be Inoluded Costs
add reasonable C[penSeS and fees, ,ICI ud IIg It aSOnab le att,r,py'S
food, c:Yred by City in SucCeSS`ully nnf0'c no s,Cn obligati on,
al' to be tared as cost; and included in any j --td[ r- ndertd,
',he Surety hereby stlpul ates and agrees that no Change,
extension of time, alt a at, on or ado, ti on to the terms of the
agreement Or to tho wort to be perform ^d thereunder Or the SD-Ci-
fiCatl... d::0lparrying the same shall in any.Isa af`.,t its
cb! 'gatlon5 in this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any
Such cn a n d e, nita, Si on of time, alteration or ad d't i01 to tho
te... Of the agreement or t0 the work or t0 the specificati015.
14 WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been only executed by
the origC,pal and surety above rarer, on Jo-.. 14,
19n Y
epetlpn t ^5.a •. r.ns,:-c. bo did Ea:pt: -
1Developerl �>/uy=ty n9
,gnature ,tar hey- ,n -FaC-
Thcran I.JgppseSn
PLEASE ATTACH POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
LABOR AND MATERIALMEN BOND Bord did. 960701
WHEREAS, the CIty Cc VIII of the City of Rancho Cuc im pngd,
State of California, and -is_:es, :
(hereinafter deS,gnated as "0r "
ricI pa I nave .I ee-ed -to an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete
certain de 5133 n at ed Du0l lc '•-01OV °n°nts, a'n ich Said a 9 r den ant.
dated _ 1964 , and identified
as prp)e pt Is nereby r=. rred to and made
a part hereo : 3n0 -
WHEREAS, Order the term, 0f said a r eOren t, Or IOClp al Is
r °put red before entering upon the performance of the Work, to
f l le a good and Siff I c I ent Payment pond with the City of Rancho
ac anSnga to secure tie I alms to wn ch reference is made In
it tie 15 ;CC,nencI n0 wl th Section 1002) of Part 4 of 0iv1 s on 3
of the Civil Code of the State of Callfo•nla.
NOW, THEREFORE, said or i no i Pal and the undersigned as a
corporate surety, are held firmly hound unto the City of Rancho
:ucaTOrga and all Contractor,, S ubcoot•actoll, laborers,
na0rl ill °r and Other persons a ^ -0IOyed In the Performance Of the
aforesaid agreement and referred to in the aforesal^. Code Of
Civ II Proce dare t the sum of 'cuson:" _ -ro"
Doi IOr, (S - n 1, far mater:e'gs 'urllsned c Orly l aoor thereon of
any alnd, on for -Y.OJ its due under the DnerDloyment ln5'dr an ce Act
with respect to such wore or labor, that said surety will pay the
sane In an amount not a, eedlhg the amount herelnabove at forth,
and a:so In case 5plt Is brought upon this bond wl 11 pay in
addition to the face a ^,punt thereof, costs and reasonable
rpense, and fees, ,ncl,d :rig reasonable attorney's fees, incurred
by City 'n succesSfully enforcing such Ob' patI.1, to be awarded
art fixed the Court, and to be taxal as cost, and to be
.luded In the )ud grlent therein ran eared.
he-ory ¢+orts,I, S t I PU IIted all ac• •d tiat this bond
wal' inule to tle ef.t of an)' all 'S. _ °5 an ^.
:aration5 tie C; I- and°• -° ^ctng
=n3 d to f•. r _ .° °
-tt S1-ve 3 zht of act 4 °0/ re, son 3 of ;ne '. Il ;.ode, so
a5 l] g've d r':it of 3: t'gn to [he ^. ar Cn°lr ....... In :nV SJ'I
1,0 Oart '+Pan tats boll.
Should the ,nd :;ill of this bond be -ally I,rf PrTed, t'nen
this ObItaation Shall bec0-e null and Vbid, PtYerwlse It Sho" be
any remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,
extension Of time, alteration or addlti on to the terms of said
agreement or the specifications accompanying the sane shall in
any manner affect its Obligations an this band, and it does here-
by waive notice of any such change, extension, al ter a t an or
add l t on.
14 WITNESS ',HESECF, this Instrument has been duly executed by
the Dei,ClDal and surety above named, 0n Jtlae 14, ,
199 a
Excellnn IrAuscpaes, Inc. Se aboav Su: et,' Coopa ny
OeveloDer :ite /
C,ice' :�f•- !' -: %' - BY'
- algn atu re lattoyn ey -In -,act
ThorAS K. Johcston
PLEASE ATTACH POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS
SISNATORES MOST BE NOTARIZED
l8
•
l�
u
•
• RESOLUTION NO. G8d5-61tR FL) - a a.o
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 83 -20
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on May
25, 1984, by Excellon Industries as developer, for the improvement of public
right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and
generally located on the south side of 8th Street at Center 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 -20; 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 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authe et, City C er
jaa
•
�9
Jon D. MTFels, 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:
TRACT 9658
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 15th day of August, 1984, there was completed on the
hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the
contract documents for:
TRACT 9658
4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement
as a whole was:
RICHNOOD DEVELOPMENT 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:
LOCATED ON 9TH STREET BETWEEN BAKER 6 MADRONE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a
municipal corporation, Owner
• Date Lloyd B. Hubbs, y ng neer
ao
RESOLUTION NO. 4&4&-020 P4 — �'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR TRACT 9658 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 9658 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 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
jaa
0
a�
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
•
Vlll VL' L,CIl \V 4V VV VLlL,LVl \V['1 `'
MEMORANDUMS ,
o
F 6
U
1977
DATE: July 30, 1984
TO: Harry Empey, Finance Director
FROM: Gary W. Richards, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF T.O.P. BONDS FOR CHEVRON CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC.
Work for the following tract has been completed and the garantee bond
is hereby authorized by the Planning Department for release to Chevron
Construction Company, Inc., 2120 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa
Monica, California 90406.
AMOUNT
TRACT NO. LOT NO. OF BOND CASE NO.
9432 3 $150 70- 276 -401
PURPOSE/
LOCATION
Sales office/
garage conversion
on lot R3, Tract
No. 9432.
Thank you for your assistance; if you have any questions regarding this
bond release, please call.
GWR /das
a 1
L J
Vlll Vr 8Crl. Vl1V V ...aa as
MEMORANDUM
Date: august 7, 1984
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Mary Whitney, Comm-unity Services Department
Subject: Stoebe Home
1977
on August 1, 1984, the Historic Preservation Commission held an advertised
Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to Council for Historic Landmark
designation for the Charles Stoebe Home, located on the south /nest corner of
19th Street and Beryl.
Mrs. Helen Hall, current owner of the home was present at the meeting and
expressed her willingness regarding the landmark designation for her property.
The Historic Preservation Commission finds that the Charles Stoebe home,
constructed in 1895 and a past residence of a prominent Alta Loma family, has
met the criteria established in Ordinance 70 and, therefore, recommends it be
designated as a City Historic Landmark.
/MM
.�9
Y
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -222
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THE CHARLES STOEBE HOME
AS A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND THEREFORE DESIGNATING IT AS A CITY HISTORIC
LANDMARK
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
has adopted Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code relating to
historic preservation; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission has
investigated the historic significance of the Charles Stoebe Home and has held
public hearings concerning this residence in accordance with Chapter 2.24 of
the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code relating to historic preservation; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has found the Stoebe
Home to be a significant historic feature of the City, and thereby recommends
it for designation as a City Historic Landmark.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
The City Council finds and determines that the Charles Stoebe Home,
located at 6110 Beryl, has met the criteria established for designation as a
City Historic Landmark, and therefore, and with the recommendation of the
Historic Preservation Commission, designates this site as a City Historic
Landmark.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, y Clerk
Jon U. Mikeis, Mayor
;;(v
n
•
n
U
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 15, 1984 -
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
r'' x
1977
SUBJECT: Intent to Annex Tract Nos. 12530, 12238, 12332 -1 and 12386 to
Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 an Annexation No.
6 and No. 4 respectively and setting the public hearing for
September 19, 1984
Attached for City Council approval are resolutions setting the public hearing
for annexation of the above referenced Street Lighting Maintenance
Districts. The Engineer's Report for both Districts showing the number of
street lights, the number of lots to be annexed into each District and the
estimated amount of assessment are attached for preliminary approval.
The following is a list of tracts to be annexed:
District No. 1 District No. 2
(Arterial) (Local Lights)
Tract No. 12530 Tract No. 12530
Tract No. 12238 Tract No. 12238
Tract No. 12332 -1
Tract No. 12386
RECOMIENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the
date of public hearing for September 19, 1984 and giving preliminary approval
of the Engineer's Report.
Respectfully sub itted,
LBH:B : as
Attachments
a�
July 3, 1984
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Re: Tentative Tract #12386
Dear Mr. Hobbs:
We are the developers of Tentative Tract #12386, consisting of
15 buildings totaling 54 units on approx. 4.5 acres located on
Vineyard Ave. south of Foothill Blvd, in the City of Rancho
• Cucamonga, California.
We agree to have the tract included in the "Special Assessment
District" for landscape and the "Special Assessment District"
for lighting, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
Sincerely,
TAC Development Corporation
Terry Christensen, President
TC:lc
a�
e7383HELLXk;NAVE. • RAXCHO CUWIONGk C.1LIFOR.YU►91730 • (714)989.1725•
W.N.I. CORPORRT10n
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline Road
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Subject: Tract 12332 -1
SUITE 201 - 140 WEST COLLEGE STREET
COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91722 •
(819( 966 -6610
May 11, 1984
1�i t
Gentlemen:
By this letter, I hereby state my intention as •
owner and developer of Tract 12332 -1, to join
the Landscape and Lighting District as part of
the subject tract's development.
Walter H. Laband I
cc: Associated Engineers
Phil Douglas
J.N. 82 -66A
•
.17
RONALD MARTIN & ASSOC.
• A R C H I T E C T U R E E N G I N E E N N G C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G
February 16, 1984
375 -0200
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0, Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs,
City Engineer
Regarding: Tract 12238
Dear Mr. Hubbs: -
Please accept this letter as our intent to join the Landscape
• and Street Light Districts of the'City of Rancho Cucamonga.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call us,
Sincerely,
RONALD MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES J�� LI
Rona d W. Martin,
President
RWM /kk
- P.O. BOX 151 EL TORO. CA 92630.157 (714)581.1111
RONALD MARTIN & ASSOC
ARCHITEC,JR� E`l G1�d EE RIgG CO �f dV VITV o�q.�;�IVG
•
February 16, 1984
375 -020b
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
Regarding: Tract 12530
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
Please accept this letter as our intent to join the Landscape
and Street Lighting Districts of -he City of Rancho Cucamonga.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call us. •
Sincerely,
RONALD MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES
��
Ronald W. Martin,
President
RWM /kk
•
P.O. 80% 157 EL TORO, CA 92630.157 (714(581.1411
a,f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
• Engineer's Report for
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1
Annexation No. 6
for Tracts 12530, 12238, 12332 -1 and 12386
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
"A" into Street Lighting Maintenance
determined that the street lights to
all lots within said tracts as well
street lights.
annex the tracts enumerated in Exhibit
District No. 1. The City Council has
be maintained will have an effect upon
as on the lots directly abutting the
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.
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. 6 comprised of 185 lots and 6 9500L street lights
and /or 9 5800L lights) is shown:
3r,
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy:
Lamp ize* Quantity Rate ** •
9 L g.
5800L 1 104 8.75
*High Pressuic 3UUIUTH Vapor
Lamps Rate Mo's Total
147 X 9.90 X 12 = 17,463.60
104 X 8.75 X 12 = 10,920.00
Total Annual Maintenance Cost - 28,383.60 =7.21 /year /unit
No. of Units in istrict 3,935
7.21 divided by 12 = 0.60 /mo. /unit
Assessment shall apply to each lot.as explained in Section 6.
SECTION 5. Assessment Dia ram
Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this report and •
labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 ", Annexation No. 6.
These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement 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.
3/
J
EXHIBIT "A"
Properties and improvements to be included within Annexation No. 6 of Street
Lighting Maintenance District 1:
Tract No. No. of units No. of Street Lights
12530
Lots 1,2,3 &4 (Only)
4
S.F. 5
(5800L)
12238
74
S.F. 4
(5800L)
12332 -1
53
S.F. 6
(9500L)
12386
54
P.H. 0
3 �
-T—@ 5800L
6 @ 9500L
RESOLUTION NO. - 89-- I6 -86eR � 4 - f T 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1984, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be
modified in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and
expenses o ai3 work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily
approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred
to and descr— ibe3 —in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and
confirmed.
SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of
land in sa ssessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be
received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for Tiie purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the
proposed district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Tan a. Mikels, ayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Jag 3 2
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
• STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 6
•
I'
II
I
1
(
I F
i
,.�. ^ °N, CPfY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trace 12386
> � COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFONI
RA
Im LLDYD NUBBS CITY ENGIN R .23889 GATE page
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
ANNEXATION NO. 6
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA Tra c ct ; le
, � 12238
�q COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
�i STATE OF CALIFORNIA
im page
4
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
I ANNEXATION NO. 6
i I f
..
�Jllm
RW6=0
-7-7
j
r*A
f %
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f4N 12530
Sr COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Vs
LLOYD HUNS. CITY ENGINEER RC &.23M -- N P29t
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 6
N.oSS %fogy;
sr 's
3C
y�— 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA N
AYG HU89S, CITY ENGINFFF 2,c oaod. 1
r
page
• RESOLUTION NO. 08--19 97CR Pf - = ; ^`
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California, as follows:
SECTION I. Descri tion of Work: That the public interest and
convenience require an it is the intention of this City Council to form a
maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and
operation of those street lights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance
district described in Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation
includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in
connection with said district.
• SECTION 2. Location of Work: The foregoing described work is to be
located with roadway rig— t�Ti � -way numerated in the report of the City
Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the
office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 6 to Street Lighting
Maintenance District No. 1 ".
SECTION 3. Descri tion of Assessment District: That the
contemplate�worlZ in the op nion o sai i y Cound 1, is of more than local
or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense
of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed
to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as
follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary
lines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No.
6 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1"
maps is on file in the office of the City Clerk of
said City.
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said City by
Resolution No. * -has approv —e E e r� of the engineer of work which report
indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1" is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City.
• Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and
extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work.
14 A
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be •
collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearin : Notice is hereby given that
on Septem eT984, a e our o pm in the City Council Chambers at
9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having
any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear
and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of
Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the
property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify
the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized
assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property
described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.
SECTION 7. Landscaping and L�1 ghting Act of 1972: All the work
herein propos sTiall eb —done an vied t roug in pursuance of an act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California. •
SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice
shall be—m—ale suant to Section 61961 of the Government Code. The Mayor
shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and
the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date
set for the hearing, at least once in The Daily Re ort, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, Lalifornia, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
Jaa
•
RESOLUTION NO. J y — a Zr
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1984, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be
modified in any respect.
NON, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and
expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily
approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred
to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and
confirmed.
SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of
land in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be
received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the
proposed district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon a s, ayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City er
jaa
• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2
Annexation No. 4
Tracts 12530 and 12238
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
"A" into Street Lighting Maintenance
determined that the street lights to
all lots within said tracts as well
street lights.
annex the tracts enumerated in Exhibit
District No. 2. The City Council has
be maintained will have an effect upon
as on the lots directly abutting the
Work to be provided for with the ,assessments established by the district
are:
The furnishing of services and mater 4 1s for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operating and servicing of street light improvements on
local residential 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.
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.
esf�lmated total cost for Lighting Maintenance District No. 2
(inc u �hde ing nnexation No. 4 comprised of 78 lots and 41 street lights) is
shown:
7//
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy: •
Lamp Size* Quantity Rate **
5800L 293 3. 5
*High Pressure Sodium Vapor
* *SCE Schedule LS -1. All night service per map per
month, effective January 1, 1983.
Lamps Rate Mo's Total
293 X 8.75 X 12 = 30,765.00
Total Annual Maintenance Cost = 30,765.00 =36.54 /year /unit
No. of Units in District —RT-
36.54 divided by 12 = 3.05 /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. 2 ", Annexation No. 4.
These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement 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 a 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 tti,lindividual asst ;ants.
• EXHIBIT "A"
•
U
Properties and improvements to be included within Annexation No. 4 of Street
Lighting Maintenance District 2:
Tract No. No.-of Units No. of Street Lights
12530 4 S.F. 1
12238 14 S.F. 40
Y3
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
ANNEXATION NO. 4
1
i
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA w
COUNTY BERNARDIN0 , \
c
�E STAT!L—E—NOIN ALIFORNIA ,� T
s'Y lv
LLOYD MJ885 R. i .2:899 DATE
page
12386
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
• STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
ANNEXATION NO. 4
Nom.__. ...
IIkY9JMkr� � ...
fn,xa r 'r'...... ' .;, ••__ r ✓ ��e. nar•
l2 E-� x. � .•`53 .x .. � tips � nx n .r �p rvs��f ���e. .• , 1.
�S�x pof;•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
8TATE OF CALIFORNIA
LLOYD MJ88S. _ N
FR g�j
Past
I
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
ANNEXATION NO. 4
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO n
p2�••,��� SATE OF CALIFORNIA T
c� _.Js yco lv
page
12238
I ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
•
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
ANNEXATION No. 4
0
L
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r, a, CIT
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOYD HUBBS. CITY ENGIN q7 -- N
U& 23139
_BLIL_ fAT E pose
12530
RESOLUTION NO. 08= iT99Cit B' �, 1:,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 2, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID
ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California, as follows:
SECTION 1. Descri lion of Work: That the public interest and
convenience require an it is t e ntention of this City Council to form a
maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and
operation of those street lights the boundaries of the proposed maintenance
district described in Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation
includes the cost and supervision of any lighting and related facilities in
connection with said district.
