Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1983/03/02 - Agenda Packet
r1 L� LI c��cn.KpNc C p F Z :J > 1977 CITY OF RANCi0 CUCAMONGA ll11COUNUL AGENDA Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California March 2, 1983 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 item. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag - Led by Girl Scouts from Rancho Cucamonga. B. Roll Call: Buquet 1•, Dahl �, Frost t er . Schloss '!- , annkMikels =. C. Approval of Minutes: D. Presentation of Proclamation commemorating Girl Scout Week, March 6 -12, 1983. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Thursday, March 3, 7:00 p.m. - HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMISSION, Lions Park Community Center. ✓_9;bY +2 i WITTM a;17.1-1 The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83- 02 -28, for 1 $80,258.04 and Payroll ending 83 -02 -20 for $139,983,18. b. Forward Claim by Louis and Yong Gonzales to the city 5 attorney for handling. City Council Agenda -2- March 2, 1983 c. Forward Claim by Udom Aromdee to the city attorney for 7 handling. d. Alcoholic Beverage Application for en -sale general 9 license to Michael J's Coffee Shops, Inc., 10165 Foothill Blvd. e. Award of contract for the Hillside Road Reconstruction 10 Project to Riverside Construction, Riverside, California, the low bidder at $409,999.99. f. Approval of revision of Traffic Signal Maintenance is Agreement between City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino. The agreement provides for payment to the County of actual cost plus 5% for City portion of signal maintenance and power on shared signals. g. Intent to Annex Tract No. 10045 as Annexation No. 12 to 26 Landscape Maintenance Distict No. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -23 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF • PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 12 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACT 10045). RESOLUTION NO. 83 -24 33 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. 12 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. h. Award of contract for construction of traffic signal at 35 Base Line and Vineyard Avenue to MM&H Construction and Engineering Company of 3loomington, the lowest of eleven bidders at $54,990. i. Api2rove and ecu a informal co tact for t @@��,,ddmpl ion 37 of �^neyard nue Street $rovementa �tra is[,.aac..1 sign 1, AU M/ 194(2), to R verside Con �� ° °r tion `ti �ewQ.�n.w L K Riv side, the lowe t bidder at 55.054.40 J. Approval of weed abatement contract between the City of 40 Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino for an additional cost, not to exceed $500. City Council Agenda -3- March 2, 1983 k. Forward Claim against the City by Gordon and Edena Myers 44 to the City Attorney for handling. 4. POBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82-04 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12091 - SALVATI. A change of zone from M -1 (limited manufacturing) to R -3 /PD (multiple family residential /planned development) for the development of 248 condominium units on 11.35 acres located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Grove Avenue - APN 207- 251 -02, 03, 13. Staff report by Michael Varirin, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of PD 82 -04 and issuance of a negative declaration. ORDINANCE NO. 192 (second reading) 46 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, u...iFGBNIA, REZONING • ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 207- 251 -02, 03, 13 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND GROVE AVENUE FROM M -1 TO R- 3 /P.D. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -04 - HIM MACK. A change of zone from A -1 (limited agriculture) to R -1 (single family residential) for 5.25 acres of land, located on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000 feet south of 19th Street - APN 202- 041 -15. Staff report by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the zone change 82 -04 and issuance of a Negative Declaration. ORDINANCE NO. 191 (second reading) 117 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 22- 041 -15 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, 1000 FEET SOUTH OF 19TH STREET FROM A -1 TO R -1. C. STORM DRAIN PEE MODIFICATIONS. Item was first 48 considered at the February 29 1983 city council meeting. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer. City Council Agenda -4- March 2, 1983 0 ORDINANCE NO. 75 -B (second reading) 50 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE PLAN AND DRAINAGE FEES. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 53 83 -02 - SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT. An amendment W Section 61.0277 of the Zoning Ordinance to include an overlay district containing various development incentives to produce senior citizen oriented multi- family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. Staff report by Tim Beedle, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval. ORDINANCE NO. 193 (first reading) 84 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.0217 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A SENI09 HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83- 88 03 - CALMARg. A request to amend the general plan land use plan from medium -high residential (14 -24 dwelling units /acre) to high residential (24 -30 dwelling units /acre) for the development of 167 affordable senior citizen apartments on approximately 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - APN 202- 151-34. (Related file: PD 83 -01). Staff report by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION; It is recommended that the item be continued told — 7-rn°P3. CZf4 (o RESOLUTION N0. 83 -26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED LAND USE PLAN OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83 -01 8� (PARCEL MAP 7827) - CALMARK. A change of zone from R -3 (multiple - family residential /planned development) to R- 3 1SO (multiple family residential /senior overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are City Council Agenda -5- March 2, 1983 intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres generally located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5792 - APN 202- 151 -34. (Related File: GPA 83 -03)• Staff report by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION! It is recommended the item be continued to-%t �, 1983- C7 :? (' (n ORDINANCE NO. 194 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 151 -34, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 7827 AND LOCATED WEST OF ARCHIBALD, NORTH OF BASE LINE FROM R -3 /PD TO R -3/30. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -06 - 90 TENTATIVE TRACT 12320 - LAC. A change of zone from R -3- T (multiple family residential) to R -3 /PD (multiple family residential /planned development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and • Victoria Avenue - APN 202- 161 -07. Staff report by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approve of the zone change (PD 82 -06) to R -3 /PD and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. ORDINANCE NO. 195 (first reading) 113 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -07, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND VICTORIA AVENUES FROM R -3-T TO R -3 /PD. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FROM SAN BERNARDINO TO THE 114 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT (HORGA) ALLOWING FOR THE DETACHMENT OF MUNICIPAL TERRITORY. Item was deferred from the February 16, 1983 city council meeting. The City of San Bernardino has requested our community join in opposition to a proposal advocated by the County of San Bernardino which would amend the Municipal Organization Act to permit the detachment or removal Is from a City without the specific permission of the munbicipality's governing body. Staff report by Jim Robbinson, Assistant City Manager. City Council Agenda -6- March 2, 1983 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council send letters opposing the amendment of the Muncipal Organization Act. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS A. PROPERTY TAY REFUND. New State legislation requires 119 cities to reimburse couties when the cities are rpresented by county counsel in property tax refund actions. Staff report by Harry Empey, Finance Director. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by our city attorney that a resolution be adopted providing for defense of property tax refund actions by the County Counsel. Under the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5149, the City would he required to pay its pro rata cost of the defense. RESOLUTION N0. 83 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY • OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. U 4� :r 126 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING C% IISSION VACANCY. 127 R. ADJOURNMENT The meeting to adjourn to the next regular City Council meeting on March 16, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. w R867 CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARR A YEN A V E$$1: D C R N A M E `77466 VOID FFOIRM$ ALICN41NT I7467 VOID FGRMS ALICWIFNT 1746., VOID FIRMS At IGNYF.4T ! 17469 0110 ACTION FAkRlLhDE CO 1 17471 C165 AGRICULTURAL L CORNNCY 1)472 0321 AMFRICAN PLANNING ASSOC 17473 0575 ATCp ISC.N TOPEKA CSANTE 17474 1201 FANX ICA 17475 1101 RA%FLIOF NF AMFR HIAnWARET L SA 11476 1447 NISITYAN MFN �! IT47S 1615 09ANCMANFILE ASS CLSMICNI 17479 1909 C G ENGINEERING - .-_ 174RO MIT CA CRY -CO ST LIGHT ASS 17481 7941 CALIFCNNIA JOURNAL 17492 2C99 CASA OF VAIt EJC 17483 21CB CENTRAL CITIFS SIGN SER 174.4 2315 CITY RFN TAL 174AS - 2335 COCA CCLA POTTLTNG 17487 2354 C LAFTTEA BOTTLING CO 174+!0.._ -21.12 COMM SEA ENTERPRISES 31499 2`.21 C-CNUS PECISICA PRCO!IC 17490 VC10 VENDOR NO. 2575 IIINI 2575 I61A CO YATFR p/$T 749? 2511 C1!r A-0 A9A PRINTING r 17493 2597 CUSTOM FRAMING L 17494 2603 CUTLER STEEL CC L 17495 2641 9AHl WALOF4 .4 11496 2663 DA \IELS 719E SERVICE 17497 2.74 9kY TIMENS INC P_ 175vi 1 7 ^1 111T PF 1u111 ^t 17AT ICN 17491 111tI III,, !11, !1111 [I:A L'l l,r,, . _o _ 11!! q WARRANT RECONCILIATION 04 TE dFORTNA:E 3/02/83 DISCOUNT NET 368.57 224.00 11.160.39 219.00 11 r 5".81 144.65 113.0.6 246.64 714.44 2r 760.00 6r 305.35 - - - -- 500.00 79.00 4.00 3x116.00 142.07 52.00 845.00 64.00 60.37 X3.4 -1 I 3r 0 PAGE I . .. .., RBT CITY �AN[HO CV CAMONGA WARRANT RECONCIL 9N 3/02/83 _. - PAO 2 „sl , VA V E M O U R N A M E DISCOUNT NET �. DE RM'RN'LE J. _ . -1]539 __ 6176 LIBRARY OF URBAN AFFAIR __ -3 /N /171 ____._. __ ................ .... ._ _ - 26.84 ,'_-------- .. V' ISAO E951 LOS ANGFLFS TIMFS YIlt 1A° 3/.1)/83 3 /n2 /Y.] 14.00 2.000.00 : Y r 1]5 41 ITS 42 68143 �YGH Cf,. 0990 C III HAN PF ROBERT 3/07/81 70.00 11513 7180 MA XCOTT YIC"AEL S 3/02/83 2.0)0.00 lT %4 7113 MA.Y.V ASi,C. BILL C .)/02/F,l 21100.00 " ,1 I T 545 113 MIINF S14RSH 102/9.3 66.00 11546 -]i ] 410 MUN Elk CFFICERS ASSOC - 3/02/83 _ _ 1H. 110 _ 175 7 17 545 AS N B I 75 n1 NAIL CCUNCIL GCVT ACCTG 310:/93 102113 1011.55 50.01 r r 17%9 1575 NFMAK INC 110]/0] 11851. T'• 1] 5]0 7615 pN' MILR PHOTO [AS 107/03 5.58 ' 11551 7A55 PACIFIC COMVUTFR UPPLY 3hD /A) 75.45 17 1? 7670 PACIFIC MCF.K E GPAVEL 1/,12/83 151.41 ,1 : 1) 553 7784 PICCEFR CCNSUCTA4TS 3 192/83 603.65 17554 779S POMA DISIRIHUTINC. CO - 310./33 ....._._ _. ___ - 8.645.30 _ .. .• - - 1 755 7910 PRESS -TIGF INST PING 3102183 91.00 ' 2 17556 7A 15 PRIME CpLCR PPF52 9/0]/95 II9.41 y 17557 17559 8047 RANCHO CLCAACNCA SHCRIF R P :'60 ANCIM MFOIFAL CLINIC 3102181 3/07IR3 1.355.60 75.00 ' 1 755 -8075 RAPID DATA INC 3/p ?/93 3.297.74 1 17560 8071 RAULS TIRE REPAID 3102183 140.50 y - I"756` ROSS 9FITFR DPVELOPMFNT, A H 3107/93 6.598.00 17562 8150 RITZ CAMERA CENTER _ .3/02/93 _ _ 40.77- - - 17563 1315 S4 FE I STRIPING SVC 3/02/63 304.82 I ! 0564 11ts SAN P.N00 ASSnC GOVT /`12/33 201000.00 y 175h5 e1 ^.0 SAN 8FPNA8UCIN m 1102191 44.02 171116 17567 E560 SFVFI. DA, AUTO PA ^TS 95'5 SI.OAL MAIKTEKAYCE 3102/33 3/02/93 286.e6 1.552.98 '1 17563 VOID VENDOR NC. 9EIp 3/02/03 0 17569 Vail) VENrCP NC. 8.10 102193 . 175 m PS10 SD CALIF EDISON CD .3 /CZ /B3 ..3.340.61 - 11571 P515 S11 CALIF GAS CC 3102191 1.150.66 115743 8645 SV. +p lIn L .A SAM /02/93 216.00 I75T3 PM155 SPA °KI FT {S 3/02/93 41.50 17574 9713 SULLIVAN PF. PDUFRT /02193 300.00 1 -17575 P71s SUPT OF COCUMFNTS 3/02/83 7.50 Imo- 17576 P14n SIIRVEYCRS SERVICE /02/83 8L1.62 17577 P1h'1 711RRFS, CARL 3/02183 31.67 17578 9190 TRANS -'WEST FORD TRUCK _ _ _ ?/02/83 __ _.. _ -- _ _ _ _ _ -. ._. _..._ ____. 208.61.;_ -.. IT579 tSR FRS INC 3/02/93 178.53 1 1]SAn 1n95 _S<h UNI TFO IAFCRMATIC4 SERV 3/G2/P,3 28.59 J 1 7591 Y747 IIV TED ECUIPMENT CC 3/02/81 26.P6 t T1.2 17591 I'll 11HIV 9020 CITY rF C"IF OF UPLAND _ W02183 3/02/81 ._..__. _ ___ .. 8.75 - 90.04 17584 S025 UPIAN-1 BLOCK L BLDG 3/02183 t 66.37 �f 175AS 9790 Wf ST fKO UtITFO WAY 3/02/93 89.50 175436 S.4F,3 W.,T"EY. MARY - 3107/93 - - - _ 90.00 17587 5492 VII COCK PATT FRY CO 3/02/61 40.79 17SRS 9565 W'hITUN CONSTRUCTION 3102193 37.88 j 175P9 17590 S67S IFF F'DICAI SERVICE SPHl WAT:LNI YFtt 3/02/81 3 /02 /B3 103.40 239.50 17591 SBA] KAROII SHIFIFY /02/03 4.00 3 17592 9933 STANFI�LO. KANDYCE 3/02183 L6.00 17593 SRH4 YC CFOFIF, JANFS 3/17/83 13.00 17594 Se 8b PCPINSIN SU5AN -_ - _ 3107/83 _ ._ - _.. - 33.00 17595 SP97 CU ISM 9T�FLS ALICE 1102/93 13.00 A 17596 5999 RAMIHFZ, LM 3102/93 13.00 .J 17597 17598 9.199 LYK.INS, JANE 5890 SFYMURE RARLF 1102191 3/02111 6.50 6.50 17599 5991 PYLFS, IYP,AN 3/02/83 13.00 3 11600 S842 CARTYPIGMT, CHESTER 3/02/83 26.00 VJ 17601 SP93 DFNfF PAT 3/02183 26.00 1]602Z __. Se 94 LANDED$ FRANCES ...... _.__ _3/02/B3_ _ _ - -- :.,.18.50 -I 17nDJ 98'75 011.1) 1EU 3/02/B3 19.50 t 17604 S897, R6N3?L L, KAY 3/C2/63 31.00 i j 17605 989? YILTC -1l C M 1102193 17.00 17606 S957 SHPFRCUTS 1/02183 72.00 - 17607 5951 LFYVA, LEnROPON 3102183 23.67 3 17608 9959 GECPGF CONSTRUCTION, JA 3102/83 14.98 y 11609 5960 CFNFRAL PLUMBING. G P 3/02/83 27.00 17610 _.5961 RANCHO I%OUSTRIAL PARK _3/02/83_... - _ - _- - _ _ ___... -31.20 - � - _ - 17611 9S62 NATURAL USED$ 3/02/83 22.50 1 17612 5963 HOED CKPRESS 3/02/83 15.00 J ' - o`_. ," V.:_J�a34,:1v..�' -4 eY.a:;Yn:ti.0 .... :_ . � _',iu%.'v ... .' .. . ,..... .: •v '.;,1L.;yG _:._ . .Mi�L' •.:�.:r. -5.._ _tic_^..,yi+i4.,�v - . +.1.�.•4Jei:+:i .... Rfl67 CITY CF r- RANCHO NCAMONLA - - - -. WARRANT RECONCILIATION .. _ .3/02/03 . _ _. .. PAGE 3_, . MARR 4 VEM 0 V F N 0 0 R N A M E - L DISCOUNT NET __. r . MATE REFERENCE 161 3 9964 7614 9965 NOUSTPI IL FNFFAL FLECTPIC NYO0.CCAPRCN4 CC 3/02/13 - - 3702/83 - - -- - - - -' - -' - 11.05 ' - -- 17615 5566 GEN'FLS +ACV 3/02/83 31.00 176!6 5968 91!°979 LANI APE 3/02/63 N.35 11618 5168 PARAMOUNT W.,4R C GLASS _ /02/93 29.43 _ (' 17618 5510 INLAND MAYUFAf,TUR INLNMA MANUFACTURING iHG 3/02/P3 11.75 r 17619 5571 J06 CEMENT CONTRACTOR, 3/02/33 17'12 L 17620 -- 9912 17621 5983 w RANCHO FLICATFSSFN L C M. CONSTPUCT IDN - - -- 3/02163 - - -- 3/02/63 10'12 - 16.30 17622 9914 O L n IFANIR 3/02/83 9.00 1 17623 5975 RING JEFFP[Y 3/31103 11.54 17614 5976 GROUP Y CAP IS 3/02/63 24.60 176:5 5977 SYNAIR CCRP ' -' - 3/02/83 - - ••� -- -- 72.50 - _ 17626 5976 LICUCR BARN 02065 3/02/93 .66 8585.6 17627 5979 SCOTT ENTFRPRISES 3/02/83 Ir0 1762a- 9980 ALL-WAYS TRAVEL 3/02/63...x._ 15.36 17629 9981 BARNOS P177A - 3/02/83 _ .. _._.- _ 22.30 -. - -... .... - - r I7630 9962 %NUOSFN CORD 3/02/83 10.20 17631 9983 CALIF LFISURC CAMPERS 3/02183 88.00 17632 9984 LEE G STIRES 3102/83 6.22 . 17633' -' 9S65 ISHIR INC. VN ... - -- "3/02/83 "'- 7.60 /"• 17634 S986 9PON% THE 3/02/83 14.05 17635 99PT LAS GAROFN 3102/83 30.92 • L 17636 _..5988 PICONE PLUMBING JOHN 31G2/E3 90 - 17637 5589 R O HILL FLOOR .. fCVERING _ 3/07/83 --- - - - - .26 -" - f 17639 099!1 VANGUAO 0. J9S '+/112/93 30.00 17639 5991 VANGUARD NEST 3/02/83 100.42 17640 993 IdNCYS NALLMAftR 3/02/E3 30.00 9993 1 17642 9994 RF.TRCLANE RO9INSFAR SVC 695 CLEANING CLALARNG SVC "- 3/02/83 - 3/02/83 56.40 12.78 r17641 i 17643 9995 NFALS FARGM MARE $NG$ 3/02/83 p ^` 17644 5596 QUALITY 1NOUSTRIES 3/02/83 9.00 t, 17645 5997 RASELINE COMPUTER SYSTE _- _ _ _. 3/02/93 _...__ _.. _.. .._._ _ -_9.00 M I7646 5999 GIAFRAL TFLFP1104F 9/02/83 3/02/83 15.00 17647 5999 TI`NIF9. DUKE 91 230.60 17649 VOID F I.NAL TOTALS 3102/83.,___ r, _ _ _ FINAL TOTALS - - 139.963.18 f n c ,. R967 CITY NCH. CUCAMONGA WARRANT RECONCILI.N 2126/83 ,' J - PAC 1 PARR 9 VEN V E N D O R N A M E M40.R Jn uRNAL DISCOUNT..' NET ' DATE REFERENCE. - '" '- •� J -' 10451 -'9750 10455 WELLS 2335 COCA COLA F]RGC TRUSTEE POTTIING - 2/07/A3 Y1P809.62 ,.y_.... —. ..,. . TOAST 2336 GLEN COLT CO 2107/63 12131192 105. z8 33.00 J 10457 1650 LL FN.ALF FEDERAL S Ff OEP nI SAV lNG J /a /A3 2.T 96.00 - 10458 A410 SAN 90N0 ^NO CO FMP (R U - 2/10183 - -- - - _ - - - ,4:512.50 10459 8205 SAN p CC PROAATICN 2/10/83 51.00 10460 10461 1200 CITY OF 0029 CITY OF AMERICA RAA019 2110183 9.fl 02.52 -_ J 10462 8n" 8041 ROJAMES A EMPLOY EMPLOY "• 2/10/83 2/10183 - - 50.00 - - - - 32A0 - -- t 1 0463 8200 ROBINSON, 01NSN. JAMES H 2/!0/83 250.00 10464 10465 57CO WASSERMAN LAUREN M 2/10183 210.00 7314 Mlt NF♦ SHAPON 2/1C183 Z92.90 10466 P645 SPAGNOLA S%4 SV 2 /lC /83 - 360.00 10467 7665 PACIFIC r.nUCTS 2/10/63 58.44 10468 C125 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 2111/83 9g6.CC 10469 9451 WILCO OISTRIHUTI;RS INC 2/15183 938.49 - j- 10470 - -- 7B95 PUD EMPL RFTIRFMFNT SYS 2115/81- -..__ .. .':.' 6 :546.24 10471 9510 WOOCt ANO PACIFIC DVLPMN 2/16/83 4:687.50 16360 1&991 2315 CITY RENTAL ISCS NAIL DATE FESTIVAL 1C1201CQ 1/05183 16.00- 17324 Z662 DANITLS GO. H L 2/16103 t4T.00- 2.370.18- 17352 6604 RLEEN LlhF CORPORATION 21t6/63 19.84 - 9�000 VOID AFOVMS ALYC:14TMT 2128/83 15.00- . ! J 90001 V0f0 FrRPS AIICNMcNI� 2/28/83 2/28/83 90002 VC 10 FORMS ALIGNMENT 2129/03 90.03 201110 FORMS ALIGNMENT 2120183 90.04 ]/29/63 90005 20010 FINAL TOTALS 2/28/83 FINAL TOTALS 31 :095.49 J 1 ' J J ' J 10 VA V 2349 -B CITY OF RANCF.O CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: On behalf of LOUIS GONZALES and YONG GONZALES, individual- ly and dLa RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRIVE -THRU DAIRY the following claim is hereby presented pursuant to California Government Code §900 • et sea., in accordance with the laws of the State of CaTiiornia: 1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: I P 'j.. Louis Gonzales Yong Gonzales Rancho Cucamonga Drive -Thru Dairy 9768 Palo Alto Street R•o'n 11 .� ' ^ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 2. NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT TO: MacLachlan, Burford & Arias A Law Corporation 150 West Fifth Street, Suite 103 San Bernardino, CA 92401 3. DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OCCURRENCE alt TRANSACTION WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE CLAIM: This incident arises out of an automobile accident occurrring on September 26, 1981 on Hillside Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Dernardino, wherein DANIEL F. BOUC!! was a passenger in an automobile which struck a utility [)Ole. .A lawsuit was filed by plaintiff DANIEL P. BOUCH against these claimants and others under San Bernardino Superior Court, • Ontario Branch, case number OCV 26390, requesting damages and naming the claimants herein as defendants. Defendants were served with said Complaint on December 21, 1982 vl • MAC LACHLAN, BURFORD & ARIAS a eVpLrOn+wG u lC 1AE: A. nuGG A LAW <ORPONAnON nENx[Tn f nX[[!LF I50 WEST `11N STREET SMITE 103 OFFic[ Mwrr w..CP P. o. 90X 1409 - _ n SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 OXR " iELF PXO N[ 1'/Iwi C BS�N9, X iE V•[L C c A O•Rr a SEXU X.CX[w IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO R "R February 10, 1983 E•�IE. -•XES B. w n w FI[E NO. 2349 -B CITY OF RANCF.O CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: City Clerk Gentlemen: On behalf of LOUIS GONZALES and YONG GONZALES, individual- ly and dLa RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRIVE -THRU DAIRY the following claim is hereby presented pursuant to California Government Code §900 • et sea., in accordance with the laws of the State of CaTiiornia: 1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: I P 'j.. Louis Gonzales Yong Gonzales Rancho Cucamonga Drive -Thru Dairy 9768 Palo Alto Street R•o'n 11 .� ' ^ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 2. NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT TO: MacLachlan, Burford & Arias A Law Corporation 150 West Fifth Street, Suite 103 San Bernardino, CA 92401 3. DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OCCURRENCE alt TRANSACTION WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE CLAIM: This incident arises out of an automobile accident occurrring on September 26, 1981 on Hillside Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Dernardino, wherein DANIEL F. BOUC!! was a passenger in an automobile which struck a utility [)Ole. .A lawsuit was filed by plaintiff DANIEL P. BOUCH against these claimants and others under San Bernardino Superior Court, • Ontario Branch, case number OCV 26390, requesting damages and naming the claimants herein as defendants. Defendants were served with said Complaint on December 21, 1982 vl L' 6c� MAC LACHLAN, IWRFORD & ARIAS Page Two February 10, 1983 4. GENERAL DESCR - IPTION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, OBLIGATION,. INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS INCURRED SO FAR AS IT IS KNOWN AT THE TIME CF THE PRESENTATION OF THIS CLAIM: Claimants have been required to retain the services of attorneys and have incurred expenses in connection with this matter; claimants have also incurred potential liability to the plaintiff, DANIEL F. BOUCE, which cannot be determined until such time as the matter is resolved by settlement, judgment or verdict. 5. NAME OR NAMES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS, IF KNOWN: Specific identities are unknown at present but are believed to be the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, its agents and employees. 6. AMOUNT CLAIMED AS OF THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF THIS • CLAIM: (a) Attorneys fees and costs in an undetermined • amount. (b) The estimated amount of prospective injury and damages is not ascertainable at this time but would include con- tinuing legal fees and costs incurred in defending the litigation filed by the plaintiff and any liability incurred by the claimants as a result of the resolution of the litigation filed by the plaintiff. DATED: February 10, 1983 MAC LACHLAN, BURFORD b ARIAS. i J. By: Bruce D. MacLachlan EDM:rr �� • .. I '-7w CLAIM FOR DAMAGE OR INJURY 1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed not later than 100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year offer the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). TO: CITY OF N,af /me of Claimant ` Address Zip Phone vge /address to which Claimant wishes notices sent. WHEN did damage or injury occur? &A�,eIJI—l.- WHERE did damage or injury occur? HOW and under what circumstances did damage or injury I occur? Lei ru.,rad k Lr*�r,z. L d,.t CZ IL `l�C A'44klz[I Coi_ Ls.L�`o FzC LIcl —rti /ad QruC all Oh..i• WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Include names of employees, if known) 1 ?,.'y'�i..lr�.� WHAT sum do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may 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) � n ' Total Amount Claimed: $ to NAMES and addresses of witnesses, Donors and Hos itali Of °nNi' :j0 CiICAi,l0WA P hlla R:,T!C'N r.: ;; t ?MS!9! 6 P, UATE a (p ?g) Signoture of aimant CITY OF Frlr; !i0 CUCFd,lOKA r�orn,ih�s'ra;:nor; F J 1 ,) Ddom Aromdee 6510 Archibald Ave AM PM Alto Loma, CA 91701 718s !9111,12 ,1!213141516 February 7, 1983 City Council of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Council: On December 24, 1982 at approximately 2:45 p.m., a City Eucalyptus tree rooted on the City property fell over because of the wind storm and demolished my brand -new Datsan Sentra (with only 1800 miles) which was parked in the garage at 6510 Archibald Ave where I resided. I hereby respectfully submit a claim against the City of Rancho Cucamonga for $636.12 which represents my net loss of the above vehicle mentioned after final settlement from my insurance company and the allowance for the depreciation. In as much as I feel the City was negligent in allowing this tree to stand on city property in its deteriorated condition after repeated requests from my landlord owner to have the tree removed. I feel it is only fitting to submit this claim at this time. It is noteworthy to mention that my sister -in -law escaped death by a matter of minutes from the same mishap by getting out of the car and this claim could have been much higher for the price of a human life. I trust your Council will proceed with a speedy response with this claim and will spare the City additional time, expense, and legal, fee by reimbursing me for my loss. Also it should be noted that this claim is waiving any consideration for my inconvenience, current transportation necessities and trauma brought on by this mishap. Respectfully yours, cZ; >r' �. Udom Aromdee x n U • • • • `J — COPYa ' - ai Ty me..' At .rrr:r...n. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSNSI To: Nponmem of Almbofe bereroge Co.., 1901 Mwdnry UIZI a[— e.:.li�n. Soa.m.nne, CdB. 9S810 - r.r..m.r .ae.. The andhot -d beeeby eppbef br li.emn der.nbW m lolla.r 1. Wli OF LICf.HL I P:f NO. y I W :iellZ Grit- -LIL EtiLis YL.':LL Applied ender Sec 29041 [a, ERemn, Dole: 2"`T`Ad FECfIPi,Nq, .1 GEOGRAPHICAL COCf W,c . Chile hti.d 2. Ni OF APpLICANi(S) Temp Pe.m:I Met- Dale. 2ftCMrZ d'l COi^[G SSA ^G, 1nG, ]. TYPE(S) OF 1RANSACDON(9 FEE t ` DEDEBtl£D E,jlame aI Lett ..,. ul'Pr -RA ADMINISTRATION S. Lxahee of 1.11 e- Nember tend Snr.n t_hill Bo01ward FEB C1 °_=] - 70 D 1ILlRpES~ L1F33O. _1016;p Ane Code o c smava 91110 SRn Aemnidlno TOIM 6. If Eremvo Le,med. 1, A.e lemi.v held. .pn_ „na_ •,,,..a..SS'e °':,: CG'u'O:: "u' °e:Je %!, suit. 1r OnVinu, CA 91%23 Fl: 9. Hat. yea, e.e Hem — lead el a felanyi 10 Nape you ever ri.I.I-1 any of the pran6om of Me Ale be.emi Comrol An or re loam of be Oepamnen einq ro rbe Atli 10 IL FeOlai, e'TFS' minor to Uemv 9 at 10 an oe mmahmem .MeF vball be deemed poi of the Opp rtonon. -- 1] AW1 ogreev (a11M1or any m rai employed In eneole Ltemed pgmem .ill bare all 16e gvoU many of a homer _ Ibl r_bai M1<.AI ,or .ialarp_m eeme or pe.me ro be rialared .a, of rbe proriiom el rhe_Akoln ie be...... Cmi Ad. ' 13 . Si4f O( CALIFORNIA Counry of Dole .. Z.ramr i. y, Maa «d a . w getee ie. .Mn . .rMm j^ u.��.tsia'1entot i^lr S•;nNFf[FfSHOPa. i e- 'w ..... .. ..... ....ere at Jrp C!' :ICl:oel J. SoaIe1'.I2c APPLICATION RY TRANSFEROR '• „$ S. STALE OF CALIFORNIA Cann, of Don M.w +Nn r env n+ramee' r r.n....r .. ..... e.:r: w. wr - n ...:..,.. nrr .. •.me.. r le Nam.1v1 al 1 unveil' _ 17 of Liamee(0 16. LiN a Nan _J:•_.1,•A._.' ank 1. _ : _ _ _� 6) -0867] 19, 1a<mmn and 9n rn City a.d iq cnl.. Ceanro 1 ^_rr• _ ',w _ ___ X1.1 -rr 71 aA _... merAlw.. ' O.-NotM'neN.mrr : roe Liar; Fae DrlMnmraT Cie 049 - I AnaanAA 12 Cil ed^orin, > ., QbdadorY pope.. ':�� '. - ❑ ..... ...:. ... .................COPIES MAILED i • 6 t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer C�CAAlp \�r 9 SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the Hillside Road Reconstruction Project, Phase I and II Per previous Council action, bids have been solicited and received for the improvement of Hillside Road from Sapphire Street to Amethyst Street and Beryl Avenue from Manzanita Avenue to Hillside Road. Of the twelve bids received, Riverside Construction Co. submitted the apparent low bid of $409,999.99. The Engineer's Estimate is $450,000.00. Funds for the major portion of this project have been allowed from Gas Tax revenues per previous Council action. Funds for a portion of the improvements on the south side of Hillside and the west side of Beryl adjacent to Heritage Park are included in the cost of that park development. The total estimated cost for full improvement on Beryl Avenue and Hillside Road adjacent to the park based upon the low bid is $54,723. Had the park not contributed towards the project at this time or had there been no park, the project would have completed the reconstruction of Beryl within the limits of the existing curb and completed minor widening on the south side of Hillside within the limits of the park. That cost would have been $23,738 based upon the low bid. Therefore, the cost attributable to the park is the difference of $54,723 and $23,738 or $30,935.00. The project is crediting the park $1,100.00 ($1.00 per cubic yard) for approximately 1,100 cubic yards of barrow material; also the Engineering Division is crediting the Community Services Department $10,000 (206 of 545,000) for the reconstruction of Alta Loma Park. Therefore, the net park funds to be expended for off -site improvements is $20,000. All off -site improvements are Gas Tax eligible. continued.... D City Council Staff Report Award of Hillside Road Reconstruction Project March 2, 1933 Page 2 RECORMENOATION Staff recommends that Council award said contract to Riverside Construction Co., the lowest responsible bidder, for the amount of $451,000.00 (5409,999.99 plus 10" contention) and execute agreement for said project. Staff further recommends that Council authorize the Finance Director to pay said construc- tion in accordance with agreement from the following sources in the amounts indicated: Park Development Fund $ 20,000.00 Gas Tax Fund $431,000.00 Re S pecfully submitted, (LBH�f4P:;jaf Attachment 0 • tt . E CITY OF 00 CUCNID6GA 9.1AfY OF PROPOSALS OPENED ._,. Ili l is iite Road Improvements i,XAI10 %: fo Ilside Fr,e Amethyst t0 Sapphire IN... ide Conat. Mathis Const. L DATE: January 21, 1983 CONTRACT 110. 05 -01 -57 Fontana Paving Kruger - McGrew Nelson 6 Belding 111 °S 011r :irlEs DID AMOUYT 010 As, RII 810 P-OUNT BID AN9'INT BID AKnU'IT •i"r. Re a,,I, Iwvp Sma - 26.600!.X, 0 37,750.00 - 22,624.74 0 15,000.80 - 9,000 .00 n A.C. Pave - --nt ,I 72, WO S.F. 0.03 2,175.01 0.10 7,250.00 413 9,425.00 0.14 10,150.09 0.18 13.'eso. CU 3 A.C. Re *oval or bu;emg V,100 S.F. 0.11 4,631.00 0.10 4,210.DO 0,13 5,473.00 0.14 5.894.00 D.15 6,315.00 4 Cn:d P1; ^c i' m.n. w.dt1h 11,1aO L.F. 0.41 4,879.00 0.64 7,516. DO 0.39 4,641.00 0.41 4,879.00 U.70 0,339.00 5 Cerh S G.tter :nval 2,•175 L.F. 1.13 2,920.50 0.50 1,237.50 2.25 5,568.75 2.00 4,950.00 3.50 8,662.50 6 ^class. Fill d G,d. R�9 11,450 C. Y. 1.42 16,259.00 2.50 28,625.00 4.85 55,512.50 3.94 45,113.00 2.Z(I 25,190.90 7 Stro:[. Eu ay. S Bskflll 600 C.Y. 3.75 2, Z50.00 15.00 9,000.00 7.00 4,200,00 8.33 4,990.00 14.00 8,400.00 8 Misc. E.cay., till B grd. LUmp Sum - 15,000.00 - 32,500.00 - 3S,0G400 - 29,830.00 - 12,000.00 9 C'usheC A, ^r Sig. Base 1,927 Tuns 5.50 10,598.50 4.75 9,153.25 5.73 11,041.11 6.00 11,562.00 7.00 13,489.00 10 A. C. Paving 6,750 Tans 23.00 155.250.00 25.00 160,750.01) 22.47 151,672.50 23.60 159,300.00 26.00 175,500.00 11 B. A.C. Eerm 2,368 L.F. 1.66 3,930.88 2.10 4,972.81) 1.85 4,380.80 1.95 4,617.60 2.20 5,209.60 12 Cross G.ette^ 5 Spndrl. 1,487 S.F. 3.63 5,397.61 2.60 3,866.20 3.80 5,650.60 3.50 5,204.50 4.00 5,948.00 13 8•' P.C.C. Rolled Cirn 190 L.F. 10.00 1,900.00 6.95 1,320,50 6.68 1,259.20 7.50 1,425.00 7.00 1,330.00 14 8" P.C.C. Curb & Gutter 4,500 L.F. 5.60 26,100.00 6.25 28,125.00 5.62 25,290.00 5.75 25,875.00 6.50 29,250.00 15 12•• P.C.C. Cnrh d Gutter 960 L.F. 10.00 9,600.00 7.25 6,960.00 6.53 -6,268,BO 6.50 6,240.00 7.50 7,200.00 16 P.C.C. Drive 4Pproach 1,400 5.F. 2.15 3,182.00 1.95 2,806.00 2.20 3,256.00 2.45 3,626.00 3.20 4,736.00 17 Catch Basin at Ang. Cris. 2 Earn 773.50 1,547.00 1,575.00 3,150.00 1,600.00 '3,2011.00 1,600,00 3,200.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 13 61'.8•x3' D.B. Culvert Lump Sur, - 52,000.00 - 47,800.00 - 43,500.00 - 46500.00 - 44,000.00 19 Catch Basin w/s Beryl Lump Sum - 4,300.00 - 4,200.00 - 3,600.00 - 3,600.00 - 4,000.00 20 LOC. Depression, w/s Beryl Lump Sum - 700.00 - 1,000.00 - 320.00 - 320.00 - 2,000.00 21 Lac. Depression, e/s Beryl Lump Sum - 1,51 - 2,600.00 - 350.00 - 350.00 - 4,000.00 Hi11side Bid Sanury, Pase 2 Riverside Const. Mathis Boost. Fontana Paving Kruger- McGrew Nelson L Belding ❑E 3 (i Alf If IES BID ANOUhi BID AMOUNT BIB AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT .2 Catch 6u in S L0. R7n. Wsh Lwip Bem _ 3,700.00 - 3,700.00 - 3,600.00 - 3,660.00 - 4,000.00 21 _." R.C.P., 150J D 76 L.F. 42.00 3,192.00 52.50 3,990.00 40.00 3,040.00 40.00 3,010.00 80.00 6,090.00 2i 4. P.V.C. Pipe 31) L.F. IU.DO 300.00 5.00 180.00 10.00 300.00 10.00 300.110 33.00 990.00 25 18" 0T '(St, 49.57) 18 L.F. 17.00 306.00 35.00 630.00 33.00 594.00 33.00 594.00 33.00 594.00 26 A4j, Water VaivrS 30 Each 32.00 960.00 25.DO 750.00 35.00 1,050.00 100.00 3,000.00 4D.00 1,200.00 27 Type L or N Makers 9 Each 20.00 1BO.W 50.00 450.00 45.00 405.00 50,00 450.00 50.00 450.00 28 E9neSt. Railing 735 L.F. 18.50 13,597.50 20.00 14,700,00 18.00 13,230.00 18.00 13,230.00 8.00 5,800.00 29 2" n 4" Redwood Header 660 L.F. 1.33 877.80 1.10 726.00 2.00 1,320.00 1.50 990.00 2.00 1,320.00 30 R.W. nMly 20' of 60" IMP Lump Sum - 2,000.00 - 3,700.00 - 2,200.00 - 2,200.00 - 4,000.00 31 R.A. n /ely 10'172" 181/54" Lump Sum - 4,400.00 - 5,250.00 - 51100.00 - 5,100.110 - 8,000.00 32 P.W. s /ely 40'/54" C`IP Lump Sum - 3,200.00 - 6,900.00 - 4,600.00 - 4,600,00 - 10,000.00 33 R.W. si wl/ 65'/60" CAP Lump Sum - 6,800.00 - 12,000.00 _ 8,800.00 - 8,800.00 . 16,000.00 / l 34 3' G,rito "1'ee" Drain 108 L.F. 10.00 1,080.00 13.50 1,458.00 8.30 896.40 12.00 1,296.00 9.00 972.00 35 6' Gunite 9,n-h 145 L.F. 14.00 2,030.00 16.00 2,320.00 13.00 1,885.00 20.00 2,900.00 12.00 1740.00 35 C.B. P R.W. 6 Loc. OP.D. Lump Sum - 2,000.00 - 3,000.00 - 3,600.00 - 3,600.00 - 3,300.00 37 C.B. P R.A. 6 Loc. Be, Lump Sum - 4,000.00 - 3,900.00 - 3,800.00 - 3,800.00 - 5,000.00 38 C.B. n/s of Hillside Lump Sum - 4,400.00 - 5,200.00 - 5,300.00 - 5,300.80 - 6,500.00 39 Under Sidewalk Brain Lump Sum - 2,450.00 - 1,900.00 - 2,40O.DO - 2,400.00 - 5,1100.00 40 A.C. Dike Removal 2,031) L.F. 0.20 405.00 0.50 1,015,00 0.50 1,015.00 2.00 4,060.00 1.50 3,045.00 41 6' High Block Wall 80 L.F. 50.00 4,000.00 32.00 2,560.00 30.00 2,400.00 30,W 2,400.00 55.00 4,400.00 TOTAL BID 5409,999.99 $487,301.25 $457,800.00 $459,294.10 S478,981.10 5479,081.10 Corrected Amount _• .. ..• - ... �. CITY 3FIG10 CDCAWNGA S. "VARY OF PROPOSALS OPENED . ,., :i: llillsidc RuaA loprovrmcrtts GATE: January 21, 19!'.J :,;II,da free kzitl:yst tri 5.,P911ru CDNTe ACT NO, 05 -07 -57 E. L. Yea9nr Anan Bras. Jan R. Carrigan Tan Cu. I:crsh:x „- Q�L`LITITIES BID %410D:Ii DID lID11Pr 819 A 100117 DID N:l-F 6111 AYDUNT I `II ,-, ` -, as Lu "P S---n - 42,000.00 - 42,000.00 - 39,0110.110 - 23,3`19.09 - 50,000.00 ? a.C. P1., vuc o, :n n1 70,SD0 S.F. 9.22 0,700.00 0.20 14,500.00 0.09 6,525.00 0.21 15, . JS.W M", 1.1, 503, 00 3 ,, .C. 1. 11 ;11 v: C, ro`n rl -V jr.) S.F. 0.12 5,052.00 0.20 RIVE. DO 0.09 3,789.00 0.14 5,894,0:7 D. 2 D 0,420.00 4 Lol -: P11r, 5' -.1 11t1, 11,91.x) L.F. 0.50 5,950.60 .43 5,117,00 0.43 5,117.00 O.6I5 6,120.50 0.50 5,95200 5 -, :, & hotter R� -n;mal 2,475 L.F. 2.00 4,95D.00 2.50 6,187.50 1.07 2,648.25 2,35 5,616.25 2.GO 4,950.00 b U,rllsn. F 1 11 1 Graf. R4'A 11,450 L.Y- 3.00 34,350.00 5.75 65,037,50 3.50 40,075.00 1.63 16,66750 4.07 05,600.00 i S! I, t. E•:. 1v. 4 9.ckf 111 KID C.Y. 6.00 3,600.00 30.00 6,000.00 5.00 3,000.00 9.00 5,400,00 10.00 6, ODO, GO .• '1•sc. Es nv., fill & q d. Lu ^Q Sum - 43,000.00 - 35,000,00 - 30,000.00 - 35,000.09 - 15,000.00 9 Cru<n,n A, or 519. Base 1,9Z7 Tons 6.00 11,56200 MO 15,416,00 6.62 12,756.74 5.60 10,791.20 6.00 11,552.03 10 A. C. Pavrn9 5,750 Tans Z3.25 156,937.50 20-45 192,D37.50 27.09 1110,257.50 25.67 173,272.50 28.00 169, DW.OD - - 11 3" a -C- se m 2,366 L.F. 1.50 3,552.00 3.10 7,340.00 2.10 4,972.80 2.15 5,091.20 3.50 0,288.00 12 Cross Gutter, & Sun.Irl. 1,437 S.F. 3.00 4,461.00 3.60 5,353.20 1263 3,910.81 2.60 3,866.20 3.50 5,204.5D 13 D" F.LC. Rolled Curb 190 L.F. 5.00 950.00 5,90 1,121,00 7.35 1,396.50 7.67 1,457.39 7.00 1,330.00 14 B" P.C.C. Curb & Gutter 4,500 L.F. 6.00 27,000.00 5.90 26,550.00 5.88 26,460.0 5.89 26,505.00 6.75 30,375.00 15 12' P.C.C. p;rb & Gutter 960 L.F. 8.00 7,690.00 6.15 5,904.00 6.83 _• 6,556.60 6.95 6,672.00 7.15 6,864.00 /5 P,LC. Onve Anyroac hl, 1,430 S.F. 2.50 3,700.00 2.20 3,256.00 1.58 2,338.40 1.75 2,590.W 2.00 2,960.00 17 Catch 3asln at A19- Crk. 2 Earn 1.200.00 2,4W.00 2,150.00 4,300.00 1,675.00 - 3,350,00 2,551.00 4,914.00 1,503.) 3,000.00 N, bl "', 3' O.D. U'I,,"t Luny S.m - 46,000.60 - 38,000,00 - 37,625.00 - 30,300.00 - 18,30.00 19 Catch 0•sm .JS Beryl Lune Sim - 4,000.00 - 4,000,00 - 4,900.00 - 4.525-GO - 3,000.00 20 toc. C. uress inn, .7s 6 ^,,l Lump Sun - 600.00 - 1,5DO,D0 _ 575.00 - 1,350.06 - 1,000.00 ZI .um. Ceoresslon, e/s Beryl Lump Sun - 1,500.00 - 5,200.00 - 2,640.00 - 2,35060 - I,W0.00 Hitissde Bid 51n1'ry, page 2 E, L. Teager Aran Bros, Jan R. Carrigan Ian -Cn. %crsNaa I IE •1S Q, 46r ITIES BIO AR3119T BID MOUNT 310 AHGO:IT BID AlMunT 810 AM000T .. atrh 31s, S I.D. Rvi. s ". Lo- -„ Sum - 4,000.00 - 3,200.00 - 4,200.00 - 3,8'0.00 - 2,000.00 23 24" 0..C.'., 1,100 To L.F. 60.CO 4,550.1)0 75.OU 5,70D. DO 59.00 4,484. TO 45.00 3.422.00 60.00 4,560.00 24 4° P.V.C. Rio, 3,1 L.F. 6.00 :89.00 16.00 480 -00 5.00 150.00 17.50 525.OU 50.00 1,500.00 15 i,; C'U' ("a 4)17' 16 L.F. 30.00 540.00 53.00 954,00 08.00 1,584.00 27.50 495.00 50.00 90O.00 26 Ada. +ate, 30 Each 60.00 1,800.00 90.00 2,700.00 52.50 1,575.00 25.00 750.00 50.00 1,500.00 27 Type L or G :darka11 9 Each 40.00 360.00 55.00 495.00 42.00 378.00 52.00 468.09 100.00 900.00 28 Equeat. Railing 735 L.F. 18.00 13,230.00 12.50 9,187.50 18.90 13,891.50 19.50 14,332.5D 10.00 7,350.00 29 2" . A- Re3.004 Header 660 L.F. 1.00 660.00 3.00 1,980.00 1.60 1,656.00 2.50 1,650.00 3.00 1,980.00 30 R.A. nI.ly 20' at 60" C4P Lump S. - 2,GDOA0 - 2,530.00 - 3,BOD.00 - 3,650.00 - 4,200.00 31 R.Y. n7ely 10':72" 36'/54" Lump Sum - 5, OOD. 00 - 6,350.00 - 4,438.00 - 7,500.00 - 4,700.00 32 R.Y. s /ely 40'/541 CeP Lump Sum - 4,800.00 - 6,500,00 - 6,500,00 - 7,950.00, - 7.000.00 3] R.W. sl.ly 65'/6::" CM? Lnnp Sum - 9,600.00 - 10,500,00 - 11,000.00 - 13,566.00 1 8,700.00 34 3• Gunite ".ae" Drain 109 L.F. 12.00 1,296.00 10,25 1,107.00 8.72 941.76 12.10 1,306.80 20.00 2,160.00 35 6' Gunite bench 145 L.F. 18.00 2,610.00 13.00 1,805.00 13.65 1,979.25 20.50 2,972.50 30.00 4.350.00 36 C.B. ? R.W. S Lac. Out. Lump Sum - 2,500.00 - 2,700,00 - 3,400.00 - 2, 980. DO - 2,000.00 37 S8. 0 R.51. IF Luc. Oep. Lump a. - 4,swm - 3,1013.00 - 4,850.00 - 4,025.00 - 2,000.00 38 C.3. n7s of Hillside Lump Sum - 4,500.00 - 5,000,00 - 5,000.00 - 6,000.00 - 3,000.00 39 Older Stdewilk O, ain Lump Svm - 2,000.00 - 1,900.00 - ' 2,000.00 - 2,020.00 - 2,000.00 40 A.C. Dike Removal 2,030 L.F. 0.20 406.00 .60 1,218.00 0.75 1,522.50 0.8D 1,624.00 1.00 2,030.00 41 6' Hign Block Wall 80 L.F. 30.00 2,400.00 82.00 6,560.00 25.00 2,000.00 30.00 2,400.00 25.00 2,000.00 TOTAL BID 5485,786.50 1568,687,00 5499,627,86 $483,710.45 1497,333.50 1500,643.81 Corrected Amount QTY OF O0 COCAMONGk • SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS OPENED I'RO.:FCT: Hillside Road Improvements DATE: January 21, 1983 i0CAI 10A: Mollside From Amethyst to Sapphire CONTRACT NO. 05 -D7 -57 Laird Coast. T.J. Crosby l:E''S QUANTITIES BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT 1 N�sc. Renovals Lur.:p Snm - 20,000.W - 27,50D.00 - A.C. Pavement Removal 72,500 S.F. 0.18 13,050.00 0.02 1,450.00 3 A.C. Re^ova 42,100 S.F, 0.30 12,630.00 0.07 2,947,00 4 Cold Plane 5' min. width 11,900 L.F. 0.47 5,593.00 0.45 5,355,00 5 Curb b Gutter Removal 2,475 L.F. 5.15 12,746.25 1.51 3,737.25 6 Unclass. Fill b Grd. Rau 11,450 C.Y. 4.90 56,105.00 2.49 28,510.50 7 Struct. Excay. 6 Backfill 600 C.Y. 16.80 10,080.00 9.53 5,718,00 8 Misc. Excay., fill b qrd, lump Sum 0 38,500.00 - 27,50D.00 , 9 Crushed As. ar Sig. Base 1,927 Tans 3.56 16,495.12 7.19 13,855.13 _ 10 A.C. Paving 6,750 Tons 30.57 206,347,50 29.00 195,750.00 11 8- A.C. Bern 2,368 L.F. 2.90 6,867.20 2..38 6,819.84 12 Cross Gutter S Spodrl. 1,437 S.F. 3.55 5,278.35 2.95 4,386.65 13 B" A.C.C. Rolled Curb 190 LF. 8.35 1,507.50 11.57 2,198.30 14 V P.C.C. Curb b Gutter 4,500 L.F. 7.20 32,400.00 5.50 24,750.00 15 12• P.C.C. Curb b Gutter 960 L.F. 8.10 7.776.00 8.47 3,131.20 16 P.C.C. Drive Approach 1,480 S.F. 2.00 2,960.00 2.22 3,285.60 17 Catch Basin at Ang. Crk. 2 Each 1,400.00 2,800.00 1,320.00 2,640.00 18 61'x8'x3• D.B. Culvert Lump Sum - 41,760.00 - 29,700.00 19 Catch Basin v/s Beryl Lump Sum - 5,300,00 - 3,300.00 20 Loc. Depression, w/s Beryl Lump Sum - 1,400.00 - 550,OD 21 Loc. Depression, e/s Beryl Lump Sum - 2,100.00 - 550.00 • • • Hillside Bid Summiry, Page 2 Laird Const. T. J. Crosby ITEMS DUANIITIES BIG AMOUNT BID AMOUNT 810 AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT 22 Catch Basin b L.O. Ran. Wah. Lump Sum - 5,3UO.00 - 3,300.00 23 24" R.C.P., 15000 76 L.F. 53.40 4, D58.40 60.78 4,519.28 24 4• P.Y.C. Pipe 30 L.F. 9.25 277.50 11.00 330. DO 25 18• CMP (Sta 49,67) 18 L.F. 99.75 1,795.50 67.22 1,209.96 26 Ada. Water Valve, 30 Each 27.00 810.00 38.50 1,155.DC 27 Type L or li Markers 9 Each 75.00 675.00 88.00 792.00 28 Equest. Railing 735 L.F. 21.00 15,435.00 7.70 5,659.50 29 2" x 4" Redwood Header 660 L.F. 2.60 1,716.07 2.20 1,452.DO 30 R.W. n /wiy 20' of 60" CMP Lump Sum - 4,650.00 - 2,343.00 31 R.W. n /ely 10'/12" 18'154" Lump Sum - 6,400.00 - 4,565.00 -_ - 32 R.W. s /ely 40'/54" CMP Lump Sum - 13,400.00 - 4,400.00 V 33 R.M. s /wiy 65'/60" CMP Lump Sum - 15,500.00 - 5,500.00 34 3' Gunite "Yee" Drain SOB L.F. 14,00 1,512.00 12.73 1,374.84 35 6' Gunite bench 145 L.F. 21.00 3,045.00 17.06 2,473.70 36 C.B. @ R.W. b Loc. Dep. Lump Sim - 3,100.00 - 1,375.00 37 C.B. P R.W. b Loc. D.P. Lump Snm - 5,300.00 - 3,303.30 38 C.B. n/s of Hillside Lump Sum - 7,000.00 - 5,115.00 r 39 Under Sidewalk Drain Lump Sum - 2,500.00 - 1,320.00 40 A.C. Dike Removal 2,030 L.F. 1.16 2,354.00 0.27 548.10 41 6' High Block Wall 80 L.F. No Bid Sualtted 82.50 6,600.00 TOTAL BID $596,604.62 $456,070.15 • • • 0 .• • tq. nrmv nc n n Xlnnn n, Tn n %XnXTn e STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer Vii/ 3 y� 1977 SUBJECT: Approval of Revision of Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement between Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County This agreement is submitted by the County as a revision of an existing agree- ment providing for payment by the City to the County for signals at Etiwanda Avenue and Fourth Street (San Bernardino Avenue). This signal is maintained by County contractors and is 25% within the jurisdiction of the City. The existing agreement for the maintenance and electrical power for this signal calls for payment of our share at a set rate. This rate is now less than actual cost. The County, therefore, is requesting replacement of the existing contract with the new one calling for payment of actual cost plus 5% overhead. Other provi- sions of the agreement are the same, except that the termination notice period has been increased to 60 days. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this agreement by approved by the Council and signed for the City by the Mayor. Res tfully submit ed, L /BO^PAR:jaa Attachment j t, . • • • e MINUTES OF THE BCARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 20, 1982 FROM: B. L. INC-RAM, Director Department of Transportation SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH CITY FOR SHARED TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAIN: -NANCE R- CCMMENDATION: Approve Agreement with the City of Rancho Cucamonga for shared traffic signal_ maintenance of various signal installations as set forth in Exhibits "A" and "B" of agreement on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board. RACgGRCUYD INFOR::ATION: Traffic signals and highway lighting facilities have been installed and are maintained at the designated intersections of City streets and County roads. This agreement sets forth the particular maintenance functions to be performed by City and County and specified the distribution of costs of maintenance and operation between, City and County. R -ASCII FOR RECCMMENDATION Previous agreement between the City and County provided for reinbursement of maintenance and operation Costs based on a fixed rate per installation. This revision will provide for sharing of the actual costs plus a small (57) administrative overhead charge and will eliminate the need to periodically review and adjust fixed rate charges. RE'1I7'W BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS: The agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by Edward Robinson, Deputy County Counsel on December 7, 1982. FINANCIAL DATA: The County Road Budget includes funds for the maintenance of the traffic signals as set forth in this agreement. TraLsporation w/4 agree. for sigeture City of, Rancho Clceronga c/o Transportation 0.p[ Auditor Relic tCbrks - Shone E?' sl File Action of the Board of Supervisors AGREEMENT NO. 82 -841 APPROVED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MOTION X_ prMd X _ tL' X 1 2 3 4 5 ANDR�E/E'/p'y /�HAROON CLERK OFF BO AP, BY LAS I.,l'�'= " =�'x'✓ DATED: `� E 1982 _� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND'FLOOD CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL IMJBLIC WORKS AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 East Third Street • San Bem.ndi.o, CA 92415 • (714) 383-2804 JOHN R. SHONE UtpVty Administrator for Poboks B. L. IN GAA% DQectar January 7, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Gentlemen: The Board of Supervisors approved the proposed Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement between the County and your City, on December 20, 1982. Attached are four (4) signed copies, together with a certified copy of the Minutes of the Board of Supervisor's action. After execution by the City, please return two (2) signed • copies to this office for the County's files. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 383-2804. JAS: nk Attachments Very truly yours, B. L. INGRAM, Director Transportation Department By J h o A. Steger, Chief Administrative Services JOHN JOYNER C, • COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STANDARD CONTRACT • Vi FOR COUNTY USE ONLY County Dewr.mem e."-, 1 - -.- EPWA /Transportation Department c—,, ve ... iv —, Cpm„en John A. Steger Pn. E.t. 2804 Budget Sue -0Erec[ No. unmF N p, Cr oren<n[ .p a cG; G SR.l 02p 1 Plojet[ NVn,mi[ ct nJ,w t ,n p- , ' cF i:rOprorle ,, [ n �n[n a 4 [t.imsle map THIS CONTRACT is entered into in the State of California by and between the County of San Bernardino, hereafter called the County, and N.rn< City of Rancho Cucamonga hereafter called CITY noar.tt 9320 Base Liner Unit C, P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Peon. Bmn D,t. 989 -1851 FeYer,l iU NO. Or Soc ai a <unly Vp, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: /Use space below and additional bond sheets. Set forth service to be tendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, tme for performance or completion, deem, ination of satis factory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and attach plans, specifications, and addenda, if any.) • W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, certain traffic signals and highway lighting facilities have Seen installed and are maintained at designated intersections of City streets and County roads; and WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY desire, to set forth herein the particular maintenance functions to be performed by each and, to specify the distribution of costs of maintenance and operation between CITY and COUNTY: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Agreement applies to those intersections and facilities named or listed in Exhibits "A" and "B ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Upon approval of both parties hereto as evidenced by approval of the COUNTY's Director of Transportation and the City Engineer of City of Rancho Cucamonga siLnal inctallat.ion and /or intersection lighting facilities designated for maintenance purposes may be deleted from or added to this Agreement by submittal of a revised Exhibit "A" and "Be which shall, upon said approval become a part of this Agreement and shall supersede and cancel all previous exhibits. 2. 111e party responsible for the maintenance work or provision of the services shall be as indicated in Exhibits "Ali and "B ", except that utility- • owned intersection lighting will be maintained by the utility owning the same. Be 12311 000 nay. 11180 ✓ I 1 0th 3• The CITY and COUNTY shall bill each other for the cost of services provided and shall provide a summary of actual maintenance and power costs of each intersection within their area of responsibility, as set forth in Exhibits • "A" and "E ". The cost of maintenance referred to herein shall include all direct costs, plus a 5% functional and administrative overhead assessment to cove, indirect costs incurred in providing the maintenance services. s. The share of costs for the operation and meintenance of traffic signals shall be based on a ratio of the number of legs of the intersection that lie within each jurisdiction. 5. Where highway lighting, flashers, or other electrically operated traffic controls or warning devices have been specifically approved at an intersection, the maintenance and power costs thereon shall be shared between CITY and COUNTY in the same manner as provided for sharing traffic signal costs. 6. Routine maintenance work to be performed under this agreement will include patrolling, furnishing of electric energy, and furnishing necessary repairs and /or replacements as required to insure satisfactory service. Installation of additional facilities is not a maintenance function under this agreement. 