SECTION 2. Location of Work: The foregoing described work is to be
located within roadway right -o -way enumerated in the report of the City
Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the
office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting
Maintenance District No. 211.
SECTION 3. Descri Lion of Assessment District: That the
contemplated work, in the opinion o said City Counci 1, is of more than local
or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense
of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed
to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as
follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary
lines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No.
4 to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2"
maps is on file in the office of the City Clerk of
said City.
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said City by
Resolution No. *
—Fa approved t eel reporC of the engineer of work which report
indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 2" is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City.
Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and
extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work.
411P
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be •
collected a— t e same time and in the same manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearin : Notice is hereby given that
on September i�T984, at the our o pm in the City Council Chambers at
9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having
any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear
and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of
Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the
property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify
the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized
assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property
described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.
SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work
herein proposed shall be carr i eded rt iroough in pursuance of an act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 8. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice
shall be made pursuant to Section 61961 of the Government Code. The Mayor
shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and
the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date
set for the hearing, at least once in The Dail Re ort, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, a i ornia, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
jaa
ys
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
0
•
L
nTMU nP. n n XTOUA OTTO n IMAN70 n
V Q
STAFF REPORT
o
F' Z
�i
DATE: August 15, 1984 19"
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Intent to Annex Tract Nos. 12386, 12332 -1, 12238 and 12530 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as Annexation No. 19 and
setting the public hearing for September 19, 1984
Tracts 12238 and 12530 located on the northwest corner of Church Street and
Hellman Avenue received final Council approval on June I, 1984; Tract 12386
located east of Vineyard Avenue and north of Arrow Highway received final
Council approval on July 18, 1984; and Tract 12332 -1 located on the east side
of Haven Avenue at the North City Limits received final Council approval of
August 1, 1984.
Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's intent
to annex the above described tracts to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
and setting the public hearing date for September 19, 1984.
Also attached for preliminary approval is the Engineer's Report for the
annexation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving
the Engineer's Report and setting the date of public hearing for September 19,
1984.
Res ectfully s bmitted,
i
L H: :'aa
Attachments
So
UH.l. CORPOROTIOn
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline Road
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Subject: Tract 12332 -1
Gentlemen:
SUITE 801 - 160 WEST COLLEGE STREET
COVINA, CALIFORNIA 91723
(916( 966 -6818
May 11, 1984
r -Y
'y
By this letter, I hereby state my intention as
owner and developer of Tract 12332 -1, to join
the Landscape and Lighting District as part of
the subject tract's development.
�; u- (,,/mil -�
,��`(aE�•e��,..L
Walter H. Laband
J
CC; Associated Engineers
Phil Douglas
J.N. 82 -66A
5�
RONALD MARTIN & ASSOC.
A R C H I T E C T U R E . E N G I N E E R I N G . C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G •
February 16, 1984
375 -0200
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs,
City Engineer
Regarding: Tract 12238
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
Please accept this letter as our intent to join the Landscape
and Street Light Districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. •
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
RONALD MARTIN AND ASSOCIAT S
r� .
Ron Martin/; ,
President
RWM /kk
11
P.O. BOX 157 EL TORO. CA 92630.157 (710 581.1111
51
T.
July 3, 1984
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City Engineer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Re: Tentative Tract #12386
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
We are the developers of Tentative Tract #12386, consisting of
15 buildings totaling 54 units on approx. 4.5 acres located on
Vineyard Ave. south of Foothill Blvd. in the City of Rancho
• Cucamonga, California.
We agree to have the tract included in the "Special Assessment
District" for landscape and the "Special Assessment District"
for lighting, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
.I L
Sincerely,
TAC Development Corporation
Terry Christensen, President
TC:lc
.7333HELLMANAVE. • RANCHO CUCAJIONG.3,,,CALIFORNIA91730 . (714)989.1725•
RONALD MARTIN & ASSOC
ARCHITECTJ'RE • ENGINEERING • COMMUNITY PEA N N14G •
February 16, 1984
375 -0200
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Rubbs
City Engineer
Regarding: Tract 12530
Dear Mr. 4ubbs:
Please accept this letter as our intent to join the Landscape
and Street Lighting Districts of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call us. •
Sincerely,
RONALD MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES
Ronald W. Martin,
President
RWM /kk
•
P.O. BOX 157 EL TORO, CA 92890.157 (714) 581.1411
:TY
. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM04GA
Engineer's Report for
ANNEXATION NO. 19
to the
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
for Tracts 12386, 12332 -1, 12238 and 12530
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 1912).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the areas to
be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tracts 12386, 12332 -1,
12238 and 12530 as well as on the lots directly abutting the landscaped
areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed tracts are shown
on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared by the
developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans for Tracts
12386, 12332 -1, 12238 and 12530 The plans and specifications for the
landscaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission.
Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment
diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and
specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the same
extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction. All
improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on historical data,
contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated that
maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (E.30) per square
foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be
based on actual cost data.
S,y
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation No. 19 comprised of 39,224 square feet of landscaped •
area) is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.30 X 504,737 square feet" = $151,421.11
Per Lot Annual Assessment
$151,421.11 divided by 3686 = S41.08
Per Lot Monthly Assessment
$41.08 divided by 12 = $3.42
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and the
attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this annexation
involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which are designated
for inclusion
in the maintenance district but will be maintained by an active
homeowners
association, these assessments shall be reduced by the amount saved
by the District due to said homeowner
maintenance.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and
labeled Exhibit A ", by this
reference the diagram is hereby incorporated
within the text of this report.
•
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement for Annexation No. 19 is found to be of general benefit to all
lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June 1985 to determine the
actual
assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the
1984/85 fiscal
year which are to be recovered through assessments as required
by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
I. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's
Report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District and sets
public hearing date.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and
determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
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.
S(.
RESOLUTION NO. 48= -T5 =04ER % y— a
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY
ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1984, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of
said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said Act, which report
has been presented to this Council for consideration; and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and each
and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is
sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires or should be
modified in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and
• expenses of stork and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith,
contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily
approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2: That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred
to and describ�in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land
within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and
confirmed.
SECTION 3: That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions of
land in saiJ sment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be
received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the
incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4: That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the
proposed district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
• ATTEST: ABSENT:
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clark
Jaa 5 7
RESOLUTION NO. 4S -1&G%R � ' - ;2
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER
THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1,
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION NO. 19 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State
of California, as follows:
SECTION 1. Descri tion of Work: That the public interest and
convenience require an it is t e intention of this City Council to form a
maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance and
operation of those parkways and faciliites thereon dedicated for common
greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the
boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in Section 2
hereof. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of
any sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings, landscaping, ornamental
lighting, structures, and walls in connection with said parkways.
• SECTION 2. Location of Work: The foregoing described work is to be
located wit in roadway rig t -o -way and landscaping easements of Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and
more particularly described on maps which are on file in the office of the
City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 19 to Landscape Maintenance District No.
1 ".
SECTION 3. Descri tion of Assessment District: That the
contemplated work, in the opinion o said ity Council, is of more than local
or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense
of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed
to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as
follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary
lines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No.
19 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1"
heretofore approved by the City Council of said City
by Resolution No. *, indicating by said boundary
lines the extent of the territory included within
the proposed assessment district and which map is on
file in the office of the City Clerk of said City.
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said City by
Resolutiono.'�Tias approved the report of the engineer of work which report
indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary,
assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 19 Landscape
Maintenance District No. I . is on file in the office of the City Clerk of said
City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the
amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work.
s' 4
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be
collected at the same time an in t e same manner as County taxes are •
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon
said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments
for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearing: Notice is hereby given that
on September 19, 1984, at the F_ ui . pm -in the City Council Chambers at
9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons having
any objections to the work or extent of the assessment district, may appear
and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why said
district should not be formed in accordance with this Resolution of
Intention. Protests must be in writing and must contain a description of the
property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify
the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the
time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be
considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized
assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property
described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by
written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.
SECTION 7. Landscaping andd1 hltin Act of 1972: All the work
herein proposed shall a done ne and carried — gn n� pursuance of an act of
the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California. •
SECTION S. Publication of Resolution of Intention: Published notice
shall be made pursuant to Section a the overnment Code. The Mayor
shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and
the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date
set for the hearing, at least once in The Daily Re ort, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, calitornia, and circulated in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
jaa
Jon D. M ke s, Mayor
9
C,
i
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
• LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 19
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA%IONGA
I ENGINEERING DIVISION
s VICINITY MAP
nn
N
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 •
ANNEXATION NO. 19
0
•
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 19
slp'0`0 '^ CITY OF RANCI40 CUCAMONGA
' ENGINEERING DIVISION
z
i 6 > VICINITY MAP N
Tract 12590
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
ANNEXATION NO. 19
ccc��i
CITY OF RANCI IO Cl'CA \10 \CA
ti' Y/1 C�
i�_ ENGINEERING DIVISION
t� VICINITY MAP
ATract
N
12238
page
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Lw*
DATE: August 15, 1984 1977
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 8583
The applicant's letter of appeal sets forth four conditions placed on Parcel
Map 8583 at its approval by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1984. The
items and objections are summarized below, along with reasons for the approved
conditions. Please refer to the appliant's letter for details of his
objections:
First Item: This is an objection to the undergrouding of existing overhead
power lines and to the requirement of a lien agreement to postpone the work to
a future date not certain.
Analysis: The current City Municipal Code sections dealing with subdivisions
• requires the undergrounding of all overhead utilities not exempt by the Public
Utilities Commission. In order to grant the applicant appeal on this
condition would required the legal amendment of the applicable code. In the
past, we have had considerable difficulty in enforcing the provisions of this
section in both the design and construction phases. For this reason and what
would appear to be legitimate questions of equity, we are reviewing our
undergrounding policies. A report will shortly be presented to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendations to the City Council.
Until this policy issue can be fully resolved, we have been recommending that
a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement be executed to provide
for future undergrounding. Many developers have complied with these
conditions in the past.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Grant the appeal and order the appropriate ordinance modification.
2. Uphold the Planning Commission condition.
3. Provide alternate agreements and bonding of improvements to secure
undergrounding while the policy issue is determined.
• continued....
6y
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Parcel Map 8583
August 1, 1984
Page 2
•
Second Item: Removal and Reconstruction of Hellman Avenue.
Analysis: This condition is a standard condition for street construction on
our major water carrying streets. Full concrete removal and minimum six
inches of asphalt concrete has shown to be necessary to prevent erosion,
pavement uplift, pealing of asphalt overlays and reflective cracking. This
condition has prevailed in all locations throughout the City since before
incorporation. To offset the cost of reconstruction, the City will
participate in the western half of the street. Drainage fees can only be
credited to Maseter Plan facilites which the street construction is not.
ALTEHNATIYES:
1. Uphold Planning Commission condition.
2. Increase City participation.
Staff cannot recommend a lesser level of construction as being cost effective.
Third Item: Condition requires full construction of Hellman Avenue at time of
development of either parcel.
Analysis: The applicant requests that construction only be required on the •
parcel being developed. This would result in an unusually sharp transition
and bottleneck for a short distance and, in addition, expensive interim
transition structures to prevent flood damage. The parcel just northerly of
the subject development is currently being widened and the subject property is
the last remaining bottleneck to south of Ninth Street. Staff recommends
retention of the proposed condition with no alternates. Any other approach
would involve City exposure to potentially hazardous conditions and
maintenance expenses.
Fourth Item: Provision of utility services to the parcel not being developed
is found objectionable.
Analysis: This is a requirement to which objection is seldom received. The
reason for it is to avoid cutting trenches in the new pavement within a few
years. In any given development district, the utility lines can be stubbed
out to the curb with sufficient precision in sizing to accommodate future
uses. Likewise, location can be adjusted on -site.
Hcommendation: The utility service condition should stand.
Respectfully submitted,
LB 'PAR:jaa •
Attachments
(o S
16.36.050 -- 16.36.090
under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. (Ord. 28
§5.5, 1978).
1.6.36.050 Required improvements. A. All improvements
shall be required as conditions of approval of the tentative
map by city ordinance, including but not limited to the
following: Requirements for construction of on -site and
off -site improvements for subdivisions of four or less parcels
shall be noted on the parcel map, or waiver of parcel map or
the subdivision improvement agreement recorded prior to or
concurrent with the parcel map, and will be a requirement
of the tentative map for proposed streets.
B. Completion of improvements shall be in accordance
with Sections 16.36.430 through 16.36.450. (Ord. 28 -B
§1.702.1, 1981).
16. 36.060 Recuired improvements - -Storm drainace. Storm -
water runoff from the subdivision shall be collected and
conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The storm drain
system shall be designed for ultimate development of the
watershed. The storm drain system shall provide for the
protection of abutting and off -site properties that would
be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributed
to the development; off -site storm drain improvements may
be required to satisfy this requirement. (Ord. 28 -8
51.702.3, 1981)."
16.36.070 Re aired im rovements-- Sanitar sewers. l\
Each unit or lot within the su division s a 11 be served by an
approved sanitary sewer system unless otherwise approved by
the Cucamonga County water district or other such purveyor.
(Ord. 28 -B §1.702.4, 1901).
16.36.080 Re aired im rovements-- llater su ply. Each
unit or lot within the sub ivision shall be served by an
approved domestic water system. (Ord. 28 -8 §1.702.5, 1981).
16.36.090 Reovired improvements -- Utilities. A. Each
unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by city
approved utility services; gas (if required), electric,
telephone and cablevision facilities. All utilities within
the subdivision and along peripheral streets shall be placed
underground except those facilities exempted by the Public
Utilities Commission regulations.
B. The city council may at its discretion accept a fee
in lieu of the undergrourding of existing facilities along
peripheral streets. The amount of fee shall not be less
than the amount established by the city engineer for the
normal cost of undergrounding of existing utilities; provided,
however, no payment in lieu of installing underground facilities
:•Editor's Note: Ord. 28 -B was published without a Section
�
.2. 1
(Rancho Cucamonga 1/82) 246 -24
66
•
•
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor, and
Members of the City Council of
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
PO Box #807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
CITY 0 RANCHO cucAl ONGA
ADMINISTRATION
JUL -91984
T1%9' V41'�%y3��I,,�s"�.Pr
^s"r+wleuly 5, 1984
A
As agent for Mrs. Eleanor Carpenter and Mrs. Marjorie Porter, owners of the land
contained in Tentative Parcel Map No, 8583, 1 hereby appeal the conditions placed
on approval of said Map by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
in public hearing held on June 28, 1984. This appeal applies to the following
items in the Conditions of Approval, provided by the office of the City Engineer:
First Item: Page 2, Surety, #2. "AMien agreement must be executed prior to re-
cording of the map for the following: for future undergrounding of utility
services (along Hellman and 9th Street)."
Reasons for Appeal:
1. This site is in an established industrial area and has existing 12KV
lines which run across the subject property and carry electrical service
to a number of adjacent properties. There are more than 40 acres of un-
developed land in the immediate vicinity, and the Edison Company may need
to upgrade these lines to 14KV to provide adequate service to the industrial
users who will be locating there. This puts the advisability of underground -
ing the lines in serious doubt, as the Edison Company does not want their
14KV lines undergrounded at all, and the costs of doing so with any exist-
ing lines are far in excess of any benefit theoretically realized therefrom
by the City.
2. Current cost estimates of $100 per lineal foot indicate a cost on this
particular site of $90,000.00, or 520,000.00 per acre. Such costs are
clearly excessive, and neither the City nor the utility company has any
form of reimbursement for the landowner. To force one or two landowners
to foot the bill and let the majority off scott free is inequitable and
unfair. We understand that the City Engineer is aware of this problem
and is considering the recommendation that this requirement be removed from
future conditions of approval in the existing industrial areas.
:r
3. The lien agreement itself is In a form not acceptable in business •
dealings with others. Even if some owners feel they can live with such
a knife at their throats, no attorney representing a prospective purchaser
or tenant will advise his clients to acquire a site with such a threat a-
gainst it. It is in effect a blank check that could be drawn in any amount,
at any time, and provides for the forced sale of the property, without legal
recourse by the landowner, to pay the bill.
Requested Action: Delete the requirement to underground the existing 12KV lines
in established industrial areas, and delete the requirement of a lien
agreement to secure such an unnecessary program.
This is an extreme measure to secure a project which to all accounts is on the bottom
of the priority list, won't be done in decades, if at all, and which is excessively
costly, inequitably assessed and inappropriately applied in this case. We suggest
that if the people of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wish this project to be done,
they can indicate their will in a bond election, and we will cooperate as good cit-
izens in a fair assessment of the costs to all those who benefit.
Second Item: Page 5, General Requirements and Approvals, k12. "Existing P.L.C. •
pavement on Hellman Avenue beyond centerline of street shall be removed
and be replaced with asphalt concrete pavement a minimum of six inches thick.
The cost of constructing the westerly half of the street shall be credited
towards Systems Developent(sic) Fee or other reimbursement by the City."
Reasons for Appeal: We appreciate the attempt here by the City Engineer to help
defray the costs of redoing the whole street, on both sides of the center-
line. We must point out that the up- grading of Hellman to 6 Inches of black-
top is because that part of Hellman Avenue carries water runoff of an area
from Cucamonga Creek to Archibald Avenue, and sometimes as far north as the
foothills.
Requested Action: Since this is a City -wide problem, any increases in the require-
ments for Hellman Avenue above the standard, should be similarly defrayed
through credit against the storm drain fee; since that is really the nature
of the improvements involved.
Third Item: Page 5, General Requirements and Approvals, #11. "Improvement of •
Hellman Avenue shall be constructed along the entire frontage of the map
at the time of development of either of the parcels, Construction of
7
• Ninth Street shall be done at the time of development of Parcel 2."
Reasons for Appeal: To require installation of full street improvements, much
less the upgraded Hellman Avenue to full width, before the actual deve-
lopment of site 2, will force the sale of that property because the owners
cannot afford to spend the money required for these improvements. A credit
arrangement for part of those costs won't help because the fees in question
are keyed to the development of the site. Stubbing utilities into the pro-
perty could easily be useless because of the wide variation in needs among
industries. A stub could easily be the wrong size or in the wrong location,
and the street will have to be torn up anyway. The probable patching of a
street surface subject to heavy water runoff, and the breaking up of ex-
pensive curb and gutter for driveways could all be avoided, because it could
all be done properly once and for all when a user builds on the site. Any
economies of scale achieved by doing the whole job at once are quickly out-
weighed by these other costs and the costs of borrowing the money if any
Tender would consider such a loan.
• Requested Action: Let the ultimate user of each lot widen the street when they
develop.
Fourth Item; Page 4, General Requirements and Approvals, N3. "Provide all utility
services to each lot including sewerage, water, electric power, gas and
telephone prior to street construction."
Reasons for Appeal: Since an industrial user's potential utility requirements are
difficult if not impossible to predict, it is a much better situation if
the utility size and location are determined at the time of and in concert
with that user's development plan. No development or use of this site is
contemplated now or in the near future: the sale of the north 2 Acres to
a neighbor, Maury Microwave, is for their future plant expansion needs.
To put gas, water, or sewer lines into the site when those lines could be
more cheaply supplied from Maury's existing site, would be an unnecessary
waste. If the city's concern is that Hellman might be dug -up later caus-
ing erosion potential in the rainy season, we must point out that the uti-
lity stubs could be In the wrong places, or the user might want fire sprink-
ler lines and the new street will be dug up anyway. It would be much better
to wait until the user's needs are known and do the whole thing properly.
o99
4
Requested Action: As with item three, let the street improvements be keyed to the •
development of each site. To let each site develop individually will add
no new bottlenecks.
Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.
Sincerely,
StIphen D. Lucas
170
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
August 10, 1984
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Mark Lorimer, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Mobile Home Annual Rent Adjustment Ordinance
CUCAAfok
f
z,"
At Wednesday nights' meeting, the City Council will consider the
attached ordinance prepared by the mobile home park subcommittee, the
tenants committee and a committee of park owners.
Basically, the ordinance calls for an annual maximum rent adjustment
based upon 1004 of the consumer price index. Additional increases
in rent may also be allowed in cases where a park owner receives
governmentally imposed increases in taxes, assessments, etc. The
Proposed ordinance does not provide for mediation or binding arbitra-
tion.
The ordinance further provides for the creation of a five - member
tenants committee in each of Rancho Cucamonga's eight parks, and the
provision whereby all park owners shall provide the City Clerk with
rent and lease information applicable to all mobile home spaces. The
intent of the tenants committee is to provide adequate representation
for all park tenants, as well as to create a responsible body which
may communicate and attempt resolve of certain park problems and
concerns with the park owner.
Additionally, the ordinance calls for a "sunset clause" of the rent
adjustment section (8.10.060) in the event that the park owner offers
a lease to the tenants which compares with the rent adjustment
provisions of the ordinance. The intent here is to provide an
incentive for park owners to offer "fair and reasonable" leases,
while also providing an incentive for tenants to accept such lease
rather than rely on the ordinance for future security. It would be
hopeful, then, that within a year's time, all mobile home parks within
the City be on long -term leases, and the need for the rent adjustment
provisions of the ordinance cease to exist.
r%/
1977
Mobile Home Ordinance •
August 10, 1984
Page 2
Overall, the proposed ordinance has received general acceptance by
the tenants committee and the park owners. Throughout the past week,
the Council subcommittee has met with virtually all parks, and have
explained the conditions of the ordinance to those in attendance at
the park meetings. The general impression is that the tenants approve
of the provisions of this draft.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing and
conduct the first reading of the ordinance.
Staff is available for further clarification or discussion pertaining
to this proposed draft.
ML:ml
F7.-j-
•
•
ORDINANCE 40. 231
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE, PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL MAXIMUM RENT ADUUSTMENT
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 8.10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cade is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.1
Nubile Name park Aenual f fa Rant Adjustmeet: The Sections to be
included will be as follWS:
9
^3
8.10.010 Findings, Purpose and Intent.
8.10,020 Definitions
8.10.030 Applicability
8.10.010 Mobile Home Park Regist, ation
8.10.050 Mobile Hone Park Tenants Committees
8.10.060 Rent Adjustment
8.10.070 Reduction in Services
8.10.080 Enforcement
8.10.090 Retaliation
8.10.10D Severability
8.10.110 RAVI" by City Council
SECTION 8.10.010 FINDINGS, PURPOSE AM INTENT
There exists within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the surrounding
areas a serious shortage of mobile home rental space, which has resulted in low
•
vacancy rates and rising space rents. Further, because of the high cost Of
homes, the for damage resulting therefrom, the
moving mobile Potential
requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits,
landscaping, and Site preparation, the lack of alternative home sites for
mobile home residences and the substantial investment of Wbilt bane Owners in
such homes, there exists a virtual monopoly in the rental of mobile home park
spaces. Accordingly, the City Council finds and declares that it is necessary
to protect the residents of mobile homes from unreasonable space rent
increases, while At the same time recognizes the need of mobile home park
owners to "calve A Just and reasonable income sufficient to cover the costs of
repairs, maintenance. Insurance, employee services, additional amenities and
other operations.
Further, the City Council finds that decisions of a rent stabilization
board or similar decision making body do not necessarily fulfill the intent of
protecting home unreasonable r
foraae
t o se decisions ions always just and
reasonable into me sufficient to operate a mobile ham park.
The City Council also finds that concerns Among residents and owners
of mobile home parks over rent Increases and other park related situation can
often be best resolved between the two parties, providing there exists the
incentive for both parties to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement.
The intent of this chapter, then, 1s to protect mobile home bark
residents from unreasonable space rent increases, while providing an incentive
to both park owners and residents to negotiate future rental contracts in good
faith and to reach agreement therefrom.
9
^3
Ordinance No. 231
Page 2
SECTION 8.10.020 DEFINITIONS •
I. "Committee' shall mean the mobile home park tenants co mittee
created in each mobile home park and established by this ordinance.
2. - "Concern" shall mean that situation occurring within a mobile
ham park which is determined to disadvantage a majority of the park tenants or
property.
3. 'Consumer Price Index' shall mean the Consumer Price Index for
all urban consumers (CPI -U) published for the Los Angeles -Long Beach - Anaheim
area published by the Department of Labor Statistics.
1. "Mobile home" shall mean a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle or
recreational vehicle, designed or used for humn habitation.
5. "Mobile Name Park" shall mean any area of land wi Min the City of
Rancho Cucamonga where two or more mobile home spaces are rented, or held out
for rent, to accommodate mobile homes used for human habitation.
6. "Mobile Home Space" shall mean the site within a mobile ham park
intended, designed, or used for the location or accommodation of a mobile home
and any accessory structures or appurtenances attached thereto or used in
conjunction therewith, or the location or accommodation of a recreational
vehicle.
1. "Owner' shall mean the owner or operator of a Mobile home park or
an agent or representative authorized M act on said owner's or operator's
behalf in connection with the maintenance or operation of such park.
8. "Rent" shall mean the consideration, including services,
amenities, and benefits in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobile •
ham space.
9. "Tenant" shall mean any perscn entitled to occupy a Mobile home
dwelling unit pursuant to ownership thereof or rental or lease arrangement with
the owner of the subject dwelling unit.
SECTION 8.10.030 APPLICABILITY
1. The provisions of hits Ordinance shall apply to any mobile ham
park and mobile home space within the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. Section 8.10.060 of this Ordinance shall not apply to tenancies
covered by leases or contracts, at the effective date of this chapter, which
provide for more than a month-to -month tenancy, but only for the duration of
such lease or contract. Upon the expiration or other termination of any such
lease or contract, all provisions of this chapter shall immediately be
applicable to the tenancy.
3. None of the provisions of this Ordinance shall preclude a while
home park tenant from entering into a written lease or contract with the park
owner.
e. In the event any Mobile home park owner offers to the tenants a
lease, applicable to a period of not less than three U1 years In duration,
providing for in annual rent adjusMent which when computed does not exceed the
maximum rent adjustment allowed in Section 8.10.060 13c) of this chapter, then
such lease shalt supersede and Section 8.10.060 of this chapter shell not apply
to those mobile home spaces offered such lease.
r1
Li
7J
Ordinance No. 231
Page 3
In the event that the tenants' committee finds discrepancy with
the proposed lease as exceeding that maximum adjustment computed according to
Section 8.10.060 of this chapter, then the City shall determine if such lease
satisfies the provisions of Section 8.10.060141 and further if the provisions
of Section 8.10.060(4) shall not apply to those mobile home spaces offered such
lease. The decision of the City Manager shall be final.
Such lease shall be offered to tenants at least sixty (60) days
prior to the effective date of a rent adjustment and all tenants considering
such lease shall be granted at least sixty (60) days in Which to notify the
park Owner of their intent to enter into agreement.
ACTION 6.10.040 IOOILE MORE PARK REGISTRATION
Within sixty (60) days of the effective data of this chapter, all park
Owners subject to the provisions of this chapter shall be required to file with
the City Clerk a rent Registration Statement for each rental unit affected by
this chapter. The City Clerk shall devise such registration forms so as to
call for information necessary to carry out tht purposes and policies of this
chapter, and shall Mil such forms to all mobile home park owners in the City
in sufficient time as to allow such park Owners to file their Registration
Statements by • . The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of the
registration statement to the tenants' committee. All rental units shall be
registered annually, beginning " and by no later than • of each
year thereafter. No rent Increases permitted under this chapter shall be
allowed to park goers who have failed to properly register all mobile home
spaces.
ACTION 8.10.050 MOBILE NONE TENANTS' COMMITTEES
• 1. C£Ntion of: Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this
chapter, each mobile home park within the City shall create, by special
election of the park residents, a five - member tenants' committee. The City
Clerk shall call for and schedule such spatial election for each park at an
appropriate time when such election may be held. residents with intent to
serve on such committee shall be nominated by one other park resident, and
shall submit the appropriate Intent forms to the City Clerk within five (5)
days prior to the date of the spwlai election. The City Clerk shall create
such Intent forms as to Call for Information applicable to the election.
Each park resident may cast one vote and those five nominees receiving
the most votes shall he elected to the tenants' committee.
A representative of the City shall be in attendance at the special
election to conduct the election proceedings and to verify the election results
upon completion of the ballot caucus. The City representative shall not vote
or influence any vote.
2. ►wen and Usti ft of: Except as otherwise provided may law, the
tenants' com ittes shall have the foil Owing powers and duties:
(a) Meet to discuss problems and concerns within the Mobile home
park and when necessary to recommend further action on such
probl mms and concerns.
(b) Inform all residents of the park es to developments of
proposed rent increases and other park concerns.
(c) Negotiate with the park Owner In order to resolve tenant
concern%. It shall be Presumed that the Intent of good
faith nagotiatlon as established under this chapter shall be
• practiced by the park owner and tenants' committee to
attempting to reach aq IaMnt end resolve tenant concerns.
Ordinance U. 231
Page 0
(d) Elect one of Its members to serve as chairman, one to serve •
as vice- chairman, and one to serve as secretary. The
chairman shall preside at all committee meetings and shall
exercise general supervision of the affairs and activities
of the committee. The vice -chai nnan shall ass" the duties
and powers of the chairman in the event of the chairman's
absence. The secretary shall record and maintain all
minutes of actions and meetings for the committee.
(e) Any action of the committee shall require affirmative votes
of not less than a quorum, except that less than a quorum
may adjourn a meeting sine die or to a specified time and
place. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the members
not counting vacant positions.
SECTION 8.10.060 RENT AOJUSTWff
1.. Advance Notice Of: At least sixty (601 days prior t0 the
effective date of a rental adjustment. the pa,x Owner or representative shall
serve all mobile home residences, either personally or by mail, with notice of
the proposed adjustment in accordance with State law. Said notice shall also
include the recent consumer price Index as established by the City Manager.
Within three (3) days Of notice to park tenants of a rent adjustment, the park
owner or representative shall provide the City Clerk with the following
information:
(a) The effective date of the noticed adjustment.
(b) Identification of the tenants or while home spaces
affected.
(c) The amount of the rent prior to the effective date of the •
notice for each of those Mobile home spaces.
Id) The amount of the increase (in dollars) for each of those
while home spaces.
(e) The quantity and identity of tenants or spaces under lease
or contract.
2. Period of: No rental adjustment shall be noticed or permitted or
enforced more frequently than once every 36S days per mobile hoe park.
3. Maxim Allowable Adjustment:
(a) Once each year, park Owners shall be permitted to charge
rents in excess of that which they are lawfully charging
during the previous year based upon the Consumer Price index
as established by the City Manager. The first annual
adjustment permitted hereunder will be based upon the
percent change in the Consumer Price Index from August 1983
to July 1984.
(b) Monthly, beginning on the effective date Of this chapter the
City Manager shall determine the most recent published
consumer price index. The City Clerk shall record the
current consumer Price Index and shall notify each park
owner of such upon request.
(a) Coputation of rent Increases allowable under this section
shall be according to the following formula:
•
'7L
Ordinance No. 231
Page 5
Subtract the previous year's CPT index number from the most
recent CPI index number. The resulting figure is the Index
point difference. Divide the index point difference by the
previous year's Index figure. The resulting figure is the
applicable percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for
the year, expressed in decimal figures. Multiply such
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index by 1,00. The
resulting figure is the allowable percentage rent
adjustment, expressed in decimal figures. Such resulting
figure shall not be less than 6% per annum and not more than
12$ per annum.
Additional rent, above that established by the Consumer teki
Price Index, shall be granted to park owners in the event oe'
increases in taxes, assessments or levies
increases in ad valorem real property taxes) imposed by
local, state or federal government entities. Such
additional adjustments shall be computed on a prorate she"
for each mobile home space.
Multiply the base rent and the maximum allowable percentage
rent adjustment provided hereunder, and add the prorate
share of additional rent. The resulting figure, rounded off
to the nearest dollar, is the maximum allowable rent which
may be granted to park owners under this chapter.
e. No Adjustment Allowed: No general annual adjustment of rent will
be permitted any park owner who:
(a) Has COnNnued to fail to comply with any provisions of this
Ordinance and /or orders or regulations issued hereunder, or
(bl Has failed to bring the rental unit into compliance with the
implied warranty of habitability, or
(c) Has failed to register all mobile home spaces as provided
under this Ordinance.
SECTION 8.10.070 REDUCTION IN SERVICES
I. It Is the responsibility of the park owner to provide and
maintain the physical improvements and the common facilities of the Park In
good working order and condition, and in doing so comply with the requirements
as set forth in the Mobile Nome Residency Law.
2. No park owner shall allow a reduction of elimination or any
service in a mobile home park or to any tenant within any while home park
unless and until a proportionate share of the cost savings resulting from such
reduction or elimination is passed on to the tenants in the form of a decrease
in rent.
SECTION 6.10.080 EWORCENENT
1. Any tenant or park owner aggrieved by the willful violation of
any of the provisions of this chapter may sue thereon and recover actual
damages therefor, plus a civil penalty as provided herein. Any park owner or
representative 00 demands, accepts, receives or retains any payment of space
rent In excess of the maximum lawful space rent, in violation of the provision
of this chapter or any rule, regulation or order hereunder promulgated, shall
be liable as hereinafter provided to the tenant from who such payments an
demanded, accepted, received or retained, for damages as a civil penalty in an
amount of five - hundred dollars ($500.00) or three (3) times the amount by which
the payment so demanded, accepted received or retained exceeds the maximum
lawful space rent, whichever Is the greater. The park owner is also liable to
the tenant for any such payments actually collected and refunded. If any, plus
Interest from the date resolved, reasonable attorney's fees, and casts as
determined by the court.
%7
Ordinance No. 231
Page 6
2. The fact of any willful violation of this chapter may be used by •
the aggrieved tenant as a defense to any action for unlawful detainer based on
non - payment of rent. The park owner may use the fact of any willful violation
of this chapter as a defense to recover any rent due under this chapter.
3. Any willful violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and
Shall be punishable by a fine of not more than 5500.00 or by imprisonment in
the County Jail for a period not exceeding (6) months or by both such fine and
imprisonment. Each continuing day of violation shall be deemed to be a
separate violation.
\ SECTION !.10.090 RETALIATION
It is unlawful for the management or any owner of any mobile hone park
V to harass, evict, retaliate against or otherwise discriminate against any
retaliation against a person who has opposed any practice believed unlawful
under this chapter, has Informed law enforcement agencies of practice believed
unlawful under this chapter, has asserted any rights under this chapter, or has
petitioned, testified or attested In any proceeuing under this chapter.