7• The net amount (actual cost less reimbursements or contributions by other parties) of extraordinary expenses, such as for repair of extensive damage or replacement of components of the signal installation, shall be assessed directly against the particular intersection involved, and shall be the shared expense of the CITY and COUNTY based upon the aforementioned ratio • for share of costs, and as shown on Exhibits "A" and "1', ". These expenses shall be assessed regardless of whether the actual damage occurred within an incorporated or unincorporated area of the intersection. Invoices for said costs shall be itemized as to materials, including service and expense, salaries and wages, and equipment rental. The party with jurisdiction over the location of any facility damaged by others shall make every reasonable effort to recover the costs of damages from the party responsible for said damage to any facility. 8. This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 1983, and shall supersede all previous traffic signal and lighting agreements between COUNTY and CITY. 9. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by either party following a sixty (60) day written notice of intention to terminate. 10. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: (a) Neither COUNTY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring, by reason of anything done or Omitted to he done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurirdi ^%ion not delegated to COUNTY under this Agreement. It is also agreed ttaC, purs"ant to Government Code Fection 895.4, C*TY shall fully indemnify and hold BOUNTY harmless from any liability imposed for in,j wry (as defined by • rqv ^rrsn en t. Code Section 810.0) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done. by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to COUNTY under this Agreement, ?? Page 2 of 3 t` h • (b) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any darage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COUNTY under or in connection with any wrk, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also agrAed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COUNTY shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Cade Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COUNTY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to CITY under this Agreement. TN WJI NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective official thereunto duly authorized, • COUNTY OF SAN BERN Chav'n in, L'oaA�n SuUINhors fiC,;Ffii C r.,A ;'M1IOCN o-n`'`I---- - =')':. !, "•'fa J tip ..ru 02 12311 Ono Per. 11;80 I LyZITI . i( dan.eo ,e an arJ ey lAm1- n...rn 5, Dated Fille Address 1 3_ ,3_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • EXHIBIT "A" TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS SCHEDULE 1 - MAINTAINED BY COUNTY Maintenance E Operation Cost Split No. Location City Count I. Etiwanda Ave ® San Bernardino Ave 25$ 50% (25% City of Ontario) SCHEDULE II - MAINTAINED BY CITY No. Location (NO LOCATIONS PARTLY IN COUNTY) .y f ( • • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXHIBIT "B" INTERSECTION LIGHTING SCHEDULE I - MAINTAINED BY COUNTY Maintenance E Operation Cost Split No. Location City Count 1. Etiwanda Ave G San Bernardino Ave 25% 50 %, (25% City of Ontario) SCHEDULE It - MAINTAINED BY CITY No. Location (NO LOCATIONS PARTLY IN COUNTY) • • 0 • — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��cn,trq STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Intent to Annex Tract No. 10045 as Annexation No. 12 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 Tract 10045 located on Haven Avenue north of Hidden Farm Road received final City Council approval on February 2, 1983. Attached for City Council approval is a resolution declaring the City's intent to annex Tract 10045 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and setting the public hearing for April 6, 1983. Also attached for preliminary approval is the Engineer's Report for this annexation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Engineer's Report and setting the date of public hearing for April 6, 1983. ly s LBHYtK:jaa Attachments I ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO. 12 .17ENTATI VE TRACT NO /0045 IN THE CITY 06 RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY or & mRNAROMO STAra or UUTORN /A x u.r •„•„•r .nr Ini•rm �I x A \ -' inn n.n. xn Y � �' nw. N •^0�.. . \ P \H- A S E 2, .... �' P H A%S E 'u J� \1 i�IxI1, CITY 01: RANCI io CUCANIONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP C'. A N page V"AWK • E STLAND VENTURE COMPANY F- 1 L-A • December 23, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: TRACT 10045 In accordance with City policy and our conditions of approval for Tract 10045, we hereby indicate our willingness to join the Landscape Maintenance and Lighting District as established by Resolution No. 79 -81 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A.W.J. N1, et al BY:-fz(---,) j s Sam A. Angona, a gener1 partner SAA /jg 1152 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE • SUITE 104 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786 - 714/981.0228 0 A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 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. 12 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. NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON APRIL 6, 1983 AT THE HOUR OF 7:30 • P.M. 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 OESCR IBED. DATE POSTED LLOYD B. Hiu-M, CITY ENClEER • RESOLUTION NO. * • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO _ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 12 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACT 10045) WHEREAS, on March 2, 1983, 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 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 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • Engineer's Report for ANNEXATION NO. 12 to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 Tract 10045 SECTION 1. Authority for Report This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. General Description This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tract 10045 as well as on the lots directly abutting the landscaped areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed tracts are shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications • The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans for Tract 10045. 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 ($.30) per square foot per year. These casts are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. I (including Annexation No. 12 comprised of 9700 square feet of landscaped area) is shown below: Total Anmial Maintenance Cost $.30 X 271,046 square feet $31,313.80 • Engineers Report Annexation No. 12 • Per Lot Annual Assessment 81,313.80 = 44.43 1330 Per Lot Monthly Assessment 44.43 = 3.70 12 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 S. 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. 12 is found to be of general benefit to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for each parcel. • The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1983, to determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by the City during the 1982/83 fiscal year which are to be recovered through assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. SECTION 7. Order of Events 1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings. 2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City Engineer's Report. 3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District and sets public hearing date. 4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings. 5. Every y-2ar 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 inodifies and approves the individual assessments. RESOLUTION NO. * •y °/ • 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. 12 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 NO-I4, 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. Description of Work: That the public interest and convenience require and 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 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 within roadway right -of -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. 12 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ". 40 SECTI OfI 3. Description of Assessment District: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City 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. 12 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. Resolution No. Page 2 • SECTION 4. Report of Engineer: The City Council of said City by Resolution tlo. * has 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. 12, Landscape 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. SECTION S. 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 Hearing: Notice is hereby given that on April 6, 19 3, at the our of 7 p.m. 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, Landscapin and Li htin Act of 1972: All the work herein proposed shall a one and came trough 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 Se— —to SK �I9 of t e 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 Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: * • NOES: 9 �TMNT nc n A w.nvn rT Tr n MnX7r a STAFF REPORT V , x Yi. Z u- DATE: March 2, 1983 .z TO: City Council and City Manager —�_977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Construction of Traffic Signal at Base Line Road and Vineyard Avenue to M M & H Construction and Engineering Co. Bids were received on February 22, 1983 from eleven bidders. The range of bidding was from a low of $54,990 to a high of $79,292, as listed on the attached list. The low bid is 2% above the Engineer's Estimate of $54,000. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the contract be awarded to M M & H Construction and Engineering Co. of Bloomington as the lowest, qualified bidder on this project and allocate $54,000 plus a 10% contingency from Gas Tax funds to cover construction costs. Res ctfully su tted, i l / v LBH :ph v Attachment 171 TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT BASE LINE ROAD AND VINEYARD AVENUE BID LIST February 22, 1983 BOND BID ;A t4 & N Const. & Engineering Co. x $54 990 Baxter - Griffin Co., Inc. x $63,245 Grissom & Johnson, Inc. x $63,890 Paul Gardner Corp. x $67,858 Steiny & Co., Inc. x $69,873 -_ Smith Electric Supply x $70,666 • - G B & E Electrical Cont. x $71,900 Paige Electrical Co. x $72,500 . Four Simon, Inc. x $74,000 Webb Electrical x $75,816 Sierra Pacific Electrical Cont. x $79,292 • E STAFF REPORT v DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public works Engineer SUBJECT: Approve and Execute informal Contract for the completion of Vineyard Avenue Street Improvements FAU M /MR- R194(2) In accordance with the contract specifications and various Government and Public Contract Codes, it has been determined that the original contractor, Red Hill Construction Co., for subject project has abandoned the project. Therefore, in accordance with said specifications and codes, the contractor's control over the work has been terminated. Also, in accordance with said specifications and codes, informal bids have been solicited and received (proposal summary attached) for the completion of the project. Of the six bids received, the apparent low bid is $255,054.40 submitted by Riverside Construction Co. Verbal approval of the proposed new contractor has been received from CalTrans. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the alternative, under Section 10255 of the Public Contract Code, that the director (City Manager) may direct that all or any part of the work be completed by employment of other contractors on informal contracts. Further, that Council approve (concurrent with CalTrans approval) Riverside Construction Co. to complete, and execute agreement for the completion of all the work remaining on said project for the amount of $280,560.00 ($255,054.40 plus 10% contingency); and that Council authorize the Finance Director to pay Riverside Construction, in accordance with the agreement, that amount of the original contract from FAU funds and that amount above original contract from Systems Development funds and collect same amount above the original contract from the orignal surety. continued- C City Council Staff Report Award of Contract for Vineyard Avenue Street Improvements FAU m /MR- R194(2) March 2, 1933 Page 2 City Council approval of the above proposed contractor and execution of informal contract does not release the said original contractor or his surety of the responsibility of the completion of said project. The existing contracts and bonds will continue to be in effect and binding. The original contractor has only been relieved of his control over the work. Respectfully submitted, LBN:,(V :jaa Attachments Ll C� L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS OPENED PROJECT: Vineyard F.A.U. M(MR- R194(2) DATE: February 22, 1983 LOCATION: Vineyard Avenue between nib and Arro® Highway CONTRACT NO. 46 -20 -22 Riverside Const. J.E.G. Const. Fontana Paving Lee Const. E.L. Yeager Laird Const. ITEMS QUANTITIES 010 AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID AMDUNT BID AvOVNT BID V961T 1 Clearing b Grubbinq Lump Sum 2 RnmiNay E.cayatino 2628 L.Y. 5.00 3 Remnye Sasse 6 Surfacing 5670 S.Y. 1.65 4 Asphalt Concrete 3156 Tons 24.35 5 Aggregate Base 1201 C.Y. 14,00 6 Place Only B" A.C. Oil., 2118 L.F. 1.25 7 8" P.C.C. Curb 6 Gutter 949 L.F. 8.00 8 8" P.L.L. Curb Only 215 L.F. 4.40 9 P.C.C. Misr. Items 31 C.Y. 123.00 10 Minor Concrete (Struct) 21.5 C.Y. 500.00 IS Mi, Iron A Steel 2910 lb. 1.15" 12 15" RCP Class II 12500 34 L.F. 40. GO 13 15" RCP Class 111 15000 27 L.F. 40.00 14 18" RCP Class 71 12500 31 L.F. 40.00 15 30" RCP Class it 12500 166 L.F. 46.00 16 Adjust Manhole to Grade 7 Each 220. DO 17 13 ".22" CSPA 16Ga. 50 L.F. 41.00 18 Type "L" Markers 19 Each 23.00 19 Traffic Signing Lump Sum 20 Traffic Striping Lump Sum 21 Metai Guard Rail 110 L.F. 30.00 22 Relocate Guard Rail 50 L.F. 15.50 23 Traffic Signal Lump Sum 24 B" PVC Sch. 40 Pipe 310 L.F. 8.00 15,000.00 13,140.00 9,355.50 76,848.60 16,814.00 2,647.50 7,592.00 946. DO 3,813.00 10,750.00 3,358.00 1,360.00 1,080.00 1,240.00 7,636.00 1,540.00 2,050.00 437.00 2,300.00 3,300.00 4,180.00 775.00 66,411.80 2,480.00 3.00 1.70 27.00 20.00 1.25 6.90 6.00 110.00 350.OD 1.25 28. OD 28.00 31.50 45.00 200.00 37.00 25.00 35.00 18.00 17. D0 8,000.00 13,264.09 7,884.00 5.17 13,586.76 9, 539. DO 2.81 15,932.10 85,212.00 26.10 82,371.60 24,020.00 0.39 10,076.39 2,647.50 1.35 2,859.30 6,548.10 6.89 6,538.61 1,290.00 4.63 995.45 3,410.00 151.27 4,689.37 1,525.00 325.00 6,987.5) 3,650.00 1.00 2,920.00 952.00 29.00 986.00 756.00 30.00 810.00 976.50 34.00 1,054.00 7,470.00 55.00 9,296.00 1,400.00 200.00 1, 4W.00 1,850.00 43.00 2,150.00 475.00 39. DO 741. DO 2,400.00 1,600.00 3,500.00 4,100.00 3,850.00 34.00 3,740.00 900.00 14.50 725.00 66,411.80 66,411.80 5,270.00 14.00 4,340.00 10.00 1.20 26.78 12.77 1.10 5.75 5.50 100.00 480.W 150 36.00 35.00 43.00 62.00 150.00 49.00 23.00 34.00 17.00 13.00 5, 100. OD 26,280.00 6.59 6,804.00 .95 84, 517. E8 28. Cq 15,336.77 16.00 2,329.F9 1.00 5,456.75 8.50 1,182.50 7.00 3,100.00 120.00 10,320.00 700.00 4,380.00 1.50 1, 224. DO 42.00 972.00 42.00 1.333.00 42.00 10,292.00 55.00 1,050.03 75.0] 2,450.00 31.00 437.00 25.00 2,200.00 3,200.00 3,749.00 40.00 850.00 28.00 67,500.00 4,030.00 12.00 2,110.00 15, 000.00 17,082.00 12.10 31,536.00 5,396.50 3.00 17,010.0[ 80,368,00 32. DO 10 5,992.00 19,216.00 15.0G Iq,015.a 2,11 8.07 2.70 4.236.0( 6.066.5 ^6.59 6.7634c 1,505.DO 6.3) 1.354.50 3,720.el 95 90 2,945.0[ 15,050.09 5O?-0q 10,750.a 4,390.00 1.10 3,212.00 1,423.00 70,00 2,380.00 1,134.0] 70.70 1,890.0[ 1.302.99 23.9? F63. Dc 9, 139.0) 45.09 7,419.00 -;irD 55103 3,850.00 1,55O.eo 33.90 1,650.00 415-on 25.00 475.0( 3.010.07 2.407.00 3,700.70 3,5^7.0( 4, 4W.01 32.00 3,520.0( 1,400.09 32.00 1,600.00 74,000.OJ ba.iW.a 3,R3.P^ 13.-0 4,030.00 TOTALS $255,054.40 $256,036.90 5251.575.48 $264,085.50 S273,456.00 5313,046.90 .0 0 • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the -City Council FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Gary W. Richards, Code Enforcement Officer V�CA_11fjy� U' SUBJECT: WEED ABATEMENT PRDGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO The County wishes to execute a new agreement concerning the above -noted program. This new agreement is similar to the existing one, except for the following t:/o changes. The first change increases the maximum amount payable by the City from $12,000 to $12,500 annually. This increase will bring Rancho Cucamonga's cost in line with the surrounding cities per the Auditor /Controller's office. The second change requires the City to make payments in two increments: the first billing will be one -half of the contract as seed money; and, the second statement will be an itemized billing showing all up -to -date costs. At that time, either a credit or additional changes will be levied. This change was also requested by the County Auditor /Controller. Although the second change requires the City to expend funds earlier in the contract year, it is advantageous for the City to continue this program, because the City is unable at this time to assume the financial and administration responsibility of implementing its own weed abatement program. We will continue to act as a liaison to the community. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and execute this new agreement and authorize the additional $500 funding for said program. Respectfully submi Llo 111!3. Hubbs Ci y Engineer LBH:G'WR:jr Attachments )/6 i 1 A G R E E M E N T 3 THIS AGREEMENT, is nade and entered into this 4 I day of , 1983,• andis by and between Co'un t} 5 O` San Bernardino, a political subdivision of the State o: 6 G:l ifornia, hereinafter referred to as COUZ ;TY, and the City of 7 Rancho Cucamonga, a nunicipal corporation, hereinafter referred 8 to as R2,11CH0 CUCAMONGA. 9 WITNESSETH: 10 -,IHEREAS, COUNTY is currently carrying out a weed 11 abntcmont nrogran under the authority of San Bernardino County 12 �I Code Section 23.031 et seq., and this program is being conducted in t`.•�e County Service Area No. 70, Improvement Zone A, by the 13 14 County Agricultural Com issioner, and IS WHEREAS, RANCHO CUCAaO:,]GA i.s situated near to said 16 Ccunty Service Area No. 70 and is presented with weed abatement w5a �2� 17 Las }a similar to those of COUNTY, and is empowe r.ed to carry out weud abatement programs, and wpw ? 16 ° PJHEREAS, each of the parties to this agreement desires of ";E that a unified, joint program be out in operation to best 20 21 ,,roceed with weed abatement in the territor ics of ench o` these 22 I parties, { , 23 NOW, THERE ^OP, „.it is agreed and covenanted by the 24 undersigned public entities as follows: '1. The County Agricultural Commissioner shall conduct 25 26 an annual weed abatement program in the territorial limits of 27 the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to provisions of the 28 San Bernardino County Code, and rules, and regulations, and 29 conditions agreed to by COUNTY and RANCHO CUCIWONGA for its territory,. The,conditions shall be as,.follows: a. COUNTY will not be responsible for cleaning. 31 PAC:vk 32 weeds along roadsides or alleys within the city boundaries of 2-29 -02 33 RANCttO CUCA;dONGA. This service will be performed by RANCHO ,., , 34 CUCAMONGA °personnel.:' 35 i °.`•b RANCHO CUCAMO'4GA -owned property will be ' a . `... 16 treated as private property .a nd: billed separately fron this o.. � I51 es 191c1 ! , 1 agreement. 2 C. The abatement service fee will be based on . 3 t' ^.e total indirect proeram costs less any surplus fees over the 4 direct costs of abatement. '. 5 2. In consideration for the performance of oaragra -h 6 1 above, pertaining to territory of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO 7 CUCMONGA shall pav to COUNTY a sum not to exceed Twelve Thousand 8 Five Hundred Dollars ($12,500.00) per vear. The actual sum will 19 be determined by the Agricultural Commissioner pursuant to the 10 computation as proved by paragraph 1 a., b., and c. above, who 11 will then provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with said comoutati- 12 along with the request for payment thereof. RANCHO CUCAMONGA 13 shall then send such payment to the Agricultural Commissioner. 14 The oa_vsent shall be in two portions. The first pgrtion shall 15 be due and paid within the first six months of each contract zW� 16 year, and shall be in the amount of one -half of the maximum wo_ 17 sum mentioned in this paragraph. Any balance due or adjustment Wou ^d 18 at the end of the contract vear shall be paid at the end of the c ?:= • 19 contract year. 0 =� 20 3. This agreement shall remain in full force and 5 0 °=3 21 effect from year to year, unless terminated, for a period of 22 five (5j years. It may be terminated by either party hereto 23 upon written'notice delivered prior to January 1, of any year. 24 Notice to COUNTY shall be to the Clerk of the Board of 25 supervisors. Notice to RANCHO CUCAM04GA shall be to the City 26 Clerk, City of, Rancho Cucamonga. 27 4. COUNTY shall submit to RANCHO CUCANONGA, not later 28 than January 1, 'of each year, a proposed new sum as a ceiling for 29 this agreement, which may be in the amount of $12,500.00 per 'new y car, othi h "no 'sums so proposed,;by COUNTY the ; 4v 31 previous year's ceiling sum shall be applicable for the ensuing PAG:vk 32 year. RANCHO CDCAYONGA shall have sixty days in which to reject 12 -21 -3233 such new' sum and terminate this agreement. Otherwise, this 34 agreement shall be in full force and effect with the designated 35 ceiling sum applicable. However, as always, the actual sum for 36 •'_2_J( a • 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i 14 15 Zug 16 W= y z.„a . 17 °o'•'i 18 I e 19 g z zo j.i ° Q 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 PAC:vk 32 .,.2 -29 -82 33 34 35 36 each year will be determined by the Agricultural Commissioner as stated in paragraph 2 aobve. AT -EST: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO A::DREE DISHAROON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By - y CAL MCELNAM, Chairman Board of Supervisors ATTEST: CITY CLERK By APPROVED AS TO FORM . Date: J-4 —?3 ALAN K. MAR'Y.S Countv Counsel Byj r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By APPROVED AS TO FOR:f Date: City Attornev, City of Rancho Cucamonga By -3 / J 14 CLAIM FOR D.WI. GE ON INJURY 1. Claims for centh , injury to person, or to personol property must be filed not later than . 1CC days 4ter [lie occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). •. Clcims to! damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence i Gov . Code, Sec. 911.2))./. -. TO: CITY CF AIV -LQ CVC11(n_W5A _ �gPoDn �D MVL-n2S ID3aR MUV C.DURT' 9173 tiKR -79a 3 a Name of Ciaimant Address Zip Phone tce 10_L�-g -T-Ug Co_L2t- L2RiUC fp CvC» nnoA �R. 9/%30 _ Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent. r W HIEiN dic or injury occur? FUrhp —,/ �Q 1 WHcRc did damage or injury occur ?� Qpi �aep "U i'n til /G'h HO',V and under /Icircumstances did damage or injury occur? ri ("AMO hr, ihJ Ytnv..n "1-n('./i �ttlnr. _! 1 'FrP/'C 4-),n * l.)t < 4�lip �-r.��lown!c%fon. Sofa tttra�i- �heL, w r•e Gv /i,c bSef-7- /lest �� fig. leq✓G Halo *hl'. }}r"-s were, knoc-Kec( over- on toinyC14 -Z- ,'t",' 1 carticui ,, octicn by tF.a City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury? (Inclul:•• na, ^.es cf employr -es, if known) e+ 01 l7 ( ) >tpioye es G 8' Rn�D � ofite0 or Ovcr (Ry Inc - ( -o»ce, like the snio e wege 'o1n5c, r 7 WHAT,um do you rIoim? Include the estimated o ou nt of any pr as dive loss, nsofa ✓osifif may be 1<no.vn at the time of the eresentation of this claim, together will, the basis of computation of the ,mount claimed: (Altaah cstimctcs or hills, if possible) losgoals o S_of O!P� .s (�2D1�1G /p2_�?�? �sLD.°— SELF )M9, LO pool. M01;1t Le_ ptKSon (00 IJHy fo recover 105, d4 rnnXri4;P) Es rr 114-r's Total Amount Claimod: _,! •� MAI rfa � n u .t1n; IJAM!.', on•1 .;.i:u r;va of ;,ilnrso;, Dne tor, ar"I flospilnls; 71�1•JI���1 •�I' -1 ��h 1'11Jlil /fell DAif Sqi(/."'� Si; •.c`.,m nt r'la', •..,.nt — NINE NE 'J c SIV INS. CO. • ^! A.J. PONE Yu. s .oat mOOE� EOOV sLV�E LICENSE • Ei Ae-1 -L - S +ar 19•wi11111 cn+rOb OB a r++h vellicl !n!!I+ ul prlmialf, or+itw cOrn^Ie1M I uBOR PA.NL$CISi et WnNnl• Io1 loa r tl+m+9 0 !r`iele+ Illt e+ - In u+. cry l + «min+ ar +err oil« ouv a Ynne!!o ! wn <ol. 91 f tl I � TO T ts ,�� — j tp OrIL -!1 'I —AA 21'I ------ ---- -- - --- 7wL9 )�)1121;ip.13�4 SIG — — — - 231 II nl _ PLEASE. NO CHECH:S—� - - -- Ali S.blmr, in AT c.�l..w•�,�Mr.. AOOITIONAL work CA 'A By 10 IS,, AdNwrN WI mwe, IMI N.OUnp.1c. — 0.111 AM Lore PM AMWNt OPEN ITEMS (net) PARTS . PARIS PRICIt bASfJ an Slanted Ca"InKII A Rich, CKANGIS WIINWT NOI ITT PAINT MAT, L ce Cnaeirt ma, 1, added "1 111.11 e1—$ not awmiable I0AIP PI PLAct iI PARTS IUN110, a nlll 0-11 +J. Aeturn at Pelf lien order l, plated Above lsbmne baud on Inee m,Rttl no AedeLrnp P+els of labb, may be re0mrtd alter the ,nrk Mt apened — updamyeerea.,abuwed fSTIMAtE1XPIN11100AYSAY1fNUAtt SUBLET NET Me u R bl cl- n TV —' "N"ile" to male rt0ou<d lesb +I A'Ah M aprett - m<m+n•lo en n 11,10^ aono.eged re roo.<ven,ne In vmre 10 <ambum of e. p+ea SALES TAX _ inlmn 1 for .a..a e shale .I LmNabon, And d An, alter, do „, Rabat rwanra empm,me11 +r A, nwmp I , he to per n,a� ,taut ore termer, .mm� n +.nun INMANCE OEOLYMBLE MUST BE .E5111WTE TOTAL . 1+N.nuee I+l. m Lew Nam end, r1. 1. Attorney, lee and o,vl mM, PAID BEFORE CAR 15 RELEASED. I have rue m! +Road. arbafal a tops, and above Ron n <r<bl+ulnorum __ -- —Aev.- Charges Anne, .•e,,.An...wvrve...ns..... .e. an e. ... .....u, .... l. won t TOTAL S- 1'1 (BAR) AA- 2308 -N E ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS ONTARIO DATSUN, (Nc. y /A, DATSUN 1 1025 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVE. s sNEE* "o._or— sNEE *s ONTARIO, CA 91762 (714) 983 -9511 + P.O.• O + /� C� P RE - S +ar 19•wi11111 cn+rOb OB a r++h vellicl !n!!I+ ul prlmialf, or+itw cOrn^Ie1M I uBOR PA.NL$CISi et WnNnl• Io1 loa r tl+m+9 0 !r`iele+ Illt e+ - In u+. cry l + «min+ ar +err oil« ouv a Ynne!!o ! wn <ol. 91 f tl I � TO T ts ,�� — j tp OrIL -!1 'I —AA 21'I ------ ---- -- - --- 7wL9 )�)1121;ip.13�4 SIG — — — - 231 II nl _ PLEASE. NO CHECH:S—� - - -- Ali S.blmr, in AT c.�l..w•�,�Mr.. AOOITIONAL work CA 'A By 10 IS,, AdNwrN WI mwe, IMI N.OUnp.1c. — 0.111 AM Lore PM AMWNt OPEN ITEMS (net) PARTS . PARIS PRICIt bASfJ an Slanted Ca"InKII A Rich, CKANGIS WIINWT NOI ITT PAINT MAT, L ce Cnaeirt ma, 1, added "1 111.11 e1—$ not awmiable I0AIP PI PLAct iI PARTS IUN110, a nlll 0-11 +J. Aeturn at Pelf lien order l, plated Above lsbmne baud on Inee m,Rttl no AedeLrnp P+els of labb, may be re0mrtd alter the ,nrk Mt apened — updamyeerea.,abuwed fSTIMAtE1XPIN11100AYSAY1fNUAtt SUBLET NET Me u R bl cl- n TV —' "N"ile" to male rt0ou<d lesb +I A'Ah M aprett - m<m+n•lo en n 11,10^ aono.eged re roo.<ven,ne In vmre 10 <ambum of e. p+ea SALES TAX _ inlmn 1 for .a..a e shale .I LmNabon, And d An, alter, do „, Rabat rwanra empm,me11 +r A, nwmp I , he to per n,a� ,taut ore termer, .mm� n +.nun INMANCE OEOLYMBLE MUST BE .E5111WTE TOTAL . 1+N.nuee I+l. m Lew Nam end, r1. 1. Attorney, lee and o,vl mM, PAID BEFORE CAR 15 RELEASED. I have rue m! +Road. arbafal a tops, and above Ron n <r<bl+ulnorum __ -- —Aev.- Charges Anne, .•e,,.An...wvrve...ns..... .e. an e. ... .....u, .... l. won t TOTAL S- 1'1 Ali S.blmr, in AT c.�l..w•�,�Mr.. AOOITIONAL work CA 'A By 10 IS,, AdNwrN WI mwe, IMI N.OUnp.1c. — 0.111 AM Lore PM AMWNt OPEN ITEMS (net) PARTS . PARIS PRICIt bASfJ an Slanted Ca"InKII A Rich, CKANGIS WIINWT NOI ITT PAINT MAT, L ce Cnaeirt ma, 1, added "1 111.11 e1—$ not awmiable I0AIP PI PLAct iI PARTS IUN110, a nlll 0-11 +J. Aeturn at Pelf lien order l, plated Above lsbmne baud on Inee m,Rttl no AedeLrnp P+els of labb, may be re0mrtd alter the ,nrk Mt apened — updamyeerea.,abuwed fSTIMAtE1XPIN11100AYSAY1fNUAtt SUBLET NET Me u R bl cl- n TV —' "N"ile" to male rt0ou<d lesb +I A'Ah M aprett - m<m+n•lo en n 11,10^ aono.eged re roo.<ven,ne In vmre 10 <ambum of e. p+ea SALES TAX _ inlmn 1 for .a..a e shale .I LmNabon, And d An, alter, do „, Rabat rwanra empm,me11 +r A, nwmp I , he to per n,a� ,taut ore termer, .mm� n +.nun INMANCE OEOLYMBLE MUST BE .E5111WTE TOTAL . 1+N.nuee I+l. m Lew Nam end, r1. 1. Attorney, lee and o,vl mM, PAID BEFORE CAR 15 RELEASED. I have rue m! +Road. arbafal a tops, and above Ron n <r<bl+ulnorum __ -- —Aev.- Charges Anne, .•e,,.An...wvrve...ns..... .e. an e. ... .....u, .... l. won t TOTAL S- 1'1 ORDINANCE NO. * ;�';/ . • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 207- 251 - 02,03, and 13, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF -. 8TH STREET AND GROVE AVENUE FROM M -1 TO R -3 /PD The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the following: A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and considered said recommendation. B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. • C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly. 11.35 acres of land located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Grove Avenue, from M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) to R -3 /PD (Multi- Family /Planned Development). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: I Jon D. Mikels, Mayor J'1�7 • L, n ORDINANCE NO. * AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 041 -15, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET, 1000 FEET SOUTH OF 19TH STREET, FROM A -1 TO R -1 The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the following: A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and considered said recommendation. B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly. 5.25 acres of land located on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000 feet south of 19th Street, from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to R -1 (Single Family Residential). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. 11 kels, Mayor 7 ' � 0 C, J u u CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Storm Drain Fee Modications Attached for second reading by the Council is Ordinance No. 75 -8 increasing Drainage fees from $2,500 per acre to $4,050 per acre. As was pointed out at the Council meeting, this matter received substantial review when the original fee was established. The proposed increase has been discussed for the past year. At the first reading of the Ordinance, several issues were again raised and members of the Building Industry suggested that modification be developed. To date, no proposed modifications have been received. Two areas that are repeatedly brought up on this subject is the area spread vs. Citywide and establishment of a variable rate based on runoff rates for different types of properties. Attached for your information is the section of the Subdivision Map Act which precludes the use of different runoff rates for various land uses. The map Act specifically requires that cost be distributed equally within the drainage plan area. The City does have the option of splitting the City into areas but this would restrict severely where we could spend those funds. This would be particular- ly detrimental within the developed portions of the City, It has always been staff's opinion and previous Council policy that benefits are general and the fee should be applied Citywide. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Ordiance 75 -B be given second reading. Respectfully submitted, LOH Jda Attachment c ARTICLE 5. FEES 66483. There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement for the payment of fees for purposes of defraying the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface andst.rmwaters fromlocal orneighborhooddrainage areas and of constructing planned sanitary sewer facilities for local sanitary sewer areas, subject to the following conditions: (a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of at least 30 days prior to the filing ofthe tentative map or parcel map if no tentative map is required. (b) The ordinance refers to a drainage or sanitary sewer plan adopted fora particular drainage or sanitary sewer area which contains an estimate of the total costs of constructing the local drainage or sanitary sewer facilities required by the plan, and a map of such area showing its boundaries and the location of such facilities. (c) The drainage or sanitary sewer plan. in the case of a city situated in acounty having acountyw•ide general drainage or sanitary sewer plan. has been determined by resolution of the legislative body of the county to be in conformity with such a county plan; or in the case of a city situated in a county not having such a plan but in w district having such a plan, has been determined by resolution of the legislative body of the district to be in conformity with the district general plan; or in the case of a city situated in a county having such a plan and in a district having such a plan, has been determined by resolution of the legislative body of the county to be in conformity with such a plan and by resolution of the legislative body of the district to be in conformity with the district general plan. (d) The costs, whether actual or estimated, are based upon 0ndine, bythe legislative bode which hasadopted thelocal plan, thatsuhdi i%n, and development of property within the planned local drainage rant or local sanitary sewer area will require construction of the faculties described in the drainage or sewer plan, and that the fees ore fain% apportioned within such areas either on the basis of henc Ors ronfe"t'd on property proposed for subdivision or on the need for such fnalbnrs created by the proposed subdivision and devclopment of nlhcr pr, perry within such areas. (e) The fee as to nny property propowd fur suhdit isinn w n h In such a local area dues not esccvd the pro rata shwa of the ....moot ,.f iha Imul net ual or estimated casts .(.I I fact l it ies wil hin such Oren which %cold he assessuble on such property if such costs were ap purl ion ed un iformly an a per, ..ere busty. l'� 1 n u i1 �J • • ORDINANCE NO. 75 -B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATIVE TO COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN AND DRAINAGE FEES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 13.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 13.06.010 Intent and purpose. 13.08.020 Drainage plan and local area. 13.08.030 Fees - Payment. 13.06.040 Fees - Amount. 13.08.050 Fees- Deposit and utilization. 13.08.060 Exceptions. 13.08.070 Single drainage fee payment. 13.08.080 Construction by developer- Reimbursement. 13.08.010 Intent and purpose. The city is seriously affected by surface and storm waters and the continual subdivision and development of • property within the city has placed a serious demand on existing facilities Which handle surface and storm waters. In order to plan and develop drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters and to provide an equitable manner for the apportionment of the cost of the development of such facilities, the City Council does determine that a drainage plan must be adopted and a drainage fee established to provide funds to be used for the construction of the facilities described in the drainage plan. (Ord. 75, Section 1, 1979). 13.08.020 Drainage plan and local area. The comprehensive storm drain plans numbers 1 and 2, the index thereto and the appropriate plan sheets for the area lying within the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, together with construction costs and other related material, which comprehensive storm drain plans were prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and all revisions or amendments subsequently adopted by the City Council by Resolution, are hereby found and declared to be the drainage plan for the city. For the purposes of this chapter, planned drainage facilities shall mean drainage contained Within the drainage plan. The City Council finds that drainage problems are approximately of equal magnitude in all areas of the city, and declares that for the purposes of this chapter, all areas of the city shall constitute one local drainage area. (Ord. 75, Section 2, 1979). 13.08,030 Feea- Payment. A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, a parcel map, the waiver of a parcel map, director reviews, site approval, location and development plan, conditional use permit, or the issuance of a building permit, the city shall require the payment of a fee as provided in this chapter for the purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm • waters from the local drainage area. The City Council finds that development of property within the local drainage area will require construction of the facilities described in the drainage plan, and the fees are fairly apportioned on the basis of benefits conferred on the property in the local drainage area and on the need for such facilities created by the proposed division or development of property in the local drainage area. The City Council further finds that the fee as to any property does not exceed the pro rata share of the amount of the total actual or estimated cost of all facilities pursuant to the drainage plan which would be assessable on any parcel of property if such costs were apportioned on a per acre basis. B. Fees required to be paid by this chapter shall he paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 75, Section 3r 1979). 13.08.040 Fees - Amount. A. The fee required to be paid by this chapter is fort' dollars and fifty cents ($40.50) per one one - hundreth of an acre or fraction thereof. B. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter the fee shall be based on the area of the entire parcel with respect to which the building permit is issued. C. If the parcel with respect to which the building permit is • issued is larger than one acre, the fee shall be based on: 1. The area of the developed portion of the parcel. As used in this chapter, the phrase "area of developed portion of the parcel" means the area of that portion of the parcel lying within a single rectangle which encloses all improvements, landscaped areas, storage areas, parking areas, required access and required setback lines. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1 of this subsection, the fee shall not be based upon that portion of the area of the developed portion of the parcel which was developed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and which remains unchanged, provided, however, that this exception shall not apply once the total area of additions to structures, or new structures, constructed after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, exceeds fifty percent of the area of the structures on the parcel which existed on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. D. The amount of the fee and the area for which the fee shall be considered paid shall be determined by the building official. (Ord. 75, Section 1, 1980; Ord. 75, Section 4, 1979). 13.08.050 Fees - Deposit and utilization. The fee required to be paid by this chapter shall be deposited in a "planned drainage facilities fund" and shall be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for the construction of drainage facilities pursuant to the drainage plan or to • reimburse the city for the costs of engineering, planning and administrative services to establish, design and construct the plan and facilities up to twenty -five percent. Initial funds collected may be utilized for specific • planning and engineering studies as designated by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 75, Section 5,1979). ' 13.08.060 Exceptions. Drainage fees shall not be required as a condition of the issuance of a.building permit for: A. Alterations; B. Reconstruction; C. An addition to a single - family residence when the addition does not exceed six hundred fifty square feet in area; D. Construction of garages, carports, storage buildings, patio covers, swimming pools, and similar structures, accessory to a single family residence. (Ord. 75, Section 6, 1979). 13.08.070 Single drainage fee payment. No portion of a parcel shall be subject to payment of a drainage fee more than once. If a drainage fee has been previously paid with respect to a parcel, or portion thereof, credit shall be given for such prior payment, and a proper apportionment shall be made, toward any fee payment required by this chapter. (Ord. 75, Section 7, 1979)• 13.08.080 Construction by developer- Reimbursement. Whenever the • construction of planned drainage facilities is necessary for the proper drainage of a subdivision, the city may require the subdivider to construct such facilities with credit being given by the city toward any fee payment '1 required by this chapt If the cost of such construction exceeds the fee which would otherwis by ,,PPayable with respect to the subdivision, the City Council will enter in reimbursement agreement with the developer. In the event a reimbursement agreement is entered into, reimbursement shall be made only after the fee required by this chapter is collected in connection with a subdivision or development on other property in the area encompassed by the reimbursement boundaries described in the reimbursement agreement. The basis of reimbursement shall be the developer's actual cost of construction of the planned drainage facilities. The term of a reimbursement agreement shall be as specified in the agreement. (Ord. 75, Section 8, 1979). SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City oC Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: is 5 • STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FRO': Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner � t F'. J 1977 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -02 - SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to Section 61.OZ17 of the Zoning Ordinance to include an overlay district containing various development incentives to producers of senior citizen oriented multi - family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. ABSTRACT: Included in this report are the last two staff reports to the Planning Commission discussing the need for affordable senior citizen oriented housing in Rancho Cucamona and proposing a series of guidelines designed to encourage and guide the development of it. BACKGROUND: At its February 9, 1983 meeting the Planning Commission approved an ordinance creating a Senior Housing Overlay District with additional language concerning project quality; the revised ordinance is attached for City Council review and approval. Over the past several months, Commissioners and staff have been studying the possibilities for encouraging the development of senior citizen housing for individuals and couples of low or moderate income. Staff has prepared several reports discussing this issue and its related problems and opportunities and, along with several members of the Commission, attended a tour of senior housing projects developed by neighboring cities. The Senior Housing Overlay District is the result of research and discussion with developers and is designed to set in place a series of policies and development incentives designed to produce housing units that can serve low and moderate income senior citizens while giving the City adequate design control and assurances that the units produced remain available over the long term to this population group. Continued . . . . Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 City Council Agenda March 2, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following actions: A. That the City Council find that Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District will not have any adverse environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration be issued. B. That the City Council recommend approval and adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02. C. That staff be directed to develop administrative guidelines for implementation of the Senior Housing Overlay District and forward them to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Re4ectfjj l ly,6ubmi tted, lanner RG:RM:jr • Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Reports Planning Commission Resolution 83 -21 City Council Ordinance • r 0 • 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA STAFF REPORT � z z IV DATE: February 9; 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 8- 02 - SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT - An amendment to Section 61.0217 of the Zoning Ordinance to include an overlay district containing various development incentives to producers of senior citizen oriented multi - family housing, as well as site development and general overlay district location criteria. ABSTRACT: Included in this Staff Report is an Ordinance (and supporting Resolution) creating a Senior Housing Overlay District, as outlined in staff's January 26, 1983 report to the Planning Commission, required Environmental Assessment, and general information regarding staff actions to create and implement policies and guidelines designed to promote and guide the development of affordable senior citizen oriented housing. BACKGROUND: Over the past several months, Commissioners and staff have been studying the possibilities for encouraging the development of senior citizen housing for individuals and couples of low or moderate income. Staff has prepared several reports discussing this issue and its related problems and opportunities and, along with several members of the Commission, attended a tour of senior housing projects developed by neighboring cities. The Senior Housing Overlay District is the result of research and discussion with developers and is designed to set in place a series of policies and development incentives designed to produce housing units that can serve low and moderate income senior citizens while giving the City adequate design control and assurances that the units produced remain available over the long term to this population group. ITEM I C Zoning Ordinance Amendment 33 -02 Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 Page 2 • ANALYSIS: There are four (4) key points to be understood about the Overlay District. These four points, plus administrative guidelines which will be brought to the Commission at a later date, are the most critical aspects of the City's affordable senior citizen housing strategy. 1. Target Population - Defines by .aye_ and income the segment of the population that the City intends that the housing units serve; it is important to keep in mind that the entire affordable housing strategy and its development incentives were developed in order to meet the needs of this group - not the needs of more affluent people or the needs of project developers. 2. Applicability /Location - Because low and moderate income senior citizens have special housing needs, not every site that can be developed for housing is capable of adequately serving them. Proximity to services, noise levels, and topography are important considerations. 3. Development Incentives - The development incentives included in the Senior Housing Overlay District reflect the concerns and needs of developers of senior projects as expressed to staff and verified by staff research. They are critical to keeping the monthly rental costs per unit within a range that low and moderate income senior citizens can afford. The greater the number and type of incentives offered the lower the monthly cost; the more a city requires of a developer, the fewer the incentives, the higher the monthly cost. 4. Development Agreement - In order to protect the City's position regarding units developed, and in light of the incentives the City may have given a project developer, a legally binding agreement protecting the availability and affordability of the units to the target population is necessary, particularly if the units are sold at some future date. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, staff has conducted an environmental assessment on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the Senior Housing Overlay District and has determined that the project will not cause a significant environmental impact. Staff therefore recommends that a Negative Declaration be issued. • Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1983 • Page 3 NEXT STEPS: Within the next few weeks staff will be developing a set of administrative guidelines and procedures establishing the detailed workings of the Overlay District and will send them to the Planning Commission for review. Included among these guidelines and procedures will be a Development Agreement which meets the requirements of the California Government Code (Sections 65864 through 65869.5), a Step -by -step review of the project submittal process, and general guidelines. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the following actions: A. That the Planning Commission find that Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 creating a Senior Housing Overlay District will not have any adverse environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration be issued. B. That the Planning Commission recommend approval and adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02 by the City Council. C. That staff be directed to continue developing administrative • guidelines for implementation of the Senior Housing Overlay District and forward them to the Commission as soon as possible. D. That the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution and forward a certified copy of it to the City Council. Attachments: Part I, Initial Study Proposed City Council Ordinance Resolution of Approval h C t� 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: oning Ordin A d t $j__02 (S° inr Hn ainn District) APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City Of Rancho Ciicamanga _P_ 0 Box 807 - Rancho Cilramonga, CA 2172a NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Marks Associate Planner. Li LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Not Applicable LItiT OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: iqn P. I -1 • � t ePROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A zoning ordinance amendment creating an ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Not Applicable DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOPMATION 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): Not Applicable e - Is the Project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Not Applicable 11 �, i t -2 C I 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: Project has the potential increa5e — d—e�tg eaa.L.