SECTION 8.10.100 SE9ERARILITY
If any provision or clause of this chapter or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise
invalidated by a final Judgement of any court of competent Jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications thereof
which can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or
application, and to this end, the provisions and clauses of this chapter are
declared to be severable.
SECTION 8.10.110 REVIEW FIT CITY COUNCIL •
The City Council shall review the provisions of this chapter three (3)
year after the date of adoption thereof, and at any other time deemed
appropriate, in order to consider the effectiveness and necessity of the
provisions of this chapter, and the need to amend such provisions as to provide
more effective regulation or to avoid unnecessary hardship.
SECTION 2: The Nayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage
at least once in The Daily Re0ort, a newspaper of general circulation published
In the City of Ontario, Caiifornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this _ day of _, 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Jon 0. Mikels, Koyor
vary A. Au"WIF—er—Ury—MR
17 E
•
cW u,d : 8 -15 -8 *
ORDINANCE 0. a .y L
AN OROInwe OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE PmAInm TO THE REGULATION OF AMBULANCES.
79
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cuca=ngo, California, does ordain
as followat
SECTION 1: the RanoM Cuamonga Municipal Code is hereby awned to mad
as Coll
"Chapter 1. Ambulances
"Sun. 4.1.01. Definitia,a.
Unless otheraise stated, was and term am defined as follow:
(a) AMBULANCE. The tan 'wbulance' Nw any vehicle
specially designed,, cauntructed. snifisa, equipped, arranged,
wintained, and operated for the purpnw of transporting sick,
injured, w=ded, invalid, or eipwtant =them.
(b) AMBULANCE SERVICE OPERATOR. The tom 'mbulmao service
operator' war any person who ows or operates om or =m
mbulaadm.
(c) COUNCIL. The ter 'Council• sevens the City Council of the
City of Rencbo Cuumcago.
(d) CLASS OF SERVICE. The tens 'Class of Service' vans the
•
level or levels of coapleslty of field esergenay medical semtew and
will ce specified as basic life support provided by twrSm.y Medical
Tec nicfan (EMT -IA) personnel conforming to California Health and
Safety Code, Section 1760 (f), full advanced life support provided by
California licensed pbptciw or by peramedlcs and =bile intensive
care nurses certified by the County Health Officer under California
Health and Safety Code, Section IABt.
(e) CI7Y. The taro 'City' vans the City of Rancho Cuna =nga,
California.
(f) CITY MANAGER. The ten 'City Manager' .sane the City
Mewwr of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or his designee.
(g) COUNTY. The tar 'County' mans the County of San
Bernardino, California.
(h) COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER. The tare 'County Health Officer'
mans that person designated as such by the County or San Bernardino.
(i) EERGFIICY CALL. The ter 'es rgency Call' is a request for
the dispatch of an MbulAml to transport or Provide other assistance
for a person who apparently hue a sudden or unforemen need of
medical attention.
(1) EMERGENCY SERVICE. The tens 'Emorg=cy Service' aeons the
functions perfoeeed in response to an eeargency call.
(k) PATIENT. The tore 'Patient' mavens a sick, injured,
wundod, invalid, expectant mother, convalescent, or ntherwiso
Incapacitated person.
(1) PER". The ton 'Person' includes any individual
pertnmbipr fin, corpmtim, association, govorneental ag=cy or
•
other group or ombination mting as a unit.
(e) BASIC LICE SUPPORT (BLV) AMBULANCE. The ten 'BLS
Ambulanw' meem an ambulanw Mich has oquipsent and supplies as
specified by Title 13, California Administrative Cade.
79
Ordinance No.
Page 2
(n) ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) OR LIMCTEO ADVANCED LIFE •
SUPPORT (LALS) AMBULANCE. M. term 'ALS or LALS Amhu.ance' meana an
ambulance which has additional equipment and supplies as specified by
the County Health Officer.
(o) MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE :M:C) PARAMEDIC, The term '42C
Paramedic' means a person specially trained in the provision of
emergency cardiac and noncardiac care appropriately certified by the
County Health Officer.
(p) MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE (MIC) NURSE. Me term 'MIC nurse'
eons a nuns who has been certified by the County Health Officer as
qualified In the provision of emergency cardiac and nancardiac care
in the issuance of emergency instructions to MIC paramedics.
(q) ?EMITTER. Me term 'Permitted' means any Person, Who
possesses a current City permit to act as an ambulance service
operator.
A CODE 3. Me term 'Code 3' means the period when an
ambulance is traveling to or from a patient pick -up point using red
lights and /or sirens and Is traveling in such a manner as to reach
Its destination in the shortest p ... lble time.
"Sec, 4,1,02, Permits: Required
it shall be unlawful for any person, either as owner, employee
or otherwise, to operate an ambulance, or to engage in business as an
ambulance service operator, upon the streets or any public way or
place in the City except in conformance with a valid City permit to
operate an ambulance service.
(a) EXCEPTIONS. The equipment and personnel standards •
speciried in this chapter apply to all ambulance agencies; hovever,
the licensing and Permit requirements stall cot apply to:
Publicly owned ambulances; or,
(2) Vehicles operated as ambulances at the request or
local authorities during any 'state of war emergency,' duly
proclaimed 'state of emergency' or 'loon) emergency,' as defined in
the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter r of Division 1 of
Tice 2 of the Goverlment Code), as amended.
"Sec. 4.1.03. Permit Fee..
Permit fees shall be those which are, from time to time, set by
the Council. All permits shall be Issued to expire on dune 30 of
each year.
"See. 4,1.04. Application for a Permit or Renewal of a Permit.
(a) PROCEDURE AND I4FORMATION REQUIRED. Prerequisites to the
Issuance or a permit or renewal of a permit for an applicant shall
include the filing with the City Manager an application in writing an
a form to be furnished by the City Manager, which shall provide the
following minimm information:
(1) Name and description of applicant.
(2) Business address and residence address of any
individual applicant. •
(3) The .. under Which the ambulance service Will do
business.
E,�,
Ordinance No.
page 3
• (q) If a corporation, a ,joint venture, a partnership or
limited partnership, the cues of all partners, or the name of
corporate offlcero, their residence addresses and their percentage of
participation in the business.
(5) A at.tavent of facts to show that the public
convenience and necessity require the Issuance of a permit to the
applicant.
(6) A verification that the applicant Is equipped to and
will provide AM paramedic service at all time in the City.
(V) A statement in renewal applications that the applicant
owns or has under his control required equipment to adequately
conduct an ambulance service in the City, which meets the
requirements established by the California Vehicle Code, and that the
applicant owns or tuns access to Suitable and safe facilities for
maintaining his ambulance service in a clean and sanitary
condition. When an initial application is aubmitted, a statement
ttut the applicant will own or will have under his control required
"uipaent to adequately conduct an ambulance service In the %ty,
which meet, the requirements established by the California Vehicle
Code and that the applicant will oven or will have access to suitable
and safe facilities for mintalning his ambulance service in a clean
and sanitary condition. Both Initial and renewal applications at
contain a statement that the applicant will maintain (station) at
least one AM equipped ambulance within the geographical boundaries
of the City. Additicamlly the applicant must establish to the
reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager that the applicant tame
adequate capability to 41back up' or augment such ALS equipped
ambulance if it is not immediately available to respond to a cell
therefor.
•
(B) A list for renewal applications amended as required
during the year for any changed, substituted, loaned or leased
vehicles, giving a complete description of each ambulance vehicle
operated by the applicant, covering a list of the internal equipment
carried by each mbulance, including the patient capacity thereof,
and a copy of the mat recant Ambulance Inspection Report issued by
the California Highway Patrol for each vehicle. When an initial
application is submitted, a list, amended m required during the year
for any changed, substituted, loaned or leased vehiclea, giving a
complete description of each ambulance vehicle to to operated by the
applicant, covering a list of the Internal equipment carried by each
ambulance, including the patient capability thereof, and a copy of
the met recent Ambulance Inspection Report issued by the California
Highway patrol for seen vehicle shall be provided to the City Manager
prior to the start of ambulance operation.
(9) An affirmation for renewal applications that each
permitted ambulance and its appurtenances conform to all applicable
provisions of this Ordinance, the California Vehicle Code, the
California Administrative Code and any other State, County or City
applicable directive. When an Initial application is submitted, and
affirmation that each permitted ambulance and its appurtenances
conform to all applicable provisioro of this chapter, the California
Vehicle Code, the California Administrative Code, and any other
State, County or City applicable directive shall he provided to the
City Manager prior to the start of mbulance operations,
(10) A Statement for renewal applications that the
applicant employs sufficient personnel adequately trained and
available to deliver mergemcy ALS parmedia "balance services of
good quality at ell time in the City. When an initial application
is submitted, a statement that the applicant will "ploy sufficient
personnel adq"tely trained and available to deliver emergency ALS
ambulance services of good quality at all Limas.
n
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(11) A list for renewal application. giving . deacrlptlon •
of the level of training for each ambulance seplayee and a copy of
each certificate or license Issued by the State and County
e.tabll.hing qualifications of such personnel in ambulance
operations. When an initial application is subaitted, a list,
mended as required during the year for any personnel changes, giving
description Of the level of training for each ambulance mployse and
a copy of each certificate or license Issued by the State and County
establishing qualifications of Such personnel in ambulance Operation.
shall be provided to the City Manager prior to start of ambulance
operation.
(12) A at.teeint, Sn en initial application, that show. to
the Satisfaction of the City Manager that the issuance of a permit I.
in the public Interest and there 1, a need for a permit to be Issued,
in that then Is a requirment for mbulance service which can be
legally serviced by the applicant,
(13) A statamnt Signed by the applicant that as a
condition of the City leading a permit, applicant agrees to appear
and defend ell actions against the City arising Out or the eaerci,e
of Said permit, and Shall Sndewify and save the City, Its officers
and employees and agents hamleaa of and free all claim!, demands,
actions, or causes of actions of every kind and description resulting
directly or Indirectly, arising out of, or in any way connected with
the eaereiae of thin permit.
^Sec. 4.1.05. Investigation by City Manager.
Upon receipt of a cupleted initial (non- renwal) application,
the City Manager shall conduct an Investigation to determine if the
public health, safaty, welfare, convenience and necessity require the
•
granting of a permit for which the application has been mde and
shall further determine If the applicant meets all requirement, of
this Ordinance. The Investigation on all non - renewal applications
shall require the City Manager to conduct a public hearing on such
need and upon the qualifications of the applicant. Upon cmpletion
of his in %ltigation, the City Manager !hall monmend to the Council
that a permit he granted or denied. NO permit shall be Issued by the
City Manager until the Council has deteminsd that the public health,
safety, welfare, convenience and necessity require the granting of
Such permit. The d.t. mination of the Council shall be by means of
its conduct of a public hearing upon such need and the qualifications
of the applicant.
'Sao. 4,1,06, Issuance or Denial of Permit.
The City Council may order the isscence of a new permit to
conduct an mbulance service In the City upon finding that the public
health, safety, welfare, convenience and necessity require the
availability of such ambulance service and that the applicant meets
all requirements of this Ordinance.
(a) The Council may order the denial of a permit on the ground
of infeasibility. Whenever a new application is filed under CM
provisions of this ordinance for a permit to provide ambulance
service in the City, the Council, after due investigation, my find
and determine, as a utter of fact, that there due. not e,let
sufficient potential need for ambulance service to justify the
granting of an additional separate and distinct peralt for use within
the City. predicated on such findings, the Council my deny the
application for parch on the grounds that the granting of Such new
permit SS not in the public interest and welfare. •
(b) The Council my order the denial or non -renewal of a "wait
if the applicant or my partner, officer or director thereof,
S.;L-
Ordinance No.
Page 5
•
(1) WAS Previously the holder of a City permit, which
Permit was revoked or suspended and the terms or condition, of the
Suspension have not been fulfilled or corrected.
(2) Is committing my act, whim, if committed by any
permittee, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of a
Permit issued pursuant to this Ordinance,
(3) HIS committed any act involving dishonesty, fraud, or
deceit wh*mby mother is injured or where the applicant has
benefited.
(4) Has acted as m ambulance service operator in the City
without Posses, In: a valid Permit therefor.
(5) Has aided or abetted my person to violate my
Provision of this chapter or any prior ambulance ordinance.
(6) Make- any false or misleading statement upon any
application, or during the course of may investigation, required or
permitted by this chapter.
(c) BONDING OF APPLICANT, Before soy pemit Ss issued under
the proviaiom of this Ordinance, the Council shall require the
applicant as a condition to the issuance of the Permit to Post with
the City Clerk a cash bond in the Me of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
325,000.00) or a surety bond in the a. amount furnished by a
corporation authorized to do bO,inesS in the State of California,
Payable to the City. The bond shall be conditioned upon the full and
faithful performance by the peraittee of his obligations order the
applicable Provisions of this Ordinance and ana!1 be kept in full
force and effect by the permlttee throughout the life of the permit
.
and all renewals thereof.
(d) LIABILITY INSURANCE. The "Mittee shall ebtaln and keep
in force during the term of said permit public liability and bodily
Insurance Issued by a company authorized to do business in the State
of California insuring the owner, and also naming the City as an
additional insured of Such ambulance against loss by reason of injury
or damages that my result to Persons or property From negligent
operation or defective construction of such ambulance, or from
violation of this Ordinance or of any other law of the State of
California or of the United State,. Said policy shall be In the am
Of not less than Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for personal
injury to or death of any one person in any single accident; and the
limits of each such vehicle Shall not be less than Four Million
Dollars ($4,000,000.00) far damages to or destruction of property in
any one accident. Workers' Compensation insurance shall be carried
covering all mployees of the permlttee. Copies of the policies or
nart ifcatea evidencing such Policies Shall be filed with the City
Clerk. All policies Shall contain a provision requiring a thirty
(30) day notice to be given to the City Clerk prior to cancellation,
modification or reduction of limits.
u
"Sec. 4.1.07. Content of Permit.
The permit shall specify ins dates of Issuance and of
expiration, the number of amulance units to be used by the ptmitteo
and any special conditions regarding communications, equipment and
personnel deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
g'3
Ordinance No.
Page 6
"Sec. 4.1.08. Amendment of Perslte. .
Upon r.4 ... t by the permittee, the City Manager my amend the
conditions Modified in a permit if he finds such requested changes
to M in substantial compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance. Such mendment shall not affect the expiration date of
the dxiating paraft, nor Mall it authorize a change in ownership
from that specified in the original permit.
"See. 4.1.09. Renewal of Peralts.
Permit. atoll be renewed annually by the City Manager upon
application of the percittee, If the permit holder prope.e. no
substantial change In the content or the permit, and if the City
Manager determines that the permit holder Ma, during the period of
the expiring permit, operated In substantial coMOraity With the
provisions of this Ordinance and the rules and regulations of the
City, and that M SM capable of continuing operation in conformity
with the rule. and regulations of the City.
(a) Unle.. good cause can M shown by the peruvittet, it .all
M a valid Mats for non - renewal of a permit if the permlttee has
not, during the preceding permit period, had a Code 3 response time
to at I ... t 954 of its emrse.ey calla of eight (8) minutes or
less. Said response tine Ming asmared from the time the peraIDtee
received the request until the Paraitt"'s ambulance actually arrived
at the location for which the service was requested.
"Sec, 4.1.10. Suspension and Revocation of Persits.
The City Manager spell M empowered to suspend or revoke the
permit issued under the provisions of this Ordinance to operate M
•
amulence service, abea it Me Men found after investigation that
the perstttee or any partner, officer, or directort
(a) Violates any section of this chapter or any rules or
regulations that are promulgated by the City which relate to his
permit activities.
(b) le convicted of any orfMM relating to the use, sale,
possession, or transportation of narcotics or habit forming drugs.
(c) Coea1M any act involving dishonesty, fraud, per deceit
whereby another Ss injured, or Whereby the permittee has henefited,
or any at involving coral turpitude.
(d) Has slareprMMtM a material fact in obtaining a permit,
or is no longer adhering to the conditions specified in his
application.
(e) Aid. or abet. any person who violates the provisions of
this chapter.
(f) Fails to sake and keep records showing his transactions as
a pereittee, or fells to have such records available for inspection
by the City Mmager or his duly eutMriaed representative for a
period of not less than three years after campletlon of any
transaction to Mich the records refer, or refuses to comply with a
written request of the City Manager or eke such record available for
inspection.
(g) Accepts an e rgency call When either unable or unwilling
to provide the requested Service or feila to infore She person
requesting auoh aenios of any delay and fails to obtain the conamt
of such person before causing an mbulance to respond free a location
•
sore distant than the ane to which the request me directed,
kY
Ordinance No.
Page 7
• (h) Failure, without adequate justification, to continuously
provide MIC paramedic emergency service for a continuous period of
more than 24 hours.
(1) Fails to notify the Fire Department of a request for
emergency ambulance service.
(j) Operate. an amWlance demoted as a paramedic unit by
wording or lettering on the unit without qualified MIC peraoemel and
equl paent in the vehicle.
(k) During any validation period of not leas than thirty (30)
days, failure of permutes to respond to 951 of Code 3 calls within
eight (8) minutes or less will be sufficient grounds for revocation
of permit,
.Sec. 4.1.11. Suspension, Conditional Operation, and temporary
Variance.
In the event of a oMngs In ownership of any kind or nature any
Interruption of service of more than twenty -four (24) hours duration,
or any substantial change in staffing or equipment of the ambulance
service, which causes the ambulance service to he carried out
differently than apeclfled in the current operating pelalt, the
peralttee shall notify the City Manager femedlately In writing,
stating the fact. of such change.