¢e_cUrrgnt General 31an d goat ions project 1 h th f t' ti uses in cn m al ArPaq via mixed ilqp dPyP1np tq IMPCRTANT: 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 Devf;lopmgyt Review Committee. Datc February 1, 1983_Signature Title 1-3 t IDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION • The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cac_mcnga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability cf the school district to accommodate the proposed residential deve ioa :rent. Name of Developer and Tentative ^_Tact No.:_Acr Applirahln 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 and ? of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance k PHASE PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PH :SE —^T AL I .I RESOLUTION NO. 83 -21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -02 AMENDING SECTION 61.0217 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, 1980 Census information reveals that 7% of the population of Rancho Cucamonga is age 60 years or older; and WHEREAS, there exists in Rancho Cucamonga an unmet and growing need for affordable housing for senior citizens; and WHEREAS, cutbacks in the federal budget will no longer enable the federal government to meaningfully come to the assistance of cities by constructing or subsidizing housing units for senior citizens of low and moderate incomes; and WHEREAS, the creation of a Senior Housing Overlay District containing development incentives will encourage the production of affordable senior citizen housing units; and 0 WHEREAS, the creation of a Senior Housing Overlay District will • enable the City and the private sector development community to meet local needs and maintain local control over housing units produced. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -02) will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration of February 9, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -02 as written. 2. That the Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING,COhMISSION OF--THE/.CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: f, - _ ,1 `;(� :in7, ' f airman • a �: 0 • 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ABSTRACT: This memorandum will briefly review programs designed to provide senior citizen housing, and describe a method that staff is developing to meet these housing needs. It will outline a series of actions and steps that staff hopes to pursue in the next two weeks in order to seek Planning Commission approval of the concept at its February 9, 1983 meeting. BACKGROUND: In recent weeks the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been contacted by Calmark Development Corporation, a firm specializing in the construction of affordable senior citizen rental housing units. Calmark is interested in constructing a project in Rancho Cucamonga similar to the projects viewed on the Planning Commission tour. However, as the City has yet to develop a clear set of policies and procedures for offering a developer certain development incentivesfor processing this type of project, staff is defining and developing a methodology and strategy to do so which will soon be brought to the Planning Commission for review and approval. RANCt10 CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN - SUPPORTING POLICIES: The availability and affordability of housing is a primary concern of the City's General Plan. The General Plan recognizes the need for housing to be made more affordable to various income groups in the City and proposes a series of goals and policies whose thrust is designed to meet the needs of low - and moderate - income individuals and households. In its effort to find methods to increase housing opportunities for City residents, the General Plan finds that a "major constraint to affordable housing is not only higher construction cost but also the density and types of housing units being built in the City ". The Plan goes on to say that the most critical housing issue in Rancho Cucamonga is the cost of housing and consequently the need to expand the number of lower priced housing units. ITEM K �A DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS: UPDATE ON STAFF ACTT NS ABSTRACT: This memorandum will briefly review programs designed to provide senior citizen housing, and describe a method that staff is developing to meet these housing needs. It will outline a series of actions and steps that staff hopes to pursue in the next two weeks in order to seek Planning Commission approval of the concept at its February 9, 1983 meeting. BACKGROUND: In recent weeks the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been contacted by Calmark Development Corporation, a firm specializing in the construction of affordable senior citizen rental housing units. Calmark is interested in constructing a project in Rancho Cucamonga similar to the projects viewed on the Planning Commission tour. However, as the City has yet to develop a clear set of policies and procedures for offering a developer certain development incentivesfor processing this type of project, staff is defining and developing a methodology and strategy to do so which will soon be brought to the Planning Commission for review and approval. RANCt10 CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN - SUPPORTING POLICIES: The availability and affordability of housing is a primary concern of the City's General Plan. The General Plan recognizes the need for housing to be made more affordable to various income groups in the City and proposes a series of goals and policies whose thrust is designed to meet the needs of low - and moderate - income individuals and households. In its effort to find methods to increase housing opportunities for City residents, the General Plan finds that a "major constraint to affordable housing is not only higher construction cost but also the density and types of housing units being built in the City ". The Plan goes on to say that the most critical housing issue in Rancho Cucamonga is the cost of housing and consequently the need to expand the number of lower priced housing units. ITEM K �A Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 The following list of policies was gleaned from the General Plan and provides a strong foundation upon which to base a senior citizen- oriented affordable housing strategy: a. The City shall encourage housing opportunities which are within the financial capabilities of low- and moderate - income persons and families (p. 14). b. The City shall promote programs which meet the special housing needs of the elderly, handicapped, and minority groups (pp. 15 & 88). c. The City should encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households (p. 78). d. The City shall implement programs which assist low- and moderate - income families, the elderly, handicapped persons, large families, and minorities in renting and buying existing housing (p. 83). e. The City shall investigate the feasibility for special criteria to provide reduced parking requirements for new housing projects. If found feasible, the policy would provide for reduced on -site costs for developers of elderly housing resulting in lower unit cost (p. 89). affordable senior citizen housing projects, offer the necessary development incentives required and yet insure City control over the design and construction quality of units produced, staff has developed a Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. This district is patterned on the new Planned Development District that will soon be brought to the Planning Commission as part of the new Development Code and contains a range of development incentives, overlay district location requirements, and the development requirements which staff believes meets the needs of developers (as expressed directly to staff) and those of the City. The following are key points of the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. A. Overlay District Location Requirements: In order to adequately and satisfactorily serve the target population that this District has been created to serve, any proposed project site must demonstrate the following conditions and features: • Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 3 • 1. Appropriate base district zoning. "c. Land uses in the immediate and surrounding area, current and projected, must be compatible with the living environment required by senior citizens. 3. Area infrastructure must be in place or constructed as a part of the project and capable of serving the proposed project including: - streets - sidewalks - traffic /pedestrian signals 4. Proposed site topography must be fairly level and easily transversed by persons of limited mobility. 5. Immediate and surrounding area must be free of serious health, safety, or noise problems. 6. Proposed site must demonstrate close proximity to commercial establishments, service providers, and other amenities including: - food shopping • - drug stores banks - medical and dental facilities - public transit (main or frequently served routes) - open space /recreational facilities B. Target Population The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by the units constructed through use of incentives offered as part of the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Develpment /Overlay District are senior citizens who may meet the following criteria: 1. (a) Married couples - head of household aged 55 years or older (b) Individuals - aged 55 years or older 2. Individuals or married couples as above defined - combined annual income that meets the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program income qualifications. C. Development Incentives In order to reduce development costs associated with the construction of housing oriented toward senior citizens of low and moderate income, the city is prepared to offer a developer some or all of the following incentives, depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project proposed. t Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 4 • a. Reduction In Required On -Site Parkins• The current city standard far on -site parking in multiple family projects is 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one space "per dwelling unit being a covered carport or garage. The City will grant a reduction in required on -site parking; the amount of such a reduction is still being analyzed; a range of possibilities will be inserted into the final ordinance. b. Dwelling unit Density Bonus: In order to maximize net yield per acre, the City will consider increasing the allowable project density by either granting a 25% density bonus to the project site's existing density category (per California Government Code Section 65915) or by granting a request for a change in density range (per the City's General Plan), or both depending upon the size, nature, and scope of the project. C* Fast Track Process in roj ects submitted under the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District will receive priority attention and will not be subject to the normal multiple family project processing schedule; such projects will be deemed a staff, advisory committee, Planning • Commission, and City Council priority in order to quickly review and approve them. d. Fee Waivers /Reductions Projects submitted under the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District may receive, depending upon their size, nature, and scope, a reduction or waiver of some or all City imposed development submittal and Processing fees. Such reductions of waivers may affect the following fee schedule: - Planned Development /Project Submittal Fees - Park Fees Fee reductions or waivers are subject to negotiation between the City and the project developer and will be granted based upon that amount of reduction or waiver necessary to place per unit monthly rental costs in the range affordable to the target population. • �a • Affordable Housing For Senior Citizens Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 5 City /Developer Agreement Regard inq Long -Term Affordability of Units Development incentives granted by the City to a developer using the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District are predicated upon the long -term availability and affordability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to insure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a written agreement with the City. In the staff's prior memorandum to the Planning Commission discussing Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens, a number of general issues were identified and discussed. Those issues included the following list: a. financial costs to the City b. neighborhood character (impacts on neighborhoods) c. compatibility with existing City goals, polices, and priorities d. priority to City residents e. design compatibility (with surrounding area) f. regulation of user g. regulation, inspection (of units built) The Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay • District is designed to meet all of these potential concerns in a way that will not delay a project, meet the needs of developers of senior housing projects and give the City the development control it requires. NEXT STEPS: In the next two weeks staff will be working on the following items in order to bring a complete Overlay District and implementation strategy to the Planning Commission at its February 9, 1983 meeting: o Refine Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District per Planning Commission feedback. o Consult with the City Attorney to determine type and nature of ordinances required to implement the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Planned Development /Overlay District. o Consult with the City Attorney to determine whether it is legally possible to give occupancy priority to people who live in Rancho Cucamonga for a minimum of one (1) year prior to applying for residence in units constructed under this program. o Develop any new General Plan /Housing Element policies required in order to support an overlay district. o Consult with interested developers of affordable senior citizen housing and citizens in order to gain their feedback. is Affordable Housing Planning Commission January 26, 1983 Page 6 ty Planner For Senior Citizens Agenda tied, • RG:RM:jr Attachments: November 22, 1982 Planning Commission Memo Parking Survey For Housing For Elderly February 10, 1982 Memo To Transportation Commission Table 1 Sample Fee Reduction /Waiver Agreement • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCA \TONGA C' � ` "t?t °�— MEMORANDUM %' ., DATE: November 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner 8Y: Rick Marks, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION TOUR OF SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECTS On Saturday, November 20, 1982, several members of the Planning commission, three members of the City's V.I.P. Senior citizen Club, and staff toured three Senior Citizen housing projects located in Ontario, Azusa, and Duarte. The tour was led by Larry Persons, Project Manager for Calmark n the construction and opera- Development Corooration which specializes i tion of Senior Citizen housing projects. ( Calmark built and operates the Azusa and Duarte Heritage Park projects visited on the tour.) • The tour began at 9:00 a.m. at the Planning Division offices and ended at 1:30 p.m. For the tour staff prepared evaluation sheets for the Commissioner's use in evaluating and reviewing each site; the members of the V.I.P. Club were also invited to use the sheets and sub- mit their comments to staff. Items of particular concern during the tour included architecture /site design, density, landscaping. open space, recreational facilities, parking areas, safety, and handicapped accessibility. ' The following table provides some comparative information regarding the three sites toured. The Groves Heritage Park leritage Park (Ontario) (Azusa) (Duarte) q of units 100 145 120 Acreage 2." 3.5 2.75 Density 42 42 43 (Units per acre) of buildings 3* ll* 9* ratio of parking 3 ,5 spaces to units .45 « One building per site 1,0x for rra•eati0n3l and social purposes only and contained no dwelling units. - i Senior Citizen Housing Tour 777 November 22, 1982 • Page 2 The Groves was financed by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 New Construction Program (unfortunately there is no more money available under this program). The project contains two 3 -story buildings (living units) and one single story recreational build- ing. Dwelling units are accessed from interior hallways. The Heritage Park projects developed by Calmark are two story garden style apartments; there are no interior hallways or common areas within the buildings. Calmark does not use any federal money or programs to construct their projects. Rather, they use private sector financing and rely on city offered developer incentives (density increases, reduced parking requirements, etc.) to make a project financially feasible and to keep rents inexpensive. By and large reaction to the projects as noted in the evaluation sheets and conversation during the tour was favorable. The projects demonstrated that if properly designed higher density senior citizen oriented housing projects can be attractive and contain functional open space and offer a generally pleasant ambiance. Color slides were taken of the three visited sites in order to demonstrate them to Commissioners who were unable to • participate in the tour and to help staff and Commissioners determine those aspects of the projects which they would like to see incorporated into similar projects in Rancho Cucamonga. In the next few weeks staff will be developing a follow up paper to the one given the Commission which outlined the basic city issues included in Senior Citizen housing (October 25, 1982). The paper will suggest policies and standards for Senior housing projects and recommend incentives that the City can offer developers of Senior housing. Staff will seek the input of the City's V.I.P. Senior Citizens Club and developers in shaping policies and will also be reviewing the actions of other cities. The paper will be presented to the Planning Commission in late December at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. RG:RM:jr CC: Lauren 41asserman, City 'tanager Jack Lam, Community Develocment Director Tin Beedle, Senior Planner • "� J PARKING SURVEY FOR HOUSING FOR FLDF.RLY Location: Facility: Size: Required Parking: Prkg. req. after Variance: Ooini.on of reduced parking by the city: I Manager's opinion: Location: Facility: Size: Required Parking: Prkg, rea. after Variance: Opinion o: reduced narking by the city: Managcr's opinion: Loca tic: ;: Facility: Size: acquir,d PnrF.i n;: �0 ?inion ni rc;iucc(i nnrkinq JJ �, tl;u - ILu)agcr's opinion: r Fontana Steelworkers Cldtimer's Center 150 units 150 77 (.51 sp. per unit) No problem. Suonlied enough overflow narking for the balance of the required number of spaces. Never really needed the area. Does not need the spaces he has; however, could use more handicapped. Redlands Citrus Arms 60 units 60 30 '(.50 so. per unit) No problem. Facility has ample access to public transportation. Sufficient narking area. Ontario Senior Citizen's Apartment Comnlex 100 units 150 47 (.47 sn, nor unit) iJ C: o-�ly constructed. Not occuuiod.`--' I I r1 LJ ter. • Location: Upland Sycamore Terrace Facility: size: - 100 units Rec,iired parking: 125 Pr'rg. required after Variance: 74 (.74 sp. per unit) EE p r opinion of reduced parking by the city: Parking spaces are sufficient, however, wished all spaces were covered. manager's opinion: Parking is sufficient. Location: Rialto E Facility: South Point Villa size: 100 units E Required parking: 150 • Prkg. required after Variance: 102 (1 -02 sp. per unit) landscazed E area on -site designated for paric.nc, if necessary. E Opinion of reduced parking by the city: No problem. E Manager's opinion: Only sixty of the peoale living there have cars. r 1 r1 LJ ter. WILLIAM DORSKY AND ASSOCIATES: RESU'AE OF HUD ASSISTED HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING Associated Project and P,ddress Units Parking ROBERT SHARP TOWERS 110 55 ,50 sp per un' North Dade County, Florida 7 Stories Congregate Facilities - National Council of Senior Citizens R.H. MYERS APARTMENTS 207 50 .24 sp per ua'_ Beachwood, Ohio 10 Stories HUD Section 231 with Congregate Facilities Menorah Park Jewish Home for the Aged COUNCIL TO1,7ERS 252 38 .15 sp per a -, 4 Miami Beach, Florida 11 Stories HUD Section 202i8 with Congregate Facilities - National Council of Senior Citizens STEELWORKERS OLD TIMERS CENTRE 150 75 .50 sp per un. -. Fontana, California 8 Stories HUD Section 202/8 with Congregate Facilities Steel Workers Old Timers Foundation National Council of Senior Citizens ELDERLY APARTMENTS 150 38 .25 sp per un! Lancaster, Pennsylvania 11 stories HUD Section 202/8 Jaycee Housing Development Corp. MAPLE AVENUE HOUSING 80 28 .35 sp per uni Claremont, New Hampshire 3 stories HUD Section 202 13 with Congregate Facilities National Council of Senior Citizens ' SENATE APARTMENTS 240 80 ,33 sp per uni Chicago, Illinois _ 4 stories -. HUD Section 202/3 with Congregate Facilities Cat W l0 Catholic Charities National Council of Senior Citizens ,� n "age 3 Project and Address ELDERLY HOUSING -- Fairfax County, Virginia HUD Section 202/6 Arlington Assembly of God Church PARKLAND PLACE - Parkersburg, Nest Virginia 8 stories HUD Section 22104 Parkland Place Associates ODD FELLOW - REBEKAH HOUSING Lincoln, Illinois 5 stories HUD Section 202/8 with Congregate Facilities Independent Order of Odd Fellows ELDERLY APARTMENTS Bath, New York 5 stories HUD Section 202/8 with Congregate Facilities National Council of Senior Citizens Steuben County Economic Opportunity Program FEDERATION TONERS It Miami Beach, Florida 4 stories HUD Section 202/8 Jewish Federation of Miami ERNEST SOHN TOWERS Cleveland, Ohio 22 stories Low - Income Public Housing Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority FRIENDSHIP TOWERS Dallas, Texas 8 stories HUD Section 202/8 Independent Order of Odd Fellows ELDERLY HOUSING Philadelphia, Pennsylvania HUD Section 202/8 Opportunities Industrialization Centers '� 11 9 Associated Units Parkinq - 100 79 .79 sp 16 ^1 100 [ L 124 70 . 56 sp per E 150 50 .33 sp per 110 • e- F 266 r� E I50 150 1 space per .l I50 G9 .46 sp per tj IFEBRUARY 10, 1982 ITO: TRANSPORTATION .2.1ISSION FRO:d: DEPARTSLNT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR: TRANSPORTATION C0:1!ISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 SUBJECT: PARKING REDUCTION FOR WOODBRIDGE MANOR II ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT RECO!.UL.aDATION: - 1. Recommend to the Planning Commission that the request for a parking ratio of .78 spaces per unit be approved. ISSUE: .. . Irvine 1!ousirg Opportunities is requesting a reduction from the- - City's Parking Ordinance of 1.1 spaces per unit to .76 spaces per unit for the second phase of their elderly housing project.. 1i ?STORY: Phase T_ of Woodbridge Manor was approved by the Planning Commission an August 16, 1979, with a parking ratio of .58 stalls per unit. This ratio did not include the spaces available along the internal . driveway of the project. When these are included, the parking ratio becomes .75 spaces per unit. As the second phase includes a parking reduction as well, staff determined the need for a parking study to test the effectiveness oil the reduced parking rates now operating in Phase I. The attached study prepared by Kunzman and Associates has been submitted in response to the staff determination. . i. P120J'cC^_ DESCRIPTION: 1 . The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of Lake Road and the San Diego Creek Channel in the Village of Woodbridge (oee location map). The project consists of 50 one bedroom units of 578 square feet. The units are designated for low and moderate income senior citizens. Planned with a total of 38 parking spaces, 20 spaces would be assignable to resident, and 6 spaces unassigned for guests. Three additional unassigned curb spaces are also available along the internal driveway of the development (refer to site design). ATTACHMENT Transportation Con.'kssion .February 10, 1982 Page 2 ANALYSIS: RJ The parking study conducted by Runzman and Associates for Phase I, evaluated three elderly housing projects. all were funded by HUD. As shown in Table 1, parking ratios ranged from .23 spaces per unit to .497 spaces ,per unit. Phase I consists of 100 units with a parking ratio of .75. Of these, 57 are currently assigned to residents, two spaces are reserved for temporary parking and four spaces are reserved for guests. An additional 12 spaces not counted in the original narking ratio exist along the internal driveway, brin..gingthe total number of parking spaces for Phase I to 75. 