(a) Dpon request by the parbittee, the City Manager may grant a
temporary lef3an0e in writing from the condition specified in the
original permit if he finds that such change is in substantial
• compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. If the City
Manager finds that such change IS not in substantial compliance with
this Ordinance, he may suspend, revoke, or and the permit by
written notice. In all cases when a change of ownership occurs in an
ambulance service, an application for a new permit Shall be filed
with the City Menage, within thirty (30) days. In no case Shall any
temporary variance be valid for more than sixty (60) days without
written approval of the Council.
-Sec. 4.1.12. Appeal Procedure.
If the renewal of a peeait is denied by the City Manager or If
the City Manager suspends or revokes a permit, the permitee Shall De
given written notice Specifying not only the action taken, but in the
event of a suspension or revocation, the effective dates thereof.
Such notification shell be by registered or certified mail.
(a) The permitbee Shall thereupon be entitled to a hearing
before the City Manager. The pereittee shall be afforded a hearing
prior to the effective date of any denial, suspension or
revocation. The City Manager my, after such hearing, affirm,
modify, or set aside the original decision.
(b) If, after the nearing provided for above, the City Manager
denies the renewal of or suspends or revokes a permit, the permittee
shall have the right to demand a hearing by the Council. A request
for a hearing shell be made I. writing to the City Clark within
fifteen (15) calendar days following the denial, suspension,
revocation or eon - renewal of the permit. Vpoo receipt of a written
request, the City Clerk shell set the matter for hearing o, a date
8�
Ordinance No.
Page g
not more than sixty (60) days following receipt of the written •
request and give notice to the appellant, the City Manager, and any
other interested peragna who may present evidence, relevant to the
decision of the City Manager. within thirty (30) days following the
conclusion of the hearing, the Council shall make findings and issue
Its order, whether or not the permit should be issued or the
suspension or revocation sustains.
(c) During the ties available to request an appeal, and at any
Lim before the appeal to the Council shall have become final, the
effect of such non - renewal, suspension or revocation shall be stayed.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions herein contained to
the contrary, the City Manager shall be empovered to effect an
imediate suspension of a Feral without delaying the effective date
thereof if he first finds the continued conduct of such permittee is
so far removed fret compliance with this Ordinance or the general
welfare of the cititem of the City as to justify such immediate
action.
(e) Any permittm who has such Smediate suspension action
taken against it shall have a hearing scheduled before the City
Mmager within seven (7) working days of such suspension.
"Sec. 4.1.13. Emergancy Service Requirements.
Each permittee shall provide emergency MIC paramedic ambulance
service on a continuous twenty -four (24) hours per day basis.
"Sec. 4,1,14, Conformance with Permit Ordinance.
No ambulance operator shall provide ambulance service for
•
ambulance calls originating within the City unless he shall first
have a valid City permit.
"Sec. 4.1.15. Standards for Dispatch.
Each ambulance service receiving an emergency ambulance request
shall dispatch an ambulance in compliance with the procedures
identified in Title 13, California Administrative Code. If an
ambulance Is not available for imediate dispatch, the procedures
identified in Title 13, California Administrative Code, shall be
complied with.
(a) The Fire Department shall be imedlately notified of any
emergency ambulance request.
"Sec, 4,1,16, Ambulance Safet and Emergency E u1 ent
Requ ramants.
Ambulances shall ha mintained at all times in good mectomical
repair and in a clean and sanitary condition.
(a) MINIMUM EQUIPMENT. All ambulances shall be equipped with
all safety and margency equipment required for ambulances by the
California Vehicle Code and the California Administrative Code and
administrative rules of the County Health Officer as the aame are now
written, or hereafter amended,
(b) ALS AMBULANCE EQUIPMENT. In addition to the regular
ambulance equipmnt and supplies, any ALS ambulance shall also be •
equipped as required by the valid administrative rules of the County
Health Officer.
nG
Ordinance No.
Page 9
.
(c) MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENCY EWIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.
Dreesinga, handeging, Instruments and ether medical supplies used for
care and treatment of patients will Da protected so they are sterile
when ready for use.
"Sec. 4.1.11. Amhulance Personnel.
Every person who drives an ambulance within the City, while
responding to emergency calls, shall comply with the requirements in
the California Administrative Code for ambulance drivers. The driver
of en ambulence shall ha trained and competent 1. the proper use of
ell mergency equipment required by this Ordieance. The driver shall
also hold a certificate of at least an EM -1A unless the ambulance
service operator me bone specifically exempted Preen this requirement
by the Council.
(a) AMBULANCE ATTENDANT. An ambulance attendant shall he
trained and competent in the proper use of all emergency equipment
required by this Ordinance, and shall hold the required certiflentlon
of at least an EMT -IA. If the vehicle is being used es an ALS
ambulance, at least sce attendant shall hold a certificate as an WC
paramedic issued by the Realth Officer for A1.3 ambulanom.
(b) ATTENDANT REQUIRED. Each ambulmce being operated within
the City, in response to an emergency call, shall he staffed by both
a driver and attendant. The attendant of an ambulance responding to
an emergency call shall ccupy the patient ampartmct while
transporting any person in apparent need of medical attention.
An ambulance driver or ambulance attendant who is a California
licensed physician or an MIC nurse certified by the County Health
• Officer, shall M exempt from the emergency medical training
requirement of this section.
This section shall not apply during any 'state of emergency' or
'local emergency' as defined in the Government Code of the State of
California.
^Sec. 4.1.18. Continuation of Call.
M ambulance Used and properly licensed outside the City but
not licensed by the City shall be authorized to transport a patient
to or through the Clty, but shall not be authorized to transport
patients originating in the City.
-San. 4.1.19. Emergency and Disaster Operations.
During eny 'state of war emergency,' 'state of emergency,' or
'local emergency' as defined in the California Emergency Services Act
(Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Goverment Code), as
mended, each ambulance service operator shall provide equipment,
facilities, and personnel as required by the City Manger.
-Sec. 4.1.20. User Complaint Procedures.
Any user or subscriber to an ambulance service contending that
he Me Man required to pay an excessive charge for service or that
he has received unsatisfactory services may file a written complaint
with the City ganger setting forth such allegations. The City
Reneger shall notify the affected permitter of such complaint, and
shall investigate the utter to determine the validity of the
Is complaint. If the oomplaint is determined to W velid, the City
Manager shall Mks a reasonable and proper actin to secure
compliance with the comdltloma of this Ordl.an.a.
i
Ordinance No.
Page 10
"Sec, 4.1.21. Enforcement Responsibilities. •
(a) The City Manager Shall make all necessary and reasonable
rules and regulations Subject to the approval of the Council covering
ambulance Service operation, ambulance equipment, ambulance vehicles,
ambulance perso:mel, and for the effective and reasons his
administration of this Ordinance.
(b) The City Manager atoll inspect the records, facilities,
vehicles, equipment and methods of operation uhenever such
Ins pectiona are deesel nec ... ary.
"Sec. 4.1.22. Excused Performance.
No operator Shall De deemed to be In violation of its permit if
It Shall fail to provide, either in -hole or In part, the Services
other -Sae reoulred of it if Such performance is prevented by any of
the folla ring:
(a) Ants of God:
(b) Labor strike. or disputes)
(c) Intervention of any goverment body; or
(d) Any force reasonably beyond the central of the operator.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Ordinance and each Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion thereof Irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
Subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstltutuionsl. If for any reasons any portion of this
Ordinance Shall he declared invalid or unconatitutional, then all other •
provisions thereof Shall resale In full force and effect.
SECTION 3: The Mayor Shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk Shall
attest to the Saw, and the City Clerk Sbell cause the ....he... to be
published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at teen I once in The
Dail Re rt, a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of
Ontario, en circulated in the City of Rancho Cucaeonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1984.
AYES: -
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Jon D. Mikela. - Ayer
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
•
CITY ADRANCHO CUCDNONGA
• JUL 17 M4
To the City Manager of the 7819161%2a1pZt3i4i68r. R.G.Bartholomeusz
City of Rancho Cucamonga. J! 5999 Napa ave
P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CA 91701
Dear Sir
The below subjects were previously discussed with you and Counsel
woman P. Wright. It is upon her recommendation that I am ofticail-
ly requesting that the following subjects be heard in the nearest
available City Counsel meeting.
1. City Ordinance 75 -B section 13.08
Per this ordinance, I will be sobiected to the payment of a
Drainage Fee to the amount of $2025.00 because I want to add
a 1200 sq.ft addition to my home. This fee is calculated
on a base of $40.50 per 1 /100th of an acre. I happened to
have the forsight of purchasing a 1/2 acre lot, and now want
• to expand my home inorder to provide room for my family.
2. I am further being accessed a Park Fee, again base upon the
size of the addition. No consideration has been given to the
fact that people like me are already residents of this City,
and thereby contributing to the beautificaton on our City.
Nor has it been given any thought that by such an expantion
of this nature will also result in increased revenue for this
City without any other cost to the City.
I 1
LJ
I feel, and I can with confidence say that other residends have ex-
pressed the same thoughts, that those on the City Counsel are not
consigned about the families residing within this City. I hope
that I am wrong and that the Counsel will in good faith discusse
this matter, and that we can comeup with a fair solution to this
problem. If not, than our City will loose some fine families since
the cost of expansion will be to large.
I appreciate all the help that you have rendered me, and hope that
you will place this on the agenda of the Counsel. I will await
your reply to let me know when the counsel shall address this mat-
ter.
P9
r�
�51pcerely
1..
U
•
U
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
;.
August 15, 1984
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Na sserman
City Manager
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Closed Session to
Review Personnel Study
As Council is aware, the firm of Ralph Andersen and Associates is currently
preparing a comprehensive salary study which includes not only a review of all
job classifications, but also a compilation and recommendations regarding
salaries for city employees. The purpose of the salary information is to make
certain that Rancho Cucamonga salaries are competitive and that the internal
relationships between the various classifications are consistent with sound
personnel practices.
The consultants have requested that the City Council meet in a Closed Session
to review the personnel information sometime during the week of September
10th. It is suggested that either the 10th, 11th, or 12th would be the best
dates in which to meet with the Council. It is anticipated that the meeting
will last approximately two hours. The time will be scheduled at the
convenience of a majority of the Council members.
LMw:baa
cjo
RESOLUTION NO. 84-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATING THE MUNICIPAL PARK FACILITY
LOCATED ON CHURCH STREET EAST OF TURNER
AVENUE AS - QUIMBY PARK'.
WHEREAS, the naming of municipal park facilities is a customary
practice of cities and a convenience to the general public; and
WHEREAS, the municipal park facility located on the north side of
Church Street east of Turner Avenue is currently unnamed; and
WHEREAS, City guidelines for the naming of municipal parks includes
within it's criteria, the naming of a municipal park after a historic event of
significance to the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, twenty years ago this year, the State of California
recognized the needs of growing communities to provide adequate municipal park
and recreation facilities through the passage of the Quimby Act; and
WHEREAS, the municipal park on Church Street will be the first
municipal park constructed within Rancho Cucamonga solely through the
authority granted the City by the Quimby Act1
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That on the occasion of this historic twentieth anniversary of
the Quimby Act becoming law within the State of California, providing a means
by which Cities can ensure park facilities to their future citizens, the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby names the subject municipal park to be known as
'Quimby Park'.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of August, 1984
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTt
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
C C
STAFF REPORT�°cv
9
OU
yp
DATE: dune 27, 1984
1977
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8583 - CARPENTER - A
division of 4.5 acres o T-a_nT into parcels in the General
Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of
Hellman Avenue and 9th Street - APN 209 - 033 -12
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map.
B. Purpose: To divide 4.5 acres of land into 2 parcels.
C. Location: Northeast corner of Hellman and Ninth Street.
D. Parcel Size; Parcel 1 - 2 acres
Parcel 2 - 2.5 acres
Total T.T acres
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 3).
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant,
G. Surroundin Land Use:
Nort - n ustrla building
South - Industrial building
East - Industrial building
West - Industrial building
H. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations:
No'rtr�enera n ustrla
South - General Industrial
East - General Industrial
West - General Industrial
I. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes approximately 2 %.
ITEM G
PLANNING COMMISSION A .F REPORT
Environmenal Assessment and Parcel Map 8583
June 27, 1984
Page 2
II. ANALYSIS: This parcel, map proposes to divide 4.5 acres of land into 2
parcels in the General Industrial Area (Subarea 3) located at the
northeast corner of Hellman and Ninth Street. No development is
proposed at this time.
Due to the water carrying nature of Hellman Avenue, a condition has been
placed on the map to widen the street along its entire frontage at the
development of either one of the parcels. This will eliminate any
drainage and traffic problem that would otherwise occur if the
improvement is done in phases.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is
°e^*- I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has
completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and
has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the
Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on
the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the
site has also been completed.
V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
a 1 input an elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the
Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as written
in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution
would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration
be issued.
Respectfully sub fled,
l
LBH:86jaa
Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity
Resolution
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
< C
"FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERICAL PURPOSES ONLY" SHEET I OF I_
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8583
"IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE -HALF DF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-OLORTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE - QUARTER OF
SECTION 10. TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,RANGE T WEST. SANBERNARDINO
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN SERNAMNO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LINVILLE•SANDERSON B ASSOCIATES
GYA En,�eY+i B 0nE.5✓Mwi
.W rr..
Al AI •d i7,a.:Nfiflaa
441.A,7
SAAS 1N�.
IKwnY �
ARRON'____p
ROUTE
onuvee
1iF 1N2C2!I'9.AN
4t^1NF
��NC.
YY...w
IND.
'I
PARCEL ,
1NP.
1 i
,2' 1
D.Wn,/i1• A
A, /sM N
Iii. .
.. ... .... s
sailp g
Id k
k rid �,., a.. a+.•r
gA1.Pf
�" t
' .,a
h1AHY1N� GdN A
AN., n
nr+n
a'
n,u ru+•rr r
PARCEL I
S'A'
—e`t E9•€u
R
rvr
NINiM STREET
Al AI •d i7,a.:Nfiflaa
441.A,7
SAAS 1N�.
IKwnY �
onuvee
W v fA Y
YY...w
SPAAiC d
'I
PARCEL ,
1NP.
1 i
,2' 1
D.Wn,/i1• A
A, /sM N
Iii. .
.. ... .... s
sailp g
Id k
k rid �,., a.. a+.•r
gA1.Pf
�" t
t h
h1AHY1N� GdN A
AN., n
nr+n
'
NINiM STREET
V Pd A
441.A,7
SAAS 1N�.
IKwnY �
Et r;{
FLtm
zn
tine.;
^, CITY OF RANCI lO CUCANIONGA
P.M. 8583
_l}r
ENGINEERING DIVISION
�.� vICINITV MAP T ,
la
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee 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: TENTATIVE PARCFI M-0 No RiR-,
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: 0711) 09n -1111
1�1.DVille- Sandnr�on R A�%nciateg
9587 Arrow Route, Suite H Ranrhn Cucamonga. CA 9174n
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Cary T Sandcrvnn (711)
amonga,
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Northeast corner of Ninth Street and Hntlmnn Av,,nua
Assessor's Nn
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Frrothili Fire District
General Telephone Company
I -1
C C
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To divide existing lot into two parcels
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Lot is 4.5 acres, no existing
buildings
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROTECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
The site is vacant and has nn apparent ulrurji
or scenic aspects- The animal life i, prpg,imed to 66n6i5B
of small birds, rodenrc and ranrilec inAfBoo .h„ I ... I
area.
The land gently s] nes frnm nnrrh in
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
NO
I -2
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
Potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee.
Date 5 /21/84 Signature
Title Vice Pr.sident
I -3
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Model M
and k of Tentative
S. Bedrooms Price Range
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
I -4
RESOLUTION .NO. 84 -59
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
8583 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8383) LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HELLMAN AND NINTH STREET
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8583, submitted by Eleanor
Carpenter and Marjorie Stroup and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the
northeast corner of Hellman and Ninth Street being a division of a portion of
the South 112 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 1 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, County of San
Bernardino, State of California; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1984, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above- described map.
FOLLOWS:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage, public
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on June 27, 1984.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8583 is approved subject to
the recomne— naeTConditions of Approval pertaining thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dennis .-S ou Cinairman - - - --
ATTEST: N
oyez, Ueputy Secretary
N
I, 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 27th day of June, 1984, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hellman TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8583
Avenue and Ninth Street DATE FILED: May 22, 1984
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the South NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast GROSS ACREAGE: 4.5
1/4 of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 209 - 033 -13
Wesardino Meridian, County of San Bernardino, California
DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER /SURVEYOR
Eleanor Kirst Carpenter _ same Linville- Sanderson & Assoc
Marjorie Kirst Stroup
2020 Lyans Drive 9587 Arrow Route, Ste H
La Canada, CA 91011 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited
to, the following:
Dedications and Vehicular Access
1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights -of -way
and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the
following streets:
itional feet on
itional feet on
itional feet on
X_ 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City
Standards. Twenty -four (24) foot radius at Hellman and Ninth.
4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated
as follows:
5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common
roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map.
-1-
I
X 6. All existing easements lying within future right -of -way are to
be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's
requirements.
X 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the
City where sidewalks meander through private property.
Surety
X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to
building permit issuance (refer to Condition #11 on Page 5).
X 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map
for the following: for future undergrounding of existing
overhead electrical lines.
3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing
completion of all on -site drainage facilites necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Divison prior to recording for
and /or prior to issuance of building permit for
Street Improvements
Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section
16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with
the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map
and /or building permit issuance.
1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets.
2. A minimum of 26 -foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide
dedicated right -of -way shall be constructed for all half -
section streets.
X 3. Construct the following missing improvements:
Prior to building permit issuance (refer to Condition 811 on
Page 5).
Street Name
Cur &
Gutter
A. C.
Pvmt.
Side-
Walk
Drive
Apr.
Street
Trees
Street
Lights
A. C.
Overlay
Me ian
Island*
ther
Hellman
121,
X
X
X
%
X
%
Ninth St.
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter
2-
1 •.
X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way,
fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained
from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other
permits required.
X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of an encroachment permit.
X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the
relocation of any power poles or other existing public
utilities as necessary.
7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be
undergrounded.
X 8. !nstall appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs,
striping and markings with locations and types approved by the
City Engineer.
X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the
Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with
underground service.
X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permit.
_ 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks.
Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards.
Drainage and Flood Control
1. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be
required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal
of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer
4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage
study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review.
5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be
constructed to detain increased runoff
-3-
Grading
X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted
grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior
to issuance of building permit.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
or geologist and submitted at the time of application or
grading plan check.
— 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of
building permit whichever comes first.
_ X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the
Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of
building permit.
General Requirements and Approvals
x 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
_ CalTrans for
San Bernardino County oo Contro District
it-- Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water
San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to
issuance of a grading permit)
Other
2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. &R.$)
approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation
of the map.
X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage,
water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street
constructon.
X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga
County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is
required.
5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval
from CalTrans /San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
x 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other
interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will ,
be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
4-
X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not
guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at
the time building permits are requested. When building permits
are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be
asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance
with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths,
maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control,
in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation
for and /or prior to building permit
issuance or
9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City
covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments
under Assessment District. 82 -1 among the newly created parcels.
X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be
submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets),
copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and /or
showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks
referenced.
x 11. Improvement of Hellman Avenue shall be constructed along the
entire frontage of the map at the time of development of either
of the parcels. Construction of Ninth Street shall be done at
the time of development of Parcel 2.
X 12. Existing P.C.C. pavement on Hellman Avenue beyond centerline of
street shall be removed and be replaced with asphalt concrete
pavement a minimum of six inches thick. The cost of
constructing the westerly half of the street shall be credited
towards Systems Developent Fee or other reimbursement by the
City.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LLOYD B. HOBBSS, CITY ENGINEER
by:
-5-
InterMetro Industries Corporation
9393 Arrow Highway
PO Box 747
Cucamonga. CA 91730
714- 987 -4731
August 3, 1984
Honorable Jon D. Mikels
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Mayor Mikels and Council Members:
Interiletro Industries Corporation has been a resident manufacturer of
quality wire products in Rancho Cucamonga for the last fourteen years.
We would like to voice our support of the efforts of the City Engineer
to modify, and preferable eliminate, the current city ordinance requiring
underground power utilities in the industrial area where our plant is
located. The ordinance as it now stands is counterproductive, economically
unpractical, unfair and discriminates against existing industrial firms
in the area. It is our understanding that the ordinance was to apply
to developing residential areas and not to existing industrial areas.
While the opportunity exists to postpone underground power installations,
the alternative posed by the ordinance is to sign a document classified
as a "Lien Agreement ". The document appears to be far from a simple
lien agreement and goes well beyond any acceptable standards set by
management for such documents, A company is supposed to agree to spend
an undetermined and apparently unlimited amount of money, at an unspecified
time, and guarantee the obligation by mortgaging its land and physical
plant.
We respectfully submit that the scheme set out in the ordinance is
unfair to the city's industrial and corporate citizens and counter-
productive to the city's interest in industrial development, and should
be eliminated to the extent it purports to apply to existing industrial
areas.
Respectfully submitted,
INTEP.METRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
Gerald �baker / c — '---
G, Vice President /General Mana--
ger
GB /jf
City Council Agenda Item 6A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 10, 1984
TO: Members of the'City Council and City Mana J ger
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT FEES
From time to time the City Council is asked to respond to the issue of
development fees and why "existing" residents or those wishing to build
only one house must also pay fees. Because of such inquiries I am asked
to review the reasoning and philosophy of these regulations.
Each fee as adopted by the City Council was designed to address a spe-
cific problem area, i.e., drainage, systems improvement, etc. Since
these problem areas exist even without "new development" occurring,
the City Council could not equitably distinguish between "development"
by a single homeowner and that done by someone who builds more. For
instance, each incremental coverage whether by a single homeowner or
"developer" contributes equally to the drainage problem.
Many of the problem areas we have today are the result of deficits from
pre -City development and as such preexisting homeowners "escaped" the
cost they would have had to pay (through the cost of their home purchase)
if, for example, the appropriate storm drains or street right -of -way were
originally required by the County. Thus, new development not only must put
in all needed infrastructure but must also contribute fees that are put to
use in the preexisting areas. The greatest complaints developers have had
is that fees are used to benefit those who do not contribute to the solu-
tion. So difficult decisions had to be made regarding the sensitive issue
of equity.
The City Council debated extensively the philosophy and equity of the
fee exactions and concluded that while no system is totally equitable,
all those participating in the development process whether a room ad-
dition, a single home or a number of homes must contribute to the future
solutions. The Council gave recognition to "minor" development such as
certain size additions and home projects by not requiring fees on the
total improved lot or structure unless the construction exceeded a certain
threshhold (in certain cases a specific size, on other cases 50% of the
existing improvements) and added other exemptions. But the Council felt
that once these threshholds were exceeded, the full fees would be required
as with any other development.
To summarize, the City Council established "development" fees and not
"developer" fees and in doing so attempted to maintain as equitable a
system as possible. Thus anyone'developing" in the City must pay his
fair share.
MEMORANDUM ,
August 10, 1984
D
TO: City Council
FROM: Beverly Authelet, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Minutes
We have been experiencing some problems interfacing the word processing
software with the printer. You will note in the minutes which have been
submitted that anytime we underline phrases which are all in capitals a
"letter J" appears and then the line returns.
We are in the process of obtaining a printer which is compatible with the
software. However, we want to proceed with approval of the minutes if we
can. Please overlook these minor problems. They will not appear in the
finalized document.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, see me. This process has
been a real bear in trying to find hardware which is compatible with new
software.
ba
•
0
♦mlr III , Iflvn nrrn A Trnnrr A
This report addresses a need for the formation of the above subject
underground utility district to compliment the Southern California Edison's
(SCE) requirement of the Lowy Development to underground existing electrical
distribution lines at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa
Avenue. SCE has indicated its intent to advance Rule 20A funds to Rancho
Cucamonga to underground SCE's existing overhead distribution lines
originating at their Archline Substation on the southeast corner of Base Line
Road and Turner (Hermosa) Avenue. These distribution lines run westerly along
the north side of Base Line Road.
The Lowy Development Co. will pay, in compliance with Rule 20B guidelines, to
underground the distribution lines fronting its development. Their estimated
cost is $35,000. Rule 20A funds will be utilized to compliment undergrounding
distribution lines easterly and westerly of the Lowy Development, Rule 20A
costs are estimated to be $90,000. However, in order for SCE to legally
utilize these funds, Rancho Cucamonga must form the subject underground
district.
Formation of UUD #3 would be in conformance with the City Council's adopted
Resolution No. 81 -175 of November 4, 1981, establishing a list of six
potential projects for implementation of an active underground program.
Additionally, undergrounding of the distribution lines should coincide with
the present reconstruction of Base Line Road. Consequently, scheduling of a
public hearing on September 5, 1984 for the formation of UUD #3 is essential
so that SCE can commence said undergo ding immediately.
Fortunately, there are no existing overhead electrical service connections
within the subject UUD #3 limits which would require underground
conversions. However, all private property owners within the district limits
must be notified, in compliance with the City's Municipal Code Title 13, of
the proposed formation of UUD #3.
STAFF REPORT
L,-__.., ti
A
DATE:
August 15, 1984
s 197
TO:
City Council and City Manager
FROM:
Lloyd S. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY:
Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 3 (UUD
#3) ALONG BASE
LINE ROAD FROM TEAK WAY TO EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE
This report addresses a need for the formation of the above subject
underground utility district to compliment the Southern California Edison's
(SCE) requirement of the Lowy Development to underground existing electrical
distribution lines at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa
Avenue. SCE has indicated its intent to advance Rule 20A funds to Rancho
Cucamonga to underground SCE's existing overhead distribution lines
originating at their Archline Substation on the southeast corner of Base Line
Road and Turner (Hermosa) Avenue. These distribution lines run westerly along
the north side of Base Line Road.
The Lowy Development Co. will pay, in compliance with Rule 20B guidelines, to
underground the distribution lines fronting its development. Their estimated
cost is $35,000. Rule 20A funds will be utilized to compliment undergrounding
distribution lines easterly and westerly of the Lowy Development, Rule 20A
costs are estimated to be $90,000. However, in order for SCE to legally
utilize these funds, Rancho Cucamonga must form the subject underground
district.
Formation of UUD #3 would be in conformance with the City Council's adopted
Resolution No. 81 -175 of November 4, 1981, establishing a list of six
potential projects for implementation of an active underground program.
Additionally, undergrounding of the distribution lines should coincide with
the present reconstruction of Base Line Road. Consequently, scheduling of a
public hearing on September 5, 1984 for the formation of UUD #3 is essential
so that SCE can commence said undergo ding immediately.
Fortunately, there are no existing overhead electrical service connections
within the subject UUD #3 limits which would require underground
conversions. However, all private property owners within the district limits
must be notified, in compliance with the City's Municipal Code Title 13, of
the proposed formation of UUD #3.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Formation of Underground Utility District No. 3 (UUD d3)
August 15, 1984
Page 2
RECOMIENDATION
It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution calling for a
public hearing on September 5, 1984 to determine whether public necessity,
health, safety or welfare requires the formation of Underground Utility
District No. 3 along Base Line Road from Teak Way to East of Hermosa Avenue.
s ctflly sumted,
LB: :jaa
Attachments
n
U
Ll
RESOLUTION NO. 08- 15 -1OCR
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR
WELFARE REQUIRES THE.FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT ALONG BASE LINE ROAD FROM TEAK WAY TO EAST OF
HERMOSA AVENUE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THIS
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that an underground utility
district, hereinafter called District be formed; and
WHEREAS, Rancho Cucamogna Municipal Code Section 13.04 establishes a
procedure for the creation of underground utility districts and requires as
the initial step in such procedure the holding of a public hearing to
ascertain whether public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the
removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures and the
underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric,
communication or similar associated service in any district.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCO CUCAMONGA, AS FOLLOWS:
• Section 1: That an underground utility district, be formed, in the
following descrt ed area.
Those portions of Tract No, 8918, as per plat recorded in Book 122
of Maps, Pages 99 and 100; Tract No. 11350, as per amended plat
recorded in Book 171, Pages 1 through 3; Portion of the East 1/2 of
Section 35, Township 1 North, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian per County Assessor's Map recorded in Book 202, Page 20;
Tract No. 9449, as per plat recorded in Book 136, Pages 99 and 100;
Portion of the North 112 of Lot 5 of Cucamonga Fruitlands as per
plat recorded in Book 4, Page 9; Portion of the North 1/2 of Lot 4
of Cucamonga Fruitlands as per plat recorded in Book 4, Page 9; all
records of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, State of
California, lying within a strip of land 120.00 feet wide, the
centerline of which is described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Base Line Road
and Teak Way as per the above said Map of Tract No. 8918; thence
easterly along said centerline of Base Line Road a distance of
1080 + feet to a point on the centerline of Base Line Road distant
thereon South 89 54' 17" East, 254+ feet from the intersection of
the centerlines of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue as per the
above said Map of Tract No. 11350.
The sidelines of said 120.00 foot wide strip of land are parallel to
and measured at right angles from the above described centerline of
• Base Line Road, and shall be prolonged or shortened so as to begin
from a line perpendicular to and passing through said Beginning
Point at the intesection of the centerlines of Base Line Road and
Teak Way and terminate at a line perpendicular to and passing
through said ending point on the centerline of Rase Line Road east
of Hermosa Avenue.
• Section 2: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by
the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on September 5, 1984, at the
hour of 7:30 pm at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road,
Rancho Cucamonga, California to ascertain whether public necessity, health,
safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated
overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities
for supplying electric, communication or similar associated service in the
District herein described.
Section 3: At such hearing, all persons interested shall be given an
oppor uni y �o be heard. Said hearing may be continued from time to time as
may be determined by the City Council.
Section 4: The City Clerk shall notify all affected property owners, as
shown on Mast equalized assessment roll, and utilities concerned of the
time and place of such hearing and by mailing a copy of this resolution to
such property owners and utilities concerned at least ten (10) days prior to
the date thereof.
Section 5: The area proposed to be included in the District is shown upon
that certain map entitled "Underground Utility District No. 3" which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1984.
• AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Beverly A. Aut elet, City Clerk
j as
n
Jon a s, Mayor
A
•
•
Added Consent Calendar Item for August 15, 1984 meeting
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1984
TO: Members of City Council /1rn
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager; V
< 1
r .
.. i
1977
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED TO PURtMiSE NEW AND REPLACEMENT CITY
VEHICLES
City Council authorization is requested to purchase the following City
Vehicles:
10 - compact utility vehicles
2 - 3/4 ton pickup trucks
1 - 4 door sedan
The utility vehicles and pickups are approved budget items. However,
because of unusually high repair and maintenance costs the sedan is
recommended for trade -in and replacement. Since it has been depreciated
for four years and is being traded -in rather than moved down in our
fleet, it is anticipated that no additional funds will be required for
the purchase.
LMW /kep
May 31, 1984
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was
held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Thursday, May
31, 1984. The meeting was called to order at 6:11 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were: Councilmembers Pamela J. Wright, Charles J. Buquet II, Richard
M. Dahl, Jeffrey King, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager; Robert A. Rizzo,
Assistant to City Manager; Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Lloyd Hobbs, City
Engineer; Harry Empey, Finance Director; 8111 Holley, Community Services
Director; and Jerry Grant, Building Official.
Reviewed revenue forecast for 84 -85 budget.
Item 2 - each department head reviewed with the City Council as an
informational items, their budgets.
Item 3 - direction was given by the City Council to refine budget with more
description of line item costs,
Item 4 - Capital improvement program to be discussed at 6 -14 -84 City Council
adjourned budget workshop meeting.
Item 5 - adjournment to executive session 6 -6 -84, 6:00 p.m. to review personnel
matters and labor relations.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King, to adjourn to executive session June
6, 1984, 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at
8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Rizzo
Assistant to City Manager
July 18, 1984
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council met on Wednesday, July 18, 1984 in the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The
meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Councilmembers: Pamela J. Wright; Charles J. Buquet II; Richard
M. Dahl; Jeffery King; and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: Acting City Manager and Community Development Director,
Jack Lam; Assistant to City Manager, Robert Rizzo; City Clerk, Beverly A.
Authelet; Administrative Analyst, Mark Lorimer; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs.
Absent: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman.
Approval of Minutes: None were submitted.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
2A. Thursday, July 19, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Lions
Park Community Center.
28. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:30 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION, Library meeting
room.
2C. Thursday, July 26, 1984, 7:00 p.m. - ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON
CATV, Lions Park Community Center.
20. Presentation, Jeffery Sceranka, Executive Director of Rancho Cucamonga
Chamber of Commerce.
2E. Paul Saldana made a presentation of appreciation to Councilman Dahl for his
efforts in restoring bus services to Chaffey College from Fontana for the
disabled students.
2F. Floyd Tidwell, San Bernardino County Undersheriff, presented the
Councilmembers with honorary Deputy Sheriff badges.
2G. Councilmember Pam Wright presented a report from the Mayors and
Councilmembers Executive Forum held in Monterey July 16 -18.
2H. Mr. Lam presented a request from applicant that Consent Calendar item D be
continued to August 1st. Council concurred.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
3A. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 84 -07 -18 and 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.)
38. Alcoholic Beverage Application No. AS 84 -17 for On -Sale Beer A Nine Eating
Place License, Imkiaz Ahmeo and Anwar Ali, 8998 Foothill Boulevard.
3C. Approval of Tract No. 12386, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue,
between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard, submitted by TAC Development
Company.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -200
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NO. 12386
3D. Approval of Parcel Map 8597, located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue,
between Ninth Street and Arrow Route, submitted by Lozier Corporation. Item
continued to August 1, 1984 meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -201 (continued to 8 -1 -84)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 8597
3E. Release of Bonds:
Tract No. 11144 - located on the west side of Vineyard, north of Arrow;
owner, TAU Uevelopment.
Accept: Maintenance Bond (Road) E 3,350.00
Release: Faithful Performance Bond $33,500.00
(Road)
Monumentation Bond S 4,300.00
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
3F. 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.
3G. 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
3H. 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 b 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
3I. Approval of destruction of obsolete records in Community Development
Department.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -205
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
3J. Approval of consideration for a new Agreement with Great Western Savings &
Loan for deferred compensation services.
3K. Approval of claim of $899,145 to be submitted to the 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.
X. Approval of Resolution to the Interstate Commerce Commission concerning the
proposed merger of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -iO6
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
3M. 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.
3N. Approval of 1984 -85 budget adjustments adding $4,000 for maintenance needs
of building and equipment, and adding $4,147 for contractual agreements to MSI
for computer software /hardware.
30. Set public hearing for August 1, 1984 for appeal of Planning Commission
Decision approving conditions placed on Tentative Parcel Map No. 8583, Lucas
Land Company.
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to approve the Consent Calendar with
the deletion of Item 0. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
4A. APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 12650 - (This consists of two 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.
Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, City Planner.
Councilman King inquired about the logic behind the removal of the four lots.
Mr. Gomez responded that the Planning Commission felt by removing one lot in
each of the four tiers, it would allow for the widths in those areas to be
enlarged to provide a minimum lot width of 140 feet which was the average lot
width within the existing Deer Creek Development.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 4
Mayor Mikels opened the hearing to those representing the Deer Creek Company
and those in agreement with that point. Attention should be focused on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission with comments addressed to the
modifications to the tract map as submitted to the Deer Creek Company.
Addressing Council were:
Michael Vairin, Director of Planning and Administration for the Deer Creek
Company, presented background of the origination of Deer Creek, the reasoning
behind their appeal, and their intentions for the development of the remaining
portion of Deer Creek.
It is clearly indicated within the final subdivision report, which is required
by the Department of Real Estate, as well as within the CCBRs that are attached
to the property that they could not totally assure that the project would
develop as originally designed. Originally it was not anticipated that this
project would take as long as it has. They have found over the last seven
years prices of the Deer Creek homes have risen by more than $100,000. In
order to hold the line on these rising costs and to continue to provide Rancho
Cucamonga with a choice and high quality living, they are faced with two
options: (1) build the smaller home on the existing lots, or (2) reduce the
lot size and continue building good size homes, ranging from 1800 square feet
to 3600 square feet. They are not asking for approval of house designs. They
are asking for subdivision approval only.
They have appealed three of the conditions for which the Planning Commission
attached to the project: Notification of the homeowners, elimination of the
four lots, and the requirement that no dwellings be less than 2500 square
feet. They are withdrawing their appeal of the notification of the
homeowners. They request Council to allow them to retain the four lots. The
Planning Commission stated this was done to provide variable lot widths, some
up to 140 feet which is 50 feet in excess of the City Code. Also, it is in
excess of the existing lot widths in Deer Creek, by as much as 30 feet. Lots
being proposed will be in widths in the range of 115 to 120 feet which is 15 to
30 feet greater than City Code. Therefore, they have offered a revised
condition which will require them to provide more variation in lot widths
without eliminating lots because they do have extra widths in the lots.
They have been accused of proposing to build smaller houses on smaller lots.
They are reducing the lot size, but still exceeding the minimum City
requirement. They are not proposing to design or construct any homes smaller
than what currently exists at the Deer Creek community. They want to have as
much flexibility in order to develop a customized look. They intend to design
and build a new model complex in this phase to be consistent with the Deer
Creek project, as well as offer the sale and construction of all existing floor
plans currently in Deer Creek. The CCBRs already prevent them from building
less than 1800 square feet and does require a minimum of three car garage.
They are requesting City Council to eliminate the condition of the 2500 square
foot and have this matter more appropriately addressed when designs of the
dwellings are available and the project is revised and reviewed during the
design review process.
Meeting opened to those in support of the appeal by Deer Creek Company.
Addressing Council were:
Anne Calinsky, 5468 Valinda Street, requested the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission's decision concerning the house size minimum and allow the
minimum to be 1800 square feet as set forth in the CC&Rs in Deer Creek.
Richard Smith, 5481 Valinda Street, stated that the Planning Commission
minutes reflect that he was against the Deer Creek Company - -he was actually in
support of the Deer Creek Company. Both he and his wife feel that what the
Deer Creek Company is intending to do with the lots above where everyone is
now, will not change the concept. He would be very concerned if they changed
the product rather than the lot size. He did not feel that 1/2 acre lot size
would create that much of a problem for the current homeowners or a problem for
the resale value.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 5
Bryce Jones, 10544 Wilson, expressed support for the Deer Creek Company and
requested Council overturn the lot size and the house size.
Maxine Wilcox, 10802 Hillside, felt that 1/2 acre lots was large enough.
Also, she did not want 100 houses just like her's in the development but would
like a variety.
There being no further response in support of the Deer Creek Company's appeal,
Mayor Mikels opened the hearing to the Homeowners and those in support of their
appeal. Addressing Council were:
William Van Dyk, legal counsel representing a number of the Deer Creek
Homeowners, felt they have lost sight of the real issue. This is not a new
project, but is one that has been in the works and has been sold as an existing
project. He expressed that he felt the real issue is whether the Deer Creek
Company, or any other developer who has received approval and previously
subdivided a portion of real property for the purpose of constructing a planned
community development, may after the development and sale of over half the
planned community, resubdivide the balance of the project without the consent
of the homeowners. If so, on what terms and conditions can any such
resubdivision occur.
Mr. Van Dyk further stated that the interest which the homeowners association
has in the present recorded map is in the bridle paths. Under the CCSRs, the
fee title must be conveyed to the association, so there is in fact a contingent
future fee interest in those properties which pursuant to Government Code
Section 66430 requires a consent of each and every homeowner.
The Deer Creek Community is a 293 acre planned residential development; it is
an existing development; it is not something brought to Council tonight for
the first time. Now they want to go back and radically redesign this project,
but at the same time would like to retain the benefits of the Deer Creek
Community; that is, use their CCBRs and join their homeowners association.
What they want is:
To have items 1 -3 as set forth on page 7 of the Planning Commission minutes
included in the CCBRs.
Pursuant to Sections 66430 that there be consent of all homeowners to the
filing of any final map.
That the Deer Creek Company contact the Department of Real Estate and
advise them of the significant change in their development.
Mr. King asked Mr. Van Dyk why he believed that the minimum of 1800 square feet
was not appropriate for the new portion?
Mr. Van Dyk responded that if you are going to stick with the existing
CC&Rs which incorporate by reference all final maps on the property, the size
and configuration of the lots are fixed, then lets be compatible with the
development which has been going on within the Deer Creek area. In the last
two phases the smallest house size was 3370 square feet. On April 12th when
Deer Creek met with the homeowners, they said they were going to build 2900 to
3600 square foot homes. Then when they went to the Planning Commission, they
stated they would like to build 1800 square foot homes. They have to be
consistent; the area has to be compatible; growth has to be compatible. If we
are going to allow a radical modification of a project, then at least that
modification should be restricted in the sense that it be compatible with what
1s already there.
Mr. King asked if Mr. Van Dyk felt the issue of house size should be addressed
at a later time when designs and concepts are actually formulated.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 6
Mr. Van Dyk responded that it is properly before the Council now for the
reason that both people and building density must be considered by the Planning
Commission and the City Council in terms of reviewing compliance with the
General and Specific Plans. It is an issue which must be reviewed at this
time. In addition, this is a custom lot subdivision. They do not have to
submit any architectural plans at this point in time. Once the tentative map
is approved, the approval of the final map is a ministerial task. Failure to
attach conditions to that tentative map will preclude from being able to ever
have public participation and input by the affected homeowners on the proposed
development.
Mayor Mikels asked the City Attorney to respond to the legal issues raised by
Mr. Van Dyk.
Mr. Dougherty responded that they have been accused of having a conflict of
interest in this matter. He stated that over five years ago, they prepared the
CCBRs for the developer although they have not represented the developer for
almost five years. He does not believe a conflict exists. Some of the legal
issues raise, he would certainly comment an thr *. However, since the developer
does have his own attorney present, he felt he might comment on those issues
first.
Mr. King inquired specifically about the point regarding the ministerial act.
Mr. Dougherty responded that the approval of the final map, if the final map is
in compliance with all conditions of the approved tentative map, is a
ministerial act.
Mr. King asked if this means that at a future point in time there would be no
right of review in terms of the houses themselves?
Mr. Dougherty answered that there would be the ability to have a design review
of the houses, but the approval of the tentative map or the final map does not
deal with what goes on the lots themselves other than in general terms. As far
as the lot size, the configuration of streets, etc. that would be set.
Mr. King asked what power would there be at that time to play with the house
size?
Mr. Dougherty responded that if the condition regarding the house size is
attached, then if at a later point in time they come for a building permit and
they are less than what has been permitted, the building permit could be
denied.
Mr. King asked what if it were not attached at this point in time? They have
CCBRs which say that 1800 square feet, is there any power at a later point in
time to attach any specific house size setting a higher minimum?
Mr. Dougherty stated only by way of zoning. However, the CCBRs do provide for
annexation of additional phases and future phases, and that the clearance
should be under no obligation to develop and /or annex additional real property
to the project which would be the addition of future phases. In that case, we
can't be assured that the 1800 square feet which presently applies to those
developed phases which have been annexed will apply to the future phases unless
the existing CCBRs are annexed in the future phases.
Councilwoman Wright inquired about the reference made of the possibility of
input regarding the architectural phase of this development. She was under the
impression that the Planning Commission placed conditions 1 and 2 because it
was a custom lot subdivision and since there would not be a chance for
additional review, they were creating a chance by making them come before the
Planning Commission for approval of the architectural design and notification
of each of the homeowners within Beer Creek.
Mr. Dougherty stated it appeared that the intent of the Planning Commission's
conditions was to allow the homeowners the input at the time of the precise
design review.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 7
Councilwoman Wright inquired that when they get to that stage after the plans
are drawn, floor plans are ready, street themes are ready to come before the
Planning Commission, would the public have an opportunity to be heard at that
time?
Mr. Dougherty stated that in his opinion the public would have to be given
notification and would have a right to be heard.
Mr. Gomez pointed out that under the zoning regulation there is authority
entitling the City to review the architecture, unit size, and location of the
units on those lots. At that time we could have the conditions of approval on
the design as to the appropriate unit size.
Councilwoman Wright asked if the public would have a chance to address the
issue at that time and be heard?
Mr. Gomez responded they would.
Mayor Mikels continued the public hearing for those who wished to speak in
support of the appeal by the homeowners. Addressing Council were:
Barbara Balakrishnan, 10856 Hillside, expressed she was absolutely opposed
to the project. She could not trust the developer's word as evidenced by what
he has taken as a Planning Commission recommendation and incorporated it into a
letter to them stating it was his own idea that he would butress the proposed
project up against her house and make it the same width.
Dick Card, 10915 Hillside, stated he was against the proposed new remapping
of the project. One of the issues which continually pops up is the CC&Rs.
When the CC&Rs were written, the houses which were built were 1800 square
feet. He has heard that approximately 20% are within that size which means
that 75 -80 percent of the homeowners living there has selected larger houses.
Dave Britton, 10920 Beachwood Drive, are definitely opposed to this
development. Feels that the builder has a legal and moral obligation to
fulfill the project which was originally planned and in the tract map which was
included in the CC&Rs. He submitted a tabulation of square footage of the
homes in Deer Creek which he had compiled.
Bob Glennon, 5675 Canastil, commented on a Deer Creek Brochure which is
presented to perspective purchases in that community. The last sentence points
out that "this team has taken the Deer Creek idea from inception to completion
in the spirit of a great creative adventure destined for success." He felt the
real issue was whether the trust that homeowners has placed in this developer
has been violated. He commented about the precedent which will be established
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga if this development is approved. Because if
you can split and redevelop a one acre site what would prevent the next builder
from requesting a split of a 1/2 acre site.
Patricia Berona, 10918 Hillside, expressed that they felt the Deer Creek
Company could not be trusted and asked that the City Council help them to put
these things in the CC&Rs so they will have some sort of guarantee that they
will be done. If this cannot be done, then deny the map and leave it the way
it was. The smaller homes were in the first phase; as you go up the hill the
homes get larger.
There being no further comments from the Homeowners, Charles Fedalen, attorney
for the Deer Creek Company, stated his purpose for being there was in case any
questions arose. He addressed the following items mentioned by Mr. Van Dyk
pursuant to the suggestion of the city attorney:
1. To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Van Dyk does not represent the
homeowners association of Deer Creek. He represents a number of the
homeowners, but there are also a number of the homeowners who are in favor
of what the Deer Creek Company wants to do.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 8
2. Another issue pertains to the DRE White Slip, the final subdivision
public report. He read a portion of language contained in all of those
documents which are required by statute to be given to each purchaser at
Deer Creek. "This is the first (or second) increment of a total project
which developed as proposed will consist of six increments and 293 lots.
There is no assurance that the total project will be completed as
proposed." The reason this was added is that when there is phased
development, a developer develops a development in phases for one major
reason -- what is marketable and desired by the public at year one may not
be marketable or desired by the public at year seven. The Deer Creek
Company only wants to build houses within the lot size and building size
which currently exists at the Deer Creek Company. They do not want to
build houses under 1800 square feet. They would go along with a condition
that they are not allowed to build houses under 1800 square feet.
There being no further public response, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing.
Councilman King asked Mr. Vairin for the logic behind the 1800 square foot
figure proposed by Deer Creek?
Mr Vairin answered that the 1800 square foot came voluntarily by the builder.
Now it has come to a point where they have two floor plans that currently exist
in Deer Creek - one of 1951 square feet and the other of 2356 square feet.
They would like to offer those two particular floor plans for sale. Of the
total development presently there, there is approximately 20 percent of those
homes. They are proposing to develop a new model complex of homes compatible
and equal to the last phase. However, if an individual comes in and requests
Plan 2 which is 2356 square feet, they would like the opportunity to be able to
build this for them. He suggested that if Council was considering making any
modifications that you would at least allow them to be able to build at least
the same amount that they have in the current development which is 20 percent
of the homes to be under the 2500 square foot, but no less than 1800 square
feet and a three car garage.
Councilman Dahl inquired about a statement in a letter written by Mr. Vairin to
the City which states that the proposed lot sizes range from 2900 -3600 square
feet.
Mr. Vairin responded that the reference to that was that when they held the
homeowners meetings before the Planning Commission meeting, many individuals
asked what were they going to build. They are currently building a floor plan
of approximately 2900 square feet. So they showed that as an example.
However, they did clarify this in all their representations orally.
Unfortunately, they didn't in that letter referred to by Mr. Dahl that they
also intend offer for sale the current existing floor plans.
Mr. Dahl expressed that these were misleading documents and could see why the
homeowners were concerned.
Councilwoman Wright asked Mr. Dougherty how binding legally were CC&Rs and what
power do they have in court?
Mr. Dougherty stated that CCERs are legally binding and are enforceable in
court. The provisions regarding enforcement are generally spelled out in the
CCdRs. He has not reviewed these with the idea of commenting on the
enforcement procedure so he could not answer exactly the mechanism.
Councilwoman Wright also asked if it were defined anywhere the city's ability
or inability to impose restrictions on CCARs.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Dougherty responded that in the past with all subdivisions with CC&Rs what
we have done is to provide that the CC&Rs will be reviewed by and are
acceptable by the City Attorney. He does not recall a situation where we have
actually dictated what goes into the CC&Rs. Normally we impose the City
conditions and the conditions of approval on the tentative map by design
review, by zoning, etc. Normally what we review the CC&Rs for is to see
whether or not the enforcement mechanism is there. Generally when we are
dealing with areas of private roads, streets, and open space where if the
homeowners association for some reason fails to enforce the CC&Rs, then the
City would have the ability to assume the enforcement to make sure the private
roads, streets, and open space are kept up.
Councilwoman Wright inquired if the City was prohibited from the ability to
impose restrictions on CC&Rs?
Mr. Dougherty responded that CC&Rs are just another way of imposing
restrictions on property, and he was not aware of any direct prohibition to
cities from imposing restrictions on CC&Rs. However, it is not normally the
way a City would go about imposing its restrict:ons.
Mr. Buquet expressed that he hasn't seen a strong, compelling reason as to why
we should impose a condition on this development. He felt the developer was
cognizant of the concerns of the people. If he should sell the property under
consideration then there would be some serious problems because the new owner
would be under no obligation to do anything with that property other than
develop it to its highest and best use for a profit margin.
Councilman Dahl asked Mr. Van Dyk if the Planning Commission's decision was
palatable?
Mr. Van Dyk responded that what the Planning Commission proposed was an
appropriate step in the right direction. Given Deer Creek's past performance,
its unwillingness to accept these conditions at this time is evidence of the
fact that appropriate steps must also be taken to make certain that these
conditions are met by whomever the developer may be. They have reason to
believe that Deer Creek's desires are significantly different from the
homeowners, and they would like to see those conditions put into the CC&Rs.
Councilman Dahl stated that he was not interested in imposing something on the
Deer Creek's CC&Rs. In his opinion the CC&Rs are something that is developed
between the homeowners association and the Deer Creek Company.
Mr. Van Dyk stated that their desire was to have the conditions amended to the
extent that three additional conditions may be introduced: (1) that homeowner
consent must be secured pursuant to Government Code Section 66430 and (2) that
a condition be attached that the Department of Real Estate be given notice of
the change in the subdivision and that the homeowners be allowed to have their
input on that before the tentative is approved, and (3) to change the four
conditions which were laid down to the extent that a condition be added that
those conditions be introduced into the CC&Rs.
Councilman Dahl stated that he felt the Planning Commission did the right
thing. He did, however, have a problem with the 2500 square foot minimum
considering you have an 1854 square foot housing element within the present
tract even though it is in the first phase. He wanted to set an arbitrary
figure of 2000 square foot minimum for the upper section.
Councilwoman Wright asked if it is possible for someone to come in and purchase
this land and ask for a waiver of any of the conditions? Would a public
hearing have to take place.
Mr. Dougherty responded that it is always possible. Before a condition of a
tentative map can be changed, there would have to be an application and a
public hearing on that request. Once these conditions are established after a
public hearing, they can't be changed without a further public hearing with the
appropriate notifications given.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 10
After further discussion by the Council regarding compatibility, the following
motion was made:
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King to uphold the Planning Commission's
decision and deny both appeals.
Discussion continued regarding the minimum square footage of the houses. Both
Mr. King and Dahl withdrew their previous motion and made the following motion:
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to uphold the Planning Commission's
decision, deny both appeals, and to modify No. 4 of Section 2 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 84 -45 to read: "All future residential units shall
be 2500 square feet except that no more than 20 percent of the homes shall be
permitted to have a square footage of less than 2500, but no case shall the
square footage be below 2356." Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Buquet, Mikels, Dahl, King
NOES: Wright
ABSENT: None
Mayor Mikels called a recess at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
with all members of Council present.
4B. REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT - In acc
rdance with Art —cTe
10.6, Section 65580 of the California Government Code, a revision and update to
the City Housing Element. Staff report by Otto Kroutil, Senior Planner.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84 -207.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -207
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adopt Resolution No. 84 -207
approving the Housing Element and the issuance of a Negative Declaration, and
to waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
4C. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATIO N
MAINTENANCE DIS
+16 -1, 1231 ,
- - TERRA VISTA. Staff report
Uevelopment Director.
NO. 4 TO STREET LIGHTING
by Jack Lam, Community
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84 -208.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -208
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 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 12401 (TERRA VISTA).
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 11
MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by King to adopt Resolution No. 84 -208
ordering the work in connection with Annexation No. 4 to Street Lighting
Maintenance District No. 1, and waiving full reading. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0.
5. NON - ADVERTISED HEARINGS
5A. AN AMENDMENT TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA
FOR
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CROIT AGAINST RESIDENTI-
L SUBDIVISI
Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director.
After some discussion, Council made a correction to Ordinance No. 195 -C,
Section 6 as follows:
(6). That the minimum open space for which credit will be considered is a
minimum of three acres and provides a mini;;.dm 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 barbecue picnic area
C. Game court area
D. Swim pool with adjacent deck and ancilliary facilities
E. Recreation Building
The subdivider requesting consideration for private open space credit
shall, as part of the submittal filing include:
(1) 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.
Councilman Dahl expressed opposition to the Ordinance stating that he felt it
was a bad ordinance and would be extremely harmful to the City's overall park
plan. If a developer is going to build a condominium project and we place a
condition on it that he has to have a tot lot and a certain amount of open
space within this development, he has to do it. We don't need to give any park
credit whatsoever. Therefore, he is totally opposed to this ordinance and
recommended that it not be pursued any further.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
Pam Henry, Chairman of the Park Development Commission, stated this was
discussed in order to comply with State law and to try to develop something
that would be guidelines at the same time for the Planning Commission. The
Park Committee was trying to be fair to developers of all size
developments.
There being no further response from the public, Mayor Mikels closed the public
hearing.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 105 -C.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 12
ORDINANCE NO. 105 -C (first reading)
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.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by King to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 105 -C. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Mikels set second reading for August 1, 1984.
6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
6A. STATUS REPORT OF MATTERS RELATING TO VECTOR CONT ROL CONCERNS IN THE HAVEN
AVEN L —Sta re
ort by Jac am,
Community Development Director.
Councilman Buquet went over a memo sent to him by Gary Richards dated July 18,
1984 regarding a meeting held at the Wheatley residence which was attended by
residents, Mr. Richards, and himself. At this meeting they tried to explain
what has been done to eliminate the fly situation in Alta Loma. Such questions
considerated were:
Are stronger regulations required to resolve this problem?
Should the City implement its own vector control?
Will local residents have to file a class action suit in order to force
violators compliance with current regulations?
Some recommendations made were:
Education of City residents of the fly problems and its causes and sources
through the local newspaper and the Grapevine. (Its not just chicken
ranches causing the problem. Some other factors are abandoned orchards,
dumping garbage)
Maintain constant pressure on San Bernardino County Vector Control to be
sure problem areas are monitored on a regular basis.
Tighten City ordinances and regulations or creating an ordinance that would
better regulate the problem.
Have County Vector Control Officer educate current Code Enforcement
personnel so City personnel could monitor more closely.
Monitor the problem to see if a long range requirements are necessary.
Addressing Council was Kathy Wheatley, 10345 Poplar Street. She presented the
following added information:
Spoke with Mr. Stringer, Board of Trustees of Vector Control with new
Assessment District they have in Chino. He gave her suggestions on ways to
start our own Assessment District. However, it took them four years to
establish the Assessment District. He suggested looking into a contract
with the County Vector Control; apply for membership in the West Valley
Vector Control District in Chino (cost would be $9.00 /year for single
family residence and $16.00 /year for commercial or agricultural property.
If we requested to join now, it would probably be about June before it was
completed); also before the Senate was SB -2162 which will give the voters a
chance to pass Emergency Vector Districts; and Federal funds are available
for vector control.
a
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 13
ACTION: Council referred the item to staff to explore the possibilities of
formation of our own Vector Control Assessment District, annexation to the West
Valley District, explore other solutions, and to investigate the items listed
in Mr. Buquet's memo.
Mayor Mikels called a recess at 10:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:50
p.m. with all members of Council present).
the 6B. CONSIDERATION OF MOBILE HOME PARK MATTERS - The City Council discussed
subject of Mobile Home Park Mediation. Staff report by Mark Lorimer,
Administrative Analyst.
Councilman King stated that the Subcommittee comprising of himself and
Councilwoman Wright held a meeting and have a draft ordinance which they feel
is responsible and fair. What they would like to do is to continue the present
ordinance for another 60 days in order to give the Subcommittee time to better
define and perfect the draft ordinance.
Mr. Dougherty recommended that staff draft an urgency ordinance removing the
sunset clause in the present ordinance.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing to address the procedure
which Council had just set. Addressing Council were:
Mary Nummergut stated the notification of their rent increases comes on
October 1, 1984. She wanted to be sure this ordinance would be in effect
by that time.
Art Greffly asked if it is possible to put a freeze on any rent activity
until Council reaches a solution.
Les Hemstry, Alta Laguna
Ed Batka, Alta Laguna
There being no further public response, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Dougherty stated that he would have an answer available at the next meeting
regarding whether Council could establish a freeze on rent activity.
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Dahl to consider the following:
On August 1 - removing the sunset clause in Ordinance No. 148 by urgency
measure.
On August 15 - a new mobilehome ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
6C. DONATION OF 6 ACRES OF PARKLAND TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Staff
report by Bill Holley, Community Services rec or.
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to accept the six acres of land
donated for parks. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
6D. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VICTORIA WINDRO WS PARK. Staff report by
Bi11 Ho I I ey, Communi ty ery ces rec or.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 14
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was:
Pam Henry, Chairman of Park Development Commission, stated the Commission
did like the Plan and felt it was a good park and school use.
There being no further public response, the hearing was closed.
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Wright to approve the conceptual plan for
the Victoria Windrows Park. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
6E. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMIS SION CONCERNING THE NAMING
OF
,INGA. Staff report by Bill
Holley, Community Services Director.
After some discussion, Council made the following amendments to the Resolution:
To change the current name of Deer Creek to the proposed name of Rancho
Cucamonga Park.
To consider the name for the present Church Street Park at another time.
Council not in agreement to the proposed name of John P. Quimby Park.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Resolution No. 84 -209.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -209
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING CERTAIN PARK FACILITIES
WITHIN RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to adopt Resolution No. 84 -209 as
amended renaming city parks, and to waive full reading. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
7A. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ACTION: Council appointed Councilman Buquet as the delegate and Councilman
Dahl as the alternate.
7B. REDESIGNATION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND SAN BERN ARDINO COUNTY TO ATTAINMENT
AREA
FOR NITROG mayor
Miikelss presented report.
City Clerk Authelet read title of Resolution No. 84 -210.
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
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to adopt Resolution No. 84 -210
requesting redesignation of of portions of Riverside and San Bernardino County
of the South Coast Air Basin to attainment of the federal air quality standard
for nitrogen dioxide and waive full reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
i
x x x x x x
ADDED ITEMS:
City Council Minutes
July 18, 1984
Page 15
Councilman Dahl stated that as far as terms of office for the Park Development
Commission, he felt they should draw straws.
ACTION: Council concurred with Mr. Dahl's recommendation to let them draw
straws for terms of office.
Councilman Dahl requested that Council consider changing the dates for the
Municipal Election and consolidate with November odd years.
ACTION: Council directed staff to return at the next meeting with a report for
discussion.
* * + x x x
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Wright to adjourn to a Closed Session not
to reconvene this evening, but reconvene on Thursday, July 26, for a CATV
Workshop. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
,
i
July 26, 1984
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, met
on Thursday, July 26, 1984 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line
Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Councilmembers: Charles J. Buquet II; Jeffrey King; and Mayor Jon
D. Mikels.
Absent: Councilmembers Pamela J. Wright (who arrived late) and Richard M.
Dahl.
Also present were: Acting Assistant City Manager and Community Development
Director, Jack Lam; City Attorney, Robert C.dgherty; City Clerk, Beverly A.
Authelet; Assistant to City Manager, Robert Rizzo.
Approval of Minutes: None were presented for approval
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
No items were submitted for consideration.
3. STAFF REPORTS
3A. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AB -1355 REVENUE MORTGAGE BOND
PROGRAM
.. Staff report presented by
Jack Lam, Acting City Manager and Community Development Director.
Scott Sollars, Stone and Youngberg, presented report to Council.
Bill Fieldman, Fieldman and Rolapp, reviewed the purchase agreement and
reported that he finds the spread satisfactory.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the
public portion of the meeting was closed.
City Clerk Authelet read the title of Ordinance No. 229.
ORDINANCE NO. 229
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOME
MORTGAGE FINANCING PROGRAM FOR MODERATE AND LOW- INCOME
FAMILIES FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 229. Motion carried by following vote:
AYES: Buquet, Mikels, King
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wright, Dahl
Andy Nall, Jones, Hall, Hill 6 White, explained to Council that this was a
special Ordinance with the adoption procedures established by AB -1355 which
did not require a second reading, but was a special type ordinance which
was adopted immediately.
City Council Minutes
July 26, 1984
Page 2
MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Mikels to adopt Ordinance No. 229 which
establishes a Home Mortgage Finance Program for moderate and low income
families in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Buquet, Mikels, King
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wright, Dahl
3B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF $27,875,000 SINGLE
FAMILY MORTGAGE Report presented by ac Lam.
City Clerk Authelet read title of Resolution No. 84 -211.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -211
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T:;E CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
$27,875,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HOME MORTGAGE REVENUE
BONDS 1984 SERIES A, SUCH BOND TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO
A TRUST INDENTURE DATES AS TO THE DATE OF THE BONDS,
APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AND APPROVING IMPLEMENTING
AGREEMENT, DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS AND PROVIDING OTHER
MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by King to adopt Resolution No. 84 -211
authorizing the issuance of Home Mortgage Revenue Bonds and waiving full
reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Buquet, Mikels, King
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wright, Dahl
Mr. Lam informed Council that we would like to proceed with the RDA portion
next week. However, it would mean calling a special meeting for Thursday.
After some discussion, Council concurred that they would prefer trying to set
the meeting for Wednesday before the regular City Council meeting. If the
materials could not be ready in time, then they could continue the meeting.
3C. CONSIDERATION OF CABLE T.V. MATTERS: DEVELOPING PARAMETERS FOR REQUEST FOR
PROP
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Staff
report by -Robert Rizzo, Assistant to City Manager.
Carl Pilnick, Telecommunications Management, presented overview. He
commented that there were two bills before the legislature, SB -66 and
HR -4103, which would have some impact on cities as to what they would be
able to do in regulating cable television companies. It was his
recommendation that Council not issue RFPs to new companies at this time.
Instead he recommended that we work with the four cable companies already
in the city for a period of time of approximately a month to see if they
are willing to work with the city and if they can expand and provide
upgraded levels of services to serve the entire city.
(Councilwoman Pamela Wright arrived at 7:27 p.m.).
Mayor Mikels stated that the Subcommittee consisting of Mr. Buquet and himself
have met with Mr. Pilnick and are in basic agreement with him.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was:
Ulla Bauers was surprised at this new approach. He expressed that we were
asking for minimums and we should be asking for more.
City Council Minutes
July 26, 1984
Page 3
Mayor Mikels explained that we are negotiating and trying to obtain as much as
we can for the City.
Mr. Bauers stated that according to the draft RFP it would appear that the
capacity wasn't going to be enough for public service and educational needs
also. We should negotiate and allow the community some input in the first
tier.
Mr. Buquet responded that he felt Mr. Pilnick could respond to Mr. Bauer's
concerns in a letter.
Councilwoman Wright asked for more Council input on this issue since she had
not made up her mind. She was concerned about lack of public input.
Mayor Mikels responded that this matter has been discussed for some time and
all meetings have been public. Since this is a highly technical issue of which
the average person is not aware, the Council is representing the people. Mr.
Bauers is one of the few who has some knowledge of the cable televison.
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to support the recommendations of
the consultant to work with the local four companies; direct him to contact the
four companies who are doing business in the city; to proceed and enter into
agreement with them in respect to doing business within the City.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the
public portion of the meeting was closed.
MOTION: Previous motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: Wright, Buquet, Mikels, King
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dahl
4. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 4 -0 -1 (Dahl absent). Meeting adjourned to next regular City Council
meeting on August 1, 1984 at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly A. Authelet
City Clerk
/ dgdst /*.,
198y
MAURY MICROWAVE
(-- O R P O FZ A T I O N
N=01"" 8610 HELMS AVE. • CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 • TELEPHONE (714) 987 -4715
July 27, 1984
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor, and
Members of the City Council of
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 8583
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Maury Microwave Corporation has been located at 8610 Nelms Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
since 1969. We moved into this area because we believed that zoning, manpower,
housing and the quality of life conditions that we envisioned for company growth
would be realized.
We are currently in escrow on the proposed northern parcel of the subject parcel
map, and feel that we must express our concern and strongly protest regarding some
of the conditions placed on the approval of the above subject by the Planning
Commission on June 27, 1984.
A) Page 2; Surety, Item 2
It is our opinion that this lien agreement is unwarranted and unbusiness like, and
contrary to the best interests of all concerned. First, we question the need
for underground utilities in an industrial area at an exorbitant cost, currently
estimated at $100. -$150. per linear foot. Secondly, it is not prudent for anyone
to enter into a one sided agreement where you can be assessed any amount at any
time, while giving up your legal rights at the same time. Would you give someone
a blank check? Finally, if as we have been informed, that undergrounding of
utilities may never come about, why impose this requirement in the first place?
It is our understanding that even your City Engineer is recommending that this
condition be dropped because of its unreasonableness, and it is being maintained
only as a matter of form.
Requested Action: Please delete this requirement.
B) Page 5; General Requirements Item 11:
The requirement to make street improvements prior to development of a site would
force an undue hardship on most property owners. The cost of such improvement,
as required by the Planning Commission is substantial and funding for such
improvements can best be arranged at the time the site is developed and not before
PnCC1610N UZOTOW"M COY PONLNTe • INBTAV Yi'NTATION ,M ^m �n�r�ON
'MM2110yy�VE�
Mr. Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Page 2
July 27, 1984
We feel it is extremely poor planning to prematurely initiate construction before
you actually know what you intend to develop on the property. Improper street
improvements would cause you to have to re —do what you have done -- does the.
city want more patched up streets? Also, other areas on Hellman Avenue have been
developed separately; why impose this requirement now? Is this another example
of the application of inconsistant planning standards?
Requested Action: Please delete this requirement and let each new parcel stand
alone.
C) Page 5; General Requirements Item 12:
It seems unreasonable for a property owner to defray the entire cost for street
improvements in excess of normal standards to provide for flood control purposes.
Excessive runoff from many parts of the city cause this problem on Hellman Avenue.
We don't mind paying our fair share, but, we feel its unfair for us to
excessively pay where others will benefit. Why shouldn't they pay their fair share?
It appears that inconsistant standards are being applied in this regard in various
areas of the city. Also, we would like to point out that it is our understanding
that all this improvement will be for nought, since a major sewer pipe will be
installed down the center of Hellman Avenue from Fourth Street to north of
Foothill Boulevard in the future.
Requested Action: This condition should be modified to provide for normal
requirements and a credit from Flood Control funds should be made available to
Provide for excess requirements that will benefit the City and others in general.
As long time businessmen in the area (15 years), we believe that some of the
conditions put upon the development of industrial acreage in this City is
detrimental to the long term industrial base for the City. Excessive, inconsistant
and unreasonable requirements will force industrialists to look elsewhere. We
wish to do our fair share to provide a development conducive to a positive work
environment not only for our business but also for our employees and the community
at large.
It is our understanding that it is the City's intent to encourage industry to
move into Rancho Cucamonga, yet, some of the conditions we have encountered
are contrary to this goal. We are trying to acquire additional acreage to
accommodate our future expansion and at the present time, we are merely asking
for a simple lot split which has been complicated beyond belief. Requirements
have been imposed which are more eonsistant with a fully developed project.
We feel our projected future expansion, as a high technology business, will
contribute to the growth of the community not only in terms of employment, but
also in terms of recognition because of our international market place.
We are respectfully asking you to eliminate unreasonable requirements from this
transaction so that we can continue to grow in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Page 3
Very truly yours,
July 27, 1994
Frank T. Guzowski6/
Vice President
Mdrlo A. Maury, Jr. T�
President
MAMJR /FTC;mv
O M p MICROWAVE
4= m P
C O R O R A T I O N
8810 HELMS AVENUE • CLICAMONOA. CALIFORNIA 81700