80th Phase I and the proposed Phase II are HUD projects. HUD requires residents to be a minimum age and meet certain economic/ financial limitations to qualify for their elderly housing projects Both Phase I and II consist of the same one - bedroom units. With these variables held constant, car ownership patterns in Phase I can be assumed to be similar if not the same in Phase II. Therefore, the existing parking situation in Phase I provides a perfect test case for Phase II while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness of the 'parking reduction approved in Phase I. Frequency counts on parked vehicles.(assigned and unassigned) were conducted during the peak parking demand periods on weekdays and weekends. The parking demand ranged from a low of 48 parked vehicles to a high of 56 parked vehicles. The peak observed parking ratio was .56 cars per unit. The proposed Woodbridge Manor II provides .76 parking spaces per unit. Phase I of Woodbridge Manor provides .75 spaces per unit and is operating well as demonstrated by the latest parking study. Correspondence from the resident manager of Phase I (see attachment) lends further support to this conclusion. CONCLUSION: The parking provided by Woodbridge Manor Phase II is, greater than the peak parking demand observed in Phase I of the same project. While some parking confusion existed in the initial opening of Phase I, parking has established and no longer are problems experienced. Staff suggests the move -in days for Phase II be staggared to avoid parking problem sterming from the additional vehicles from families and friends assisting residents to settle, into their new apartments. i The parking ratio for Woodbridge Phase II has been tested and found to be working successfully in a project that will have the same physical unit dimensions, population qualifications, and HUD funding program. With this substantial evidence, the parking reduction for Phase II should be approved. *I • u iranscortation Co:rmission f• V February 10, 1982 page 3 Submitted by, MESRIE 47ILE ?IT �TM`' Assistant Engineer Attachments: 1. Parking Study 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Table 1 5. Letter from the Resident Manager . cc: Leon Napper Sill Runzman Chris Jones, Charles Cleminshaw Debbie LinD✓ y� i Cj{u�l�i;�la�,� ��'ssociates Transportation Planning Traffic Engineering • February 9, 1982 Mr. Christopher Jones W. Christopher Jones and Associates 5951 Canterbury Drive, U Culver City, CA 90230 Dear Mr. Jones: On January 26, 1982, at the meeting with the City of Irvine concerning Woodbridge Manor II, it was determined that a parking survey of Woodbridge Manor I would be desirable. Woodbridge Manor II is proposed to have 5o dwellings with a total of 38 parking spaces. of the 38 spaces, 29 would be assigned of which two would be assigned for handicapped persons, and six would be for guests. Additionally, there would be approximately three curb soap es available to quests• or residents along the, 32 feet wide internal driveway. The question is whether these number of spaces are adequate. To determine adequacy, Woodbridge Manor I was surveyed at four points in time as summarized in the accompanying table. Two surveys were designed to determine the maximum ` parking by persons living there (these two were late at night or early in the morning), and two surveys were de- signed to determine the maximum guest parking (these two surveys were mid -day Saturday and Sunday when visitation would be at a maximum). The accompanying Parking Survey table reveals the following: J.. Maximum vehicles parked - 56 2. Maximum vehicles parked in guest stalls or at the curb on the internal driveway - 13 • 4664 Earranca Parkway .Irvine, CA 92794 . (714) 559 -4231 ATTACHMENT 1 �y It should be noted that•Woodbridge Manor I has 100 . dwellings, 59 assignable spaces including two handicapped .. vehicle spaces, four guest spaces and approximately 12 . .. unmarked curb spaces (available to guests or residents) alonq the driveway running the length of the property-', C=,paring the amount of parking available at Soodbridge Manor I to the parking demand reveals the,followinc: 1. Maximum vehicles parked per dwelling = 0.56 2. Maximum vehicles parked in guest or . curb spaces per dwelling = 0.13 3. Assignable spaces per dwelling = 0.59 ' 4. Guest or curb spaces per dwelling = 0.16 S. Total spaces per dwelling = 0.75 The conclusion is that there is ample parking to meet the demand, and that o.59 assignable spaces per dwelling and 0.17 unassigned spaces per dwelling are adequate. The proposed Woodbridge Manor II will have 0.58 assigned _ parking spaces per dwelling, 0.18 guest or curb spaces per dwelling, for a total of 0.76 spaces per dwelling. This • is more than Woodbridge Manor I has and will be clearly adequate. The above calculations include curb spaces along one side of the 32 feet wide internal driveway which runs the length of the property. This driveway will have 340 lineal feet of space which is not opposite perpendicularly parked vehicles. Although the driveway is not posted or strined to allow parking, in -field inspection clearly reveals that residents and guests feel comfortable parking along the driveway and that parking there poses no traffic operation problems. The volume of vehicles entering or exiting the site when Woodbridc Manor I and II are both complete (150 dwellings) will be a maximum of approximately one vehicle every two minutes. The probability of an outbound vehicle passing an inbound vehicle adjacent a parked vehicle will occur less than once per day. It has been a pleasure to prepare this analysis for you. If there are questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Y,U; ;Z;. NN ASSOCIATES �� N ✓�..... K� w_m.- err- -:�.�. William xunzman, P.E. cc: Morrie Wilent 17 F z F G O .+ a F9 C] � a ca A q F � a H L N (/J C7 Y N n M1 N .-1 0 U N N V1 E N u O I G U N n C C C r+1 x M G U L m 4 N o z u u n I n 3 2 n r G [7 m P N x O U U c C N C O C L) U U U ti n N O o N 0 U 0 0 U tl • C • M ?4 Z � y Y N r� M1 O .-1 0 U N N V1 E N u O I G U N n C C C r+1 x 0 O N 4 tl O u u n I n 3 2 n r G [7 m P N x O U U c C N C O C L) U U q U r E m m U O 0 O O tl • C • M .1 N P U w EUE t F c x N U E y C H H O O O u q n O C 3 O C r 0 0 M n 0 0 U U > O a+ a - a n N r� M1 O .-1 0 C N V1 N I O n c C C r+1 x 0 O N 4 tl O b n 3 2 n r G [7 m P N x O O c C ti C O C L) U U 0 O O n r T O m U O 0 O O .1 N M1 C •.1 x 4 b n M1 G m G N ti i u .i C ... n U .1 N P U w EUE t 3 U E O C H O u q n O C 3 u n a U u O a+ a a u H N >1 U 4 C U w q- 4 C" U tf G C !'. U 4 U n O U u V U V w n 3 E 'j a+ O 0 U U u N m 0 N C N O q a Z i U 0 • • 11 SAMPLE FEE REDUCn ON /WAIVER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this _ day of t. -_ 1982, by and between j a partnership (hereinafter " '1, and the CLTY OF RANCHO CUMMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal [orooratiOn (hereinafter "City "), and provides as follows: WHEREAS, is the owner of acres, more or less, of land situated within the City at the ., more particularly described as San Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel No. - . (1981- ]2 assessment roll) (hereinafter the' "property "); and, NMEREAS, intends to build a -unit housing project (hereinafter the "project ") on the property: and, WHEREAS, .. desires to obtain Some of the incentives referred to in Section 65915 of the California Government code in exchange for constructing at least twenty -five percent (251) j of the total units of the project for persons and families who are in the catecories defined by Section 50093 of the Califor- nia Health and Safety Code, and maintaining such units available to such persons for net less than thirty 001 years; 1 NON', THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: {� 1. shall construct at least twenty -five pet- s cent (25 ?) of the total units of the project for persons and families who are in the categories defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. Said units are re- ferred to herein as the "affordable units ". 2. Ecr lose][ and its successors and as s;q ns, uarer.s that sell a[fer i.. :a le units wii: he ^"ntaimd 'un i- rv»nsly available Ear such persona and families for a period of not less than th:rty (301 years after the dates on which Z. iaS.i➢L: "; iil'.y�.': Y:a-n f; ccC'."1,�4u ......n ..... .,. x..:_ ( l each such affordable units, respectively, is first occupied. 3. . represents that it has entered or will enter into agreements with the California Housing Financing Authority (hereinafter "CHFA ") t0 finance the project. warrants and represents to the City that the CHFA, pursuant to the finance agreement, has the right and authority to fully control the avail- ability of, and set the rental rates for, the affordable units for a period of forty (40) years commencing from the date of com- pletion of said affordable units. The rental rates shall be set pursuant to schedules published in the Federal Resister by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 4. In the event rental rates for the affordable units cease to be set in the manner above stated, and in the further event that rental rates for the affordable units are not set by CHFA, then the City may, by resolution of the City Council, es- tablish from time to time rental rates for the affordable units, and 1. ., for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to comply with the rental rates established by the City. Any rental rate set by City hereunder shall not be lower than the last rental rates which were published in the Federal Register by the Department of Housina and Urban Development. 5. In consideration of the foregoing. City shall (a) Waive City beautification fees applicable to the project. (b) Freeze the City fee schedule as it applies to the project to the schedule in effect for the 1980 -81 fiscal year. A copy of said schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. ... _ (c) Cstabl:sh a due dale for any applicable project eugineoring fees as the date upon which the first occupant moves into one of the affordable units. (d) Allow use of alternative forms of construction On the protect if such alturnat ve forms of construction meet standard industry huildlul prae Llcon and arc approved by the -_- ai ^ • I t V • • KI City and CHIA. ]. City, at its option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of termination to „ in the event construction of the project is not commenced within one (1) year after the date of this Agreement, or in the further event that construction is not thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 8. In the event legal action is commenced by the City to enforce performance of any of the provisions of this Agree- ment, the party prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to recover reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the connection with any such litigation, including any and all appeals therefrom. 9, This Agreement shall be binding open and shall in- ure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agree- ment on the day and year first above written. ATTEST: v Clty lle[Y a partner- ship BY: „ Partner BY: _ BY: _. CITY OF RANCKO CCCA}fOSGA, a Muni- , •1 cipal corporation By: VMayor r r Ir ~ .., a� • ORDINANCE NO. * �. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.0217 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE CREATING A SENIOR HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 61.0217 of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 2: Definitions: The Senior Housing Overlay District is a floating district that requires certain conditions before it can be attached to a specific parcel of land and as such is not given a specific location until a developer applies for it. As a combination Planned Development and Overlay District, it is intended to include development review, zoning, and subdivision, all of which shall be conducted simultaneously with required public hearings. . SECTION 3: Purposes: It is the overall purpose of the Senior Housing Overlay District to carry out the following policies of the City's • General Plan with respect toward Senior Citizens. a. The City shall encourage housing opportunities .ghich are within the financial capabilities of low- and moderate - income persons and families (p. 14). u b. The City shall promote programs which meet the special housing needs of the elderly, handicapped, and minority groups (pp. 15 & 88). c. The City should encourage a balanced supply of rental and ownership housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households (p. 78). d. The City shall implement programs which assist low - and moderate - income families, the elderly, handicapped persons, large families, and minorities in renting and buying existing housing (p. 83). e. The City shall investigate the feasibility for special criteria to provide reduced parking requirements for new housing projects. If found feasible, the policy would provide for reduced on- site costs for developers of elderly housing resulting in lover unit cost (p. 89). ) C. ) Ordinance No. Page 2 • The Senior Housing Overlay District is intended to facilitate the construction of affordable rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need for affordable senior citizen oriented dwelling units while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design and construction. The District is further intended, by offering various development incentives, to make the development of senior citizen oriented affordable units attractive to potential developers while at the same time providing assurances to the City that units developed by use of the incentives offered as part of the Overlay District, remain available and affordable to the target group intended - senior citizens of low and moderate incomes. SECTION 4: Target Population: The primary resident population group that is intenaed to be served by the units constructed through use of incentives offered as part of the Senior Housing Overlay District are senior citizens who meet both of the following criteria: 1. a. Married couples - head of household age 55 years or older. b. Individuals - age 55 years or older. 2. Individuals or married couples - combined annual • income that meets the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program income qualifications. SECTION 5: Applicability: The Senior Housing Overlay District requires the presence of certain conditions before it can be applied for or attached to a specific parcel of land. In order to adequately and satisfactorily serve the target population that this District has been created to serve, any proposed project site must demonstrate the following conditions and features: 1. Appropriate base district zoning. 2. Land uses in the immediate and surrounding area, current and projected, must be compatible with the living environment required by senior citizens and must be free of health, safety, or noise problems (i.e. area generally quiet). 3. Area infrastructure must be in place or constructed as part of the project and capable of serving the proposed project including: - streets • - sidewalks - traffic /pedestrian signals r V r1 U Ordinance No. Page 3 4. Proposed site topography must be fairly level and easily traversed by persons of limited mobility. 5. Proposed site must demonstrate close proximity to commercial establishments, service providers, and other amenities including: - food shopping - drug stores - banks - medical and dental facilities - public transit (main or frequently served routes) - open space /recreational facilities SECTION 6: Development Incentives: In order to reduce development costs associated with the construction of housing oriented toward senior citizens of low and moderate income, the city is prepared to offer a developer some or all of the following incentives, depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project proposed. • a. Reduction In Required On -Site Parking: The current city standard for on -site parking in multiple family projects is 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one space per dwelling unit being a covered carport or garage. The City will grant a reduction in required on -site parking down to a minimum ratio of .5 non - covered parking spaces per unit. b. Dwelling Unit Density Bonus: In order to maximize net yield per acre, the City will consider increasing the allowable project density by either granting a 25% density bonus to the project site's exisiting density category (per California Government Code Section 65915), or by granting a request for a change in density range (per the City's General Plan), or both depending upon the quality, size, nature, and scope of the project. c. Fast Track Processinq: Projects submitted under the Senior Housing Overlay District will receive priority attention and will not be subject to the normal multiple family project processing schedule; such projects will be deemed a staff, advisory committee, Planning Commission, and City Council priority in ® order to quickly review and approve them. Ordinance No. Page 4 E d. Fee Waivers /Reductions: Projects submitted under the Senior Housing Overlay District may receive, depending upon their size, nature, and scope, a reduction or waiver of some or all City imposed development submittal and processing fees. Such reductions of waivers may affect the following fee schedule: - Planned Development /Project Submittal Fees - Park Fees - School Fees (when applicable) Fee reductions or waivers are subject to negotiation between the City and the project developer and will be granted based upon that amount of reduction or waiver necessary to place per unit monthly rental costs in the range affordable to the target population. SECTION 7: City /Developer Agreement Regarding long Term Affordability of Units: Development incentives granted by the City to a developer using the Senior Housing Overlay District are predicated upon the long term availability and affordability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to insure that the units remain • available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City per California Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5. SECTION 8: The City shall establish a process and such administrative guidelines as it shall deem necessary in order to implement the provisions of the Senior Housing Overlay District. SECTION 9: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: don D. Mikels, Mayor • y." 0 • E MEMORANDUM 6. 9 DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -03 - CALMARK - A request to amend the General Plan land use plan from Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units per acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior citizen apartments on approximaely 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -34. Related File: PD 83 -01 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 23, 1983 continued the above described item to the 'arch 9, 1983 agenda in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns regarding the project design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the public hearing for this item be continued to the March 16, 1983 City Council agenda. RespictfullyAubmitted, Ill& tez Cihv tanner :OC:jr i, 0 I* •.aa a yr u�aw aav vv..raw v.. �... G��•••.�7, MEMORANDUM 19.. DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Ban Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -03 - CALNARK - A request to amend the General Plan land use plan from Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units per acre) for the development of 161 affordable senior citizen apartments on approximaely 4.55 acres of land located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -34. Related File: PD 83 -01 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 23, 1983 continued the above described item to the March 9, 1983 agenda in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns regarding the project design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the public hearing for this item be continued to the March 16, 1983 City Council agenda. L • P1 �aa a yr a1taav tiuv ♦.�v.n:ravavvn Gt.,.�.,,pY MEMORANDUM 19i7 � DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83 -01 - PARCEL MAP 7827 - CALMARK - A change of zone from R -3 Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development to R -3 /SO (Multiple Family Residential /Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres generally located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - APN 202 - 151 -34. Related File: GPA 83 -03 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 23, 1983 continued the above described item to the March 9, 1983 agenda in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns regarding the project design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the public hearing for this item be c continued to the March 16, 1983 City Council agenda. Respectfullyifubmitted, ck Pomez ty Planner :DC:jr • E MEMORANDUMS r� J DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83 -01 - PARCEL MAP 7827 - CRLMARK J; PA change of zone from R -3 Multiple Fam ly Residential /Planned Development to R -3 /SO (Multiple Family Residential /Senior Overlay) and the development of 269 apartment units, of which 161 are intended for senior citizens, on 9.78 acres generally located west of Archibald, north of Base Line - APN 202- 151 -34. Related File: GPA 83 -03 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 23, 1983 continued the above described item to the March 9, 1983 agenda in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's concerns regarding the project design. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the public hearing for this item be cocontinued to the March 16, 1983 City Council agenda. • E Im k, SU ',I.MRY: This proposal is for a planned residential development consisting of 116 condominium units on 8.98 acres of land in conjunction with a zone change from R -3 -T to R -3 1PO and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 1983 to consider the above - described project. The Planning Commission approved the related tract map with conditions as attached and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and zone change. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project was consistent with all City related Ordinances and the General Plan. The proposed overall density of 13.4 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Please find attached a copy of the Planning Commission staff report which fully describes the project. CORRESPONDENCE: At the Planning Commission public hearing there was no input from the general public regarding this project. This item was advertised as a public hearing and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the project site. STAFF REPORT •�O ' _- 1977 DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -06 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12320 - L & G LIMITED - A change of zone from R -3 -T Mu (multiple to Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202- 181 -07. Related File: Tentative Tract 11608 - L & G Limited SU ',I.MRY: This proposal is for a planned residential development consisting of 116 condominium units on 8.98 acres of land in conjunction with a zone change from R -3 -T to R -3 1PO and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 1983 to consider the above - described project. The Planning Commission approved the related tract map with conditions as attached and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and zone change. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project was consistent with all City related Ordinances and the General Plan. The proposed overall density of 13.4 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Please find attached a copy of the Planning Commission staff report which fully describes the project. CORRESPONDENCE: At the Planning Commission public hearing there was no input from the general public regarding this project. This item was advertised as a public hearing and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition, public hearing notices have been posted on the project site. Panned Development 82 -06 /L & G Limited City Council Agenda March 2, 1983 • Page 2 RECD >1MENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Planned Development 82 -06 for the above - described project through adoption of the attached Ordinance and issuance of a Negative Declaration. lly submitted, ty Planner :DC:jr Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report & Resolution of Approval Minutes of January 26, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting City Council Ordinance • • -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA C`CAAI A. STAFF REPORT ,n^ DATE: January 26, 1983 19- TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 12320 - L & G - A change of zone from R -3 -T Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - APN 202- 181 -07. Related File: Tentative Tract 11608- L &G PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development in the R -3 zone (R -3 /PD pending) for 116 condominiums located on the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria • (Exhibit "A "). The property is presently an abandoned citrus grove and slopes to the southeast at approximately a 5 percent grade. A previous project, Tentative Tract 11608, for 120 condominium units was approved by the Planning Commission on March 30, 1981. The project is bounded on the north, south, and east by vacant land as shown on the Site utilization Map, Exhibit "C ". On the west are existing single family residences and an approved condominium project. The proposed project density is approximately 13.4 dwelling units per acre, and is therefore consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth Management, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of these Committees have been reflected on the Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit "B"), development plans and recommended conditions of approval. This planned development will have a single public access to Victoria Street, with emergency access only on Archibald Avenue, as shown on the Detailed Site Plan (Exhibit "D "). The proposed driveway on Victoria Street will align with the approved driveway location to the north. As shown on the Grading Plan, Exhibit T ", the project drains to the east property line and south to the southeast corner. Conditions of approval will require installation of a drainage structure from Victoria along the eastern boundary and out onto Ramona Avenue (Exhibit "K ", Off -Site Drainage). Further, a storm drain will be required on Archibald, from 19th Street south .to the railroad tracks. The storm drain is intended to significantly reduce the amount of water that is carried in the existing is natural channel on the east side of Archibald that presently floods Victoria and Ramona and properties to the south. ^. ITEM G Tentative Tract 1L,O /L & G Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1983 Page 2 r1 LJ DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Design Review Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns relative to the site plan configuration, recreational space, and the relationship of buildings to the streetscape. The site plan has been redesigned to provide a large open space /recreation area in the center of the project with a pool and tot lot. Therefore, the Design Review Committee recommends approval of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part If of the Initial Study and found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: The subdivision map has been prepared in accordance with City standards and policies and the project site is suitable for the proposed subdivision. The project design is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was placed in The Daily Toe ort new and approximately 32 public hearing notices were sent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct • a public hearing to consider public input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respbuliy submitted, IM anner :DC:jr Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization :Nap Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibits "G 1 -2" - Elevations Exhibits "H 1 -2" - Floor Plans Exhibit "I" - Archibald Streetscape • Exhibit "J" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "K" - Off -Site Drainage Initial Study, Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions E C \0RTtt 49 CITY OF lt: \ \CIIO CUCANIO \Ga PLANNING DIVISION tst m;rr: sc.�Lt c c • Mpnpprlb 66' 6v(e, El s 44I R -3 m. R.3 c R 1 vtii« sveei % / Gdtl[n Ano /R-3 R-3 PD R -3 ml T.;. N )RTI I CITY OF ITEM; RANCI I0 CUCA INUNG:1 Trrl.i;.� T �LlIlI�fZ�► nCA) MA• PLANNING DIVISION 6NI rII;rr : SCALE, � C ymmrfe Street ,/ I! -�� LOT A i2 6� i . r e .a., ,"•:� a LID 1:._. . 4 22 i23 Is `^11 q LL e[nsc r 19 Y1 mower/ '• l.).� i � l✓�+L l� " i. . ±rinnn '• :yrrgR t,- =urrar ✓i'� I �'ida� .fir/ �� i�'wT•�� N Tom, I W�9• t } " -- ,�. i —�..�_ , i.... _-• 11 i V' �I \ORTI i CITY OF ITEM: is RANCHO CUC:\JI( NGA TiTi.r::��D� VIs/ON �P PLANNING DIVISION Exi 11111'r; SCALFI C � F: r--] png W 1 hie 1-111 w. r�M M Iy1 ui rwI IOrOwlU yinrn r ri.rf •rr w r uv an A N.tll iw »J Mfr KORTH nrf, CIryOI, It 1\'CI IO CUC.1JfO. \C:1 PLANNING DIVISION '' CXI ItGIT —_ SCALE '� 0 C is an. OI' rri..�t: _ .�T1�3 ZG PLANNING DIVISION NORT,i ........ ..... CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCANION, .NC ,A ?ADA I'LANNIN6 DIVISION ENI MIT -F-- SCALE; r] Am"FiMS .NI i j -],,; -- -. -Yll tMzo if"A _71 d dS RANCIIOCUCANIONC� �NE PLANNING DIVISION a LANE 173 CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCAMONGA PIANNING DIVISION ITI N I: TITLE: NORTI I 0 A x L AMU -MIMUZ iM I PA, 111 CTI I Y OF I HAI: RANCI 10 cuCA.m().%,,\ I., ITT: PLANNING DIVISION 7`111- CITY (T ITIAIr RANCI IO CUCAMONGA PLAN,NING DIVISION IAIIII; r-I L 0 NORTI I j. p a ARcMACD n � [`r;]LG�r4[1[t�'•]�1�00[t� ` �[ l�- l�C° �C�l��m�r���u4p��rv�oo�uao�wa���s� N lo o, cR; ........ ts. c5 c. �- ak—arlrz o' u o N� J -C _a. a —a _ _$tieet 7 =411L- i. ur' \'c)RTH CITY OF ITI:.\1: 71 7500 R:1 \'Cl iO CL'C:1 N 1O. \('A TITLE; PLANNING DIVISION' ¢XIIII;IT SCALF: 1 n it i. ur' \'c)RTH CITY OF ITI:.\1: 71 7500 R:1 \'Cl iO CL'C:1 N 1O. \('A TITLE; PLANNING DIVISION' ¢XIIII;IT SCALF: 1 • 0 L CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION -a zo EXIIIIIII's-14 �Scm.[:: I NORTI I 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: HUDY&T24 VIUA&- • APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO 8E CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LJPAH EWIFCN9 PkTME'(Eft _3OO E, STATE STREET, dk526 1 REMANDS jCA 92373 g48-4A41a LCCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL N0.1 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: F I -1 c < • PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: TAE PROJECT- SITE [[7156T- -.QF 9.53 k DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANI.KALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? W1 T}HS Fft1 rT 15 ter P,4RT VP r44 0Wer- WN51PEM710H. I -2 C � WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO • Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? G{i12t 4RUS (a4NE 6. Create the need for use or disposal of Potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? lanation 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--o,''869 15 signature PatL /.lnjifi/L Title ( /�law- LjmArJ gatA2NS I- 3 C < 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.: 6PNT IHWCNr11EFTMVn XR Specific Location of Project: SautNEASr cvRuER ARtRIBA�RVE lUE AND K1CJlLA war PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. family of multiple , _ 6Z family units: � "L 3. Date proposed to begin construction: `5pwl 'i3 5PPN(g84 •4. Earliest date of .1,M e4 occupancy: Model i and ; Of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range I -a i :) u G. E` 1RO4MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -06 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12120 - L 8 G - A change of zone from R -3 -T (Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development) and the development of 116 condominiums on 8.98 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Victoria Avenue - AP4 202 - 181 -07. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff report recommending • inclusion of the requirement for a tot lot in the Resolution. Vice - Chairman Hempel asked for clarification of drainage on the east side across the other project. Mr. Hougeau replied that the other project has an underground storm drain designed in one of its streets and if this project goes in first, some type of semi - improved ditch would have to be put across that property in an easement until that project is developed. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Pat Meyer, 200 E. State Street, Redlands, California, addressed the Commission stating that he represented the applicant in his concurrence with the staff report, however, wished to clarify one point in that this project is a four -plea development and not a condominium project. He asked for clarification of the condition requiring the applicant to be responsible for a master planned storm drain from 19th Street southerly. Since there was another development to the north, he asked if they wouldn't be required for that portion of their property. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 26, 1933 � I • Mr. Rougeau replied that this refers to a storm drain entirely in Archibald Avenue. Further, that if a new project comes in it would be imposed-'with similar conditions because it would lie in the path of the natural drainage also. Additionally, another project to the east has had the same conditions placed on it and whichever project goes in first will have to put the storm drain in, then be reimbursed by the others. Mr. Meyer asked how much would be reimbursed. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be 100 percent reimbursement in this case because it is a master planned storm drain. Vice - Chairman Rempel advised that since this is a four -plex development, it would require special CCARts. Mr. Meyer replied that the project would have a Master Homeowners? .Association to take care of the maintenance of open spaces. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that there are additiocal problems with these kinds of developments as to what constitutes common areas and he would be looking closely at the CCSR's. Thre were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. . Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried to approve Tentative Tract 12320 with the inclusion of a requirement for a tot lot. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Mc Niel, Barker, Stout, Ring NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried to approve Planned Development 82 -06. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Barker, Me Niel, Rempel, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COP^1ISSIONERS: None -carried- Chairman Kin., announced that due to the length of the next item, the public heariro; would be suspended and the Commission would move to Item J under Director'o Reports. to Planning Commission :linutrs _iq_ January 26, 1983 I � ORDINANCE NO. ' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NU"BER 202- 181 -07, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND VICTORIA AVENUES, FROM R -3 -T TO R -3 /PD The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the following: A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a public hearino in the time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and considered said recommendation. B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. . C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the .Negative Declaration filed herein. SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly. Assessor's Parcel Number 202- 131 -07, approximately 8.98 acres in size and located at the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria Avenues, is hereby changed from R -3 -T (Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PO (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development). SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: NOES: I* ABSENT: 0 • iI STAFF REPORT March 2, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager SUBJECT: Recommend Opposition to Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Organization Act C 9 F 'Ilk —avy The City of San Bernardino has requested our community to join in opposition to a proposal advocated by the County of San Bernardino which, if enacted, would amend the Municipal Organization Act to permit the det chment or removal from a city without the specific permission of the municipility's governing body. More specifically, the proposed amendment would permit the County's Local Agency Formation Commission to detach territory from a city without the city having the right to protest or veto such action. Although the dispute between the City of San Bernardino and the County is related to the proposed incorporation of Highland and would have no immediate impact on the City of Rancho Cucamonga, it appears that a poor precedent could be established which may affect local government. First, any loss of territory without the specific permission of the governing body of the city could result in serious economic or social problems. The City of San Bernardino has estimated that as many as 18,000 citizens could be lost as a result of the proposed legislation and a corresponding drop in city revenues. Secondly, the County Board of Supervisors is proceeding wih this special legislation against the will of the majority of cities and the majority of the population of the county, and in apparent disregard for the cities of San Bernardino County. At the February 16 meeting the City Council deferred action on this issue and directed the staff to obtain copies of the specific bill. Unfortunately, a specific bill has not yet been written. The county cannot find a state legislator who is willing to sponsor the measure. Staff has included with this report a copy of the materials drafted by County Counsel which relate to the issue. Ui?KG. �,i2P1 l:>rHaTF The existing state law establishes procedures for processing annexations and municipal incorporations which take into account the views of affected citizens and prohibits the detachment of territory from incorporated cities in order to create new cities. The City Council may wish to send letters opposing the amendment of the Municipal Organization Act to allow detachment or removal of any municipal territory pursuant to a reorganization without the specific permission of the municipality's governing body after the legislation has been introduced. Since the issue does not specifically involve the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Council may wish to take no position on this matter. IIWIMN Ruling may I�st county • $350,000 By ART WONG $v. sinn wine. SAN BERNARDINO — County' gecernment here may lose more Tian 3350,000 annually under a tale Supreme Court ruling that relieves parents of the costs for detaining young lawbreakers. The high court has rejected 9 ? co law which held that m c ^ since parents are responsible for ,; - r e Z c= c v e hed and board of their children, �•av parents should also bear those .$ `= c c^ NA.. r w R 3�_ c E?_ s costs when their children commit _ +a er^ --2 a come and are taken into costa -'° 3 o c w Is The county has long depended -,^-, A ,� o „ T on parents to pay a portion of 4 u z _ 1"`#.9 L39 o their children's custody costs . v a = e -= o m, Tom'- s Loss of those fees may mean a sug funding, - 3 r` ,� c,c s o c 9 _$ mricant shift in county a _ a — " o ° "" u == 1 juvenile major overhaul a the i legislation press. v t m _ r y justice "Shsystem or new "Short of a printing press it'll s._`u °m$ _.°. mean we'll need more money out base," said Mike Kewin, c ` v .. r w e of the tax supervisor of the district altor '. ;? e'm„ T^ S r ° —wI o % w m �$ u net's juvenile division. Counties throughout the state _ —° g` = 9 E,= E = 5� _ ° .. 6 • are bankin an the Supreme , ° ., n 3"a e3a Court to rehear the case and rem "The rersc itself. theory was that - if you locked up an adult in Coun- t V jail and don't charge him (while $ ^ charging juveniles), that's a denial = E r ` E E g °.Y —° a I)( ithe legal principle of) equal c A e'a' y `a d e B m E t it protection (under the law).' said "But have abili- =>,; ,� �❑ c e� c la Kew in. we do the ty to charge and we are beginning 5 c cc c E y N w c ry o o c to charge for housing in county IailThe county crisis stems from a Santa Clara County case involving c ° ° Jerald C. and Hiram G., as they • VdOCYC are called in Supreme Court docu. menu. Hiram Gutierrez argued that it E $w • 0 ,as unfair m a r hi to pay 2a 0D0 for his m S ? S �vC'.•jr C.. ton Jerald's stay in juvenile hall - - c ^ rsp - cially since he hadn't seen his - son in 14 years. .A Santa Clara �� c c a o¢ v a' County Superior Court judge and dismissed the bill. But �? v❑ apc,yt T 4, agreed that ruling was overturned by the u First District Court of Appeal. Then, in December, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled h3 for Gutierrez. The )usbces ruled that public benefit supercedrd parental responsibdi. is Although common law calls for parents to support their children. Justice Allen Broussard wrote in the majority opinion that counties were not assuming that respons4 bility in incarcerating a minor. , But "the purpose and the benefits r, nn - 1983 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL • COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO • 16 MODIFICATION TO ALLOW. ELECTION RE HIGHLAND INCORPORATION Last year during the final days of the legislative session, an amendment was made in a Northern California bill that changed the Municipal Organization Act detachment law to take away the election right of the residents of the eastern portion of the City of San Bernardino. Now the residents cannot choose whether they want to stay within the City of San Bernardino or become a part of the proposed City of Highland if the City of San Bernardino protests the detachment of any of its territory. The law became operative on January 1, 1983, but was made retroactive to 1918. This proposal will restore the right of the city's residents to vote whether they want to remain in the city or detach from it. 20 1!(„ Ref1k e- s s2l s w 1h T n I n I -jig l' and ©n is iy1lccal By PAT BROWN 5un Sol" Whin REDLANDS — The City Coun. cil, with one member describing San Bernardino's planning effors to date as a "first -class mess," sided Tuesday with Highland rest. dents and their efforts to fncorpo- rate. "It's the epitome of poor plan. ning created by a lot of very poor decisions," Said Cadnallman James Gorman. 'Tire Iearytrog do velupmedt borders on criminality'. This is a raid firstclass mc.ts." The council, with Councilman Tim Johnson absent, voted "to lend Its support to Highland :s Hill attempt at ('ayhood, In the Same mntlon council members rejected San Bormn line Slayar W.R.:iel vomb'.s requ,, I fur a resell non a,r pr,.nm; efforts to amend a si.,ie os :erahly hill that givr.i San Bernardino the right to rejoe.t any attempt to transfer as ierritary into tltghlund, in a Ietirr to the council elated Fch. 1, Haramb said the flul Lertd proposal '•would mmlt in :on ID,oM population (hp for tiara Bernardino non .1 gl I,, do dCclme 1,l rel,,. noes. Assembly Bill . °dNl(I, Marit h ,time effee•tre" u1 January. SpeuF wally appiirx ui the Iilghlaad l: sue and permits the cuy of S:in Bernardino the right to qu.,,h All inrari:nr:dl.,a pn,aec,nli,, >aud Bmo Jun;;,. pevi, 1, at of III,' Ih,!a Loot e'mnnt,r of ,',dntia -1 x rW >r ulalnn:; der L rlslatroi rrtrn ,osve Iu A::v Ihiil ctrru:n,vids I lichLdul's Ike, L.I fIIi[a: of In, 1,r. per.:n,'n1I iro . "We're ali,rnlAlnq bl jyt di.a Iopi'lahna rilan..l n." Jon ".. rod oatode Ipe Ilh fi lu•:. Ml''Ialoolr. Local Agrnr: I'i,r;,, lion t oaaa, 11-11, hearil.0 .,III ilrur ofd. Iw ,ud .iuunti, ul pn•t llaun4 'lint hr soul s.:e. uu:I,i.uu: r• ol.d tern. pm ration attempt, said the city of San Bernardino has bled Highland dry by annexing only commercial property and vacant land, The city has not annexed residential areas and then•fure has not "talc en the respon dalny for services." Jones told the council. Propo.,r^ boundaries for the nc. ray are basre.,M east of Wn. Lerman Memo, south of the an. tional forest boundary line, west Of Churcn Strut and north of Nonon Air Force Base.. Noting that heavy politics and har.h words have engulfed the -.> year-old rityhuod debate, Gorman =.aid, "Che mo >uo(pcsl approach is incorporation." The council nearly postponed Trh,tiay',• and• on Ilr.;lWaltl', city. hoso °gurre it us uerr raved and dined by iioteo:nh" flee }I(nair Chen,, Dollirll'n told In a,i.tnp for 1 :w nciay. 1'uw' DpMirll n ,a1d ho e am, the, "u brie story... Cr1.li0y1, I..t„ told a reporter Ile;; .Li.L t,ul m::v takru he and ❑t, ;,ian•,m,r l'hrw Christ., •on ph:a seven or i will ngro-eenta tiwae from other cuo•a to linen. 0 • I .I t- I iT 1 r - _ II Poll]- _ Yaterrr I I � r - 3F— 's.l .. 5 it NOR To � I - AIR FORCE ._ I !.r .. ., - SCALE Z.. �.•� �. ��.�,� 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: February 8, 1983 RE: Property Tax Refund Actions. Recently you received a letter from Alan K. Marks, County Counsel, explaining the ramifications of new state leg- islation requiring cities to reimburse counties where the cit- ies are represented by county counsel in property tax refund actions. Previously, county counsel was required, upon re- . quest, to provide cities with a defense to this type of action. No charge was made for the service As a matter of course, the City tendered defense of all property tax refund actions to the County Counsel. The alternatives now are: (1) Adopt a resolution of the type suggested by Mr. Marks providing for defense of property tax refund actions by the County Counsel. Under the new Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5149, the City would be required to pay its pro rata cost of the defense. (2) Provide for the defense of such actions by other counsel, presumably the City Attorney's Office. i recommend that you favorably consider Alternative No. 19 1 for the following reasons: (1) It would be much more cost effective; and, 1 � -1- (2) From my observations, the San Bernardino County 4) Counsel's Office is quite competent in handling the defense of property tax refund actions. I would, therefore, recommend that you consider placing the proposed Resolution on the City Council's agenda. RED: S99 Enclosure • • 'e -2- Ia0 FROM: ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIVO SAN BERNAROI NO. CALIFORNIA January 28, 1983 TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR /MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX REFUND ACTIONS C11,0 Oepumv Caunry Counsel Eogenc L Holder Cra�q S. Jc'd.h OeOVnes Coun rV Cm,mel E H Ponmsan Duce, Jr. Rc B¢M1al U NJm, 51rong Charles A. ler, ClreK Ds. cx H AIon •,Fdwartl d l nooald , J Rl Peu Charles Larkin vain F. Mot,le, Da.n H x¢18 euefer Legal Research AuomeV Jonathan We9 /.,, In the past the County of San Bernardino, through the office • of County Counsel, has represented cities in the complex area of property tax litigation. With the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1211 in 1981, Section 5149 of the Revenue and Taxation Code was amended and now requires that before the County may represent a city, the city must first designate the County as its agent for service of process. In addition, the statute requires that the County charge a fee to recover the costs associated with the representation provided. The County Counsel is currently handling several property tax refund cases wherein various cities have requested representation. A new case (Doer v. Alameda, et al.) has recently been filed naming all counties and cities in the State as defendants. In light of the new requirements under R e T 9 5149, cities desiring representation should adopt a resolution similar to the draft attached hereto and designate the County as its agent for service of process. After adoption, the resolu- tion should be filed with the County Clerk as specified in the law (a copy of AB No. 1211 is attached for your review) and a copy of the resolution should be forwarded to this office. This action should be taken as soon as possible in order for the County to provide adequate representation of the city in pending litigation and to avoid any legal challenge to the County's authority to represent the city. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL CouN V C-c 8 W tlin9 157 West Fdtn Sveer San Der naramq, CA 91415 17141 8833751 ALAN K, ,MARKS CmmfV Coumd ROGER N, KEHEW 1R A.vmmel Cwnry Caumvl FROM: ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIVO SAN BERNAROI NO. CALIFORNIA January 28, 1983 TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR /MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX REFUND ACTIONS C11,0 Oepumv Caunry Counsel Eogenc L Holder Cra�q S. Jc'd.h OeOVnes Coun rV Cm,mel E H Ponmsan Duce, Jr. Rc B¢M1al U NJm, 51rong Charles A. ler, ClreK Ds. cx H AIon •,Fdwartl d l nooald , J Rl Peu Charles Larkin vain F. Mot,le, Da.n H x¢18 euefer Legal Research AuomeV Jonathan We9 /.,, In the past the County of San Bernardino, through the office • of County Counsel, has represented cities in the complex area of property tax litigation. With the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1211 in 1981, Section 5149 of the Revenue and Taxation Code was amended and now requires that before the County may represent a city, the city must first designate the County as its agent for service of process. In addition, the statute requires that the County charge a fee to recover the costs associated with the representation provided. The County Counsel is currently handling several property tax refund cases wherein various cities have requested representation. A new case (Doer v. Alameda, et al.) has recently been filed naming all counties and cities in the State as defendants. In light of the new requirements under R e T 9 5149, cities desiring representation should adopt a resolution similar to the draft attached hereto and designate the County as its agent for service of process. After adoption, the resolu- tion should be filed with the County Clerk as specified in the law (a copy of AB No. 1211 is attached for your review) and a copy of the resolution should be forwarded to this office. This action should be taken as soon as possible in order for the County to provide adequate representation of the city in pending litigation and to avoid any legal challenge to the County's authority to represent the city. City Administrator /Manager -2- January 28, 1983 The fees provided for in the statute will be calculated on • the basis of hours spent by the County Counsel and appor- tioned to cities in accordance with the percentage distri- bution of property taxes. An explanation of the fee structure is attached hereto. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to call. ALAN K. MARKS County Counsel AKM:am Attach. • • 111 U1) ,111 ITV. ,-, , CIIAPTIiR 050 Au act to amend Section 5119 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation, i ApryovcA by Governor SelIacmb.. 2Q 19111. file) w111. Scuel.+rY of Stale $ePl ember 26, 1991.) UZCISIAI'IVC COUNSGCs Dicem All 1211, Morris. Property taxation. Under existing law, cities are authorized to impose properly taxes to pay the principal and intolcsl on indebtedness approved by (lie volers prior to July 1, 1978, but the Properly taxes of general laweilics shall be. and the property taxes of chartered cities may be, administered by counties. This hill would revise the procedures for counties to bodes ig no I cd by cities to defend actions for refunds of city properly taxes, and would require the courtly to charge the city fees for the costs of the services provided. Article XIII Il of the California Constitution and Sections 2271 and 227,1 of the Revenue and 'Taxation Code require the slate to reiinburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other provisions require the Deparunrnt of Finmlce to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cnses, for making claims to the State Roard of Control for reimbursement. This bill would provide that no appropriation is made by this act pr the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to the constitutional mandate or Section 2291 or 2274, but would recognize Mat local ogencics and school districts may purse their other available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs. The people of the Stale of C lifornin do enact ns Follows SECTION 1. Section 5149 of the Revenue and 'Taxation Code is amended to read: 5149. (a) Any city for Which cnunty OMCCTS collect taxes may provide for the defense by Cn11115e1 for the courtly of actions brought agailut the city under this article, in Which event it shall he the duty of such counsel to defend such actions, or the city may Provide t11 at such actions shall be defended by its own counsel; Provided, however, that no city may provide fat the defense hp counsel for III, counly of any action brought against the city under this article uulrss the city previously has designated the counly as its agent for service of process f ny and all actions brought ngainsl the city under this article. A Which has so designated the county as its ngenl for • Service of process may, at any time Iherenfter, withdraw Iha: designation. Where a city has so designated the county as its agent for service of process, the county shall notify the city of the title and general nature of Play action uaming the city as defendant within l0 clays after service of process. (b) Ilse county clerk shall keep and maintain P public record of all cities who have designated the county as agent for service of process pursuant to subdivision (a), and shall delete therefrom the name of any city which has withdrawn the designation. (c) The county shall impose fees on a city which has designated the county as its agent for service of process which shall cover the costs incurred pursuant to this seclion- SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII If of the California Constitution and Section 2291 or 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made by this act for the purpose of making reimbursement pursuant to those sections. It is recognized, however, that a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimhursculent available to it under Chapter J (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of Division I of that code. 0 --.a FEE STRUCTURE The Office of County Counsel will record actual hours worked on cases for those cities which have adopted the required resolution. The total cost of the County's defense of property tax cases will be determined by applying the hourly rate for County Counsel ser- vices (currently $56 per hour) to the number of hours expended. This computation will be made annually. CITY'S SHARE OF COST An individual city's actual charge for services will be determined in the following manner. Under current law, the property tax of $1.00 per $100 of market value is distributed among several taxing agencies. Cities' shares of these taxes range from zero percent for a non - property tax city to as much as 34 percent of the taxes col- lected. Based on the premise that the city originally shared in the _property tax collected according to its tax factor, the same factor (percentage) will be applied to the County Counsel's cost of the legal defense. For example: • A = Total County Counsel Hours Recorded for Case B = Current Hourly Rate C = Involved City's Tax Factor (percentage) D = Cost to City for Legal Services Rendered Therefore a case for which the County Counsel devotes six hours of time for a city whose tax factor (percentage) is 15%, the charge would equal: A x B x C- D 6 hours x $56 /hr, x 15% - $50.40 when the County determines to hire outside counsel to defend a particular action, the outside counsel charges will be applied against the involved city's tax factor to determine the cost to the city for legal services rendered. PAYMENT OF CHARGES Utilisation of the following procedures is intended to minimize • r', FEE STRUCTURE Page 2 the administrative steps for billing and payment by the respective agencies. Cities will be assessed no more than once per year depending on actual cases defended by the County Counsel (or outside counsel retained by the County). Accordingly, the Auditor - Controller will develop an amount to be charged to a serviced city based upon the above formula. The city will then be billed for such charges, or alternatively, with the consent of the city, such charges will be deducted from the city's annual December property tax allocation and an informational bill report- ing the total charge will be submitted to tha city. RESOLUTION NO. 83-*r _.� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -- RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS ITS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby designates the County of San Bernardino to receive service of process for any and all actions brought against the City of Rancho Cucamonga under Article 2, Chapter 5, Part 9, Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the San Bernardino County Clerk. Resolution. SECTION 3• The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: . NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 February 18, 1983 Mayor Jon Mikels & Members of the City Council 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Gentlemen: CITY -aF RANCHO CUCAi -AONCA 1 ;� .iris::;. n ^r r,:91t °'. AM PM 718191101B1VIiI213141516 a By way of this letter I am submitting my resignation • from the Planning Commission, effective March 10, 1983. At present I am seriously considering running for City Council in 1984. I believe it in the best interest of 'In Planning Comnission to resign my position. In that my integrity and honesty are of primary concern to me, I do not wish for anyone during the heat of an election to in anyway question me or this Commission as to any issue of its voting. In nrd ^r tc absolutely avoid this, it is my decision to step down from the Planning Commission. Thank you very much. �' J Sincerely, ('4 r,f %q1 D Df )) �TEr��S c H , � )75- • RESOLUTION NO. * i A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROGRAM DEPOSIT AGREEMENT RESOLVED, by the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency that this Agency enter into a First Amendment to Program Deposit Agreement by and between the Agency and said Development Companies dated and in form this day presented to this Agency, and the Chairman is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the Agency and the Secretary is authorized to attest his signature and to affix the corporate seal of the Agency thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1963. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • Jon D. Mike s, airman ATTEST: Lauren 11. 'Wasserman, ecretary 0 i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF REPORT DATE: March 2, 1983 TO: Redevelopment Agency FROM: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF DRAFT PURCHASE CONTRACT Attached is a Draft Purchase Contract which will at the time of completion of the Bond Issue will be approved by the Agency in order to execute sale of mortgage housing bonds. The Bond Purchase Contract contains the Underwriters agreement to purchase the bonds at a certain price and bearing certain interest rates. The Bond Purchase Contract also contains a mariad of conditions which must be satisfied before the Underwriter is obligated to accept delivery of the bonds. These conditions include such requirements as certification of the Redevelopment Agency and the Trustee, opinions of various legal councils, receipt of a allocation from the Mortgage Bond Allocation Committee and general conditions governing the operation and administration of the bond. The purpose of providing material to the Agency in a draft form is to allow for adequate time for the Agency to review and offer any questions or comments prior to time of contract execution. TJB /kep &' ➢ [H6M Doc. 00880 - 2/23/831 Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ..MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAR 11983 $35,675,000 1 1 PM f 1S19110111tR11121314H616 RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE REVENGE BONDS A 1983 SERIES A PURCHASE CONTRACT 1983 Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Rancho Cucamonga, California Ladies and Gentlemen: Stone S Youngberg, acting not as a fiduciary or agent for you, but on behalf of itself offers to enter into this Purchase Contract with the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency "), subject to acceptance at or prior to 11:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight time, on the date hereof. 1. Introductory. The Agency is authorized to issue $35,675,000 principal amount of its Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, 1983 Series A, dated March 1, 1983 (the "Bonds "), pursuant to Chapter 8, Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the "Act "). The Bonds will be secured under a Trust Indenture dated as of March 1, 1983 (the "Indenture "), pursuant to which Security Pacific National Bank, Los Angeles, California, will act as trustee (the "Trustee "). The Bonds will mature on the dates and in the amounts and will bear interest at the rates shown on Schedule I hereto. 2. Purchase, Sale and Delivery of Bonds. On the basis of the representations, warranties and agreements contained herein, but subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth, we hereby agree, to purchase from .the Agency, and the Agency hereby agrees to sell to us, the Bonds at a purchase price of $ plus accrued interest thereon to the Closing Date. The Agency will deliver the Bonds to us for the account in definitive form against payment of the purchase price therefor by check or checks payable in Los Angeles clearinghouse funds at the office of Security Pacific National Bank, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California, at a.m., Pacific Daylight time, on March , 1983, or at such other time not later than seven business days thereafter as we shall determine and advise the Agency (such time being hereinafter referred to as the "Closing Date "). The Bonds so to be delivered will be delivered in definitive fully registered form, with CUSIP numbers imprinted thereon, in such denominations as we request and will be made available for checking and packaging at least 24 hours prior to the Closing Date. The Agency hereby acknowledges receipt of a check payable to its order in the amount of $ . The Agency agrees to hold r said check uncashed until the Closing Date as security for the performance by,us of .our obligations' 'to'. - accept and pay for the Bonds, and, on our compliance with such obligations; to' return said check to us *'' If the Agency W does not accept this ef£er, (ii)' shall fail to deliver the Bonds at the Closing Date or (iii) shall be unable at.or prior to the Closing Date to satisfy the conditions to our &ligation hereunder, said check shall be immediately returned to us, If we fail to accept and pay for the Bonds upon tender thereof by the Agency as herein provided, the amount said check shall constitute full liquidated damages for such failure and for any and all defaults hereunder on our part, and such amount shall constitute a full release and discharge of all claims and damages for such failure and for any and all such defaults. 3. Program Participant Documents. Prior to or simultaneously with the execution of this Purchase Contract, or Prior to the Closing Date, we shall have received the following: (a) Commitment Contracts (the "Commitment Contracts ") in form and substance satisfactory to us executed by the Agency and by each of the developers (the "Developers ") described in the Official Statement of the Agency relating to the Bonds (the "Official Statement "); and (b) Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements (the "Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements ") in form and substance satisfactory to us executed by the Lenders (the "Lenders ") described in the Official Statement. (c) Servicing Agreements (the "Servicing Agreements ") in form and substance satisfactory to us executed by the Lenders (the "Lenders ") described in the Official Statement. 4. Agenev Documents. At the time of the Agency's acceptance hereof, or at such other time prior to the Closing Date as shall be agreeable to the Underwriter, the Agency shall deliver to the Underwriter: (a) The Official Statement, duly executed on behalf of the Agency by its Chairman." (b) The Indenture, duly executed by the Agency and the Trustee. The Agency agrees to provide us with a reasonable number of additional copies of the foregoing as we shall request and the Agency authorizes the use thereof in connection with the offer, sale, and distribution of the Bonds. The Agency confirms that the Agency has heretofore made available to us copies of a preliminary official statement dated February _, 1983, of the Agency relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement ") and has authorized the use thereof in connection with the offer of the Bonds. 5. Representations and Warranties. The Agency represents and warrants to us that: (a) The Agency is a political subdivision of the State of California (the "State ") organized and existing under the laws of the State and has full legal right, power and authority (i) to enter into this Purchase Contract, (ii) to issue, sell and deliver the Bonds as provided herein, (iii) to Purchase Mortgage Loans (as defined in the Indenture) and pledge them to secure the Bonds and (iv) to carry out the transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract, the Indenture, the Official Statement, the residential mortgage financing program described in the Official Statement (the 'Trogram "), the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage ' Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements, as they may be amended or supplemented from time to time by the Agency. (b) The information in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement (including the statistical and other financial data included therein) relating to the Agency and the Program, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (c) The Agency has no reason to believe that any of the information in the Preliminary Official Statement contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. The Agency believes that all required building permits and zoning required for the construction of the residential developments described in the Official Statement have been issued or will be issued within the time required therefor. (d) By official action of the Agency prior to or concurrently with the acceptance hereof, the Agency has duly authorized and approved the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, has duly authorized and approved the execution and delivery of, and the performance by the Agency of the obligations on its part contained in, the Indenture, the Bonds, this Purchase Contract, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements, and has duly authorized and approved the consummation of all other transactions contemplated by this Purchase Contract. (e) The Agency is not in breach of or default under any applicable law or administrative regulation of the State or the United States or any applicable judgment or decree or any loan agreement, note, resolution, agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or is otherwise subject; and the execution and delivery of the Bonds, the Indenture, this Purchase Contract, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements, and compliance with the Provisions of each thereof, will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or default under any law, administrative regulation, judgment, decree, loan agreement, note, resolution, agreement or other instrument to which the Agency is a party or is otherwise subject. (f) All approvals, consents and orders of any governmental authority, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction which would constitute a condition precedent to the performance by the Agency of its obligations hereunder and under the Indenture, the Bonds, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements have been obtained, (g) There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, public board or body, pending or, to the knowledge of the Agency, threatened against the Agency affecting the corporate existence of the Agency or the titles of its officials to their respective offices or the pledge or revenues or assets of the Agency pledged or to be pledged to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or in any way contesting or affecting t1he validity r or enforceability of the Program, the Bonds, the Indenture, this Purchase Contract, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements - or the Servicing Agreements or contesting in any way the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement, or contesting the powers of the Agency or any authority for the issuance of the Bonds, or the execution and delivery of this Purchase Contract, the Commitment Contracts, the Indenture, the Mortgage loan Purchase Agreements or the Servicing Agreements or, to the knowledge of the Agency, seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the residential developments described in the Official Statement or the sale, issuance or delivery of the Bonds, nor, to the knowledge of the Agency, is there any basis therefor, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would materially adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Program, the Bonds, the Indenture, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements, the Servicing Agreements or this Purchase Contract. (hl The issuance and sale of the Bonds is not subject to any transfer or other documentary stamp taxes of the State or any political subdivision thereof. (i) The Bonds, the Indenture, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements conform to the descriptions thereof contained in the Official Statement, and the Bonds, when issued, authenticated and delivered in accordance with the Indenture and sold as provided herein, will be validly issued and outstanding limited obligations of the Agency entitled to the benefits of the Indenture. (j) The Agency has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that the Agency is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Any certificate signed by an authorized officer of the Agency and delivered to us shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the Agency to us as to the statements made therein. 6. Covenants. The Agency covenants with us that: (a) If between the date of this Purchase Contract and the date 90 days following the Closing Date an event occurs affecting the Agency or the Program which would cause the Official Statement or the Preliminary Official Statement to contain an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Agency shall notify us and, if in the opinion of the Agency or in our opinion such event requires an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement or the Preliminary Official Statement, the Agency will, at its expense, amend or supplement the Official Statement in a form and in a manner jointly approved by the Agency and us; provided, however, if such event shall occur at or prior to the Closing Date, we in our sole discretion shall have the right to terminate our obligations hereunder by written notice to the Agency, and we shall be under no obligation to -- purchase and pay for the Bonds. (b) The Agency will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with us as we may reasonably request to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as us may designate; provided, however, the Agency shall not be required to register as a dealer or broker in any such state or jurisdiction. (c) The Agency will not, without our prior written consent, issue any bonds, notes or other obligations for borrowed money in connection with the Residences described in the Official Statement if the interest rate on mortgage loans to be acquired with the proceeds thereof would be less than the interest rate on the Mortgage Loans. 7. Conditions to Our Obligation. Our obligation to purchase and pay for the Bonds will be subject to the accuracy of the representations and warranties of the Agency herein, to the accuracy of the representations and warranties made by the Developers and the Lenders pursuant hereto, to the accuracy of statements to be made on behalf of the Agency, the Developers, the Lenders and the Trustee hereunder, to the performance by the Agency, the Developers, the Lenders and the Trustee of their obligations hereunder and to the following additional conditions precedent: (a) At the Closing Date, the Program, the Indenture, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements, and all official action of the Agency relating thereto shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, and the Official Statement shall not have been amended or supplemented except as may have been agreed to by us. (b) At the Closing Date, a commitment to provide private mortgage guaranty insurance for the Mortgage Loans on the terms and conditions described in the Official Statement shall have been issued by (" "), and insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the Underwriter shall have indicated their willingness to provide special hazard insurance, standard hazard insurance and earthquake insurance on the terms and conditions described in the Official Statement. (c) The Agency shall have received an approving opinion of Jones Hall Hill S White, A Professional Law Corporation, Bond Counsel, and we shall have received a letter from said firm, dated the Closing Date and addressed to us, to the effect that we may rely upon such firm's opinion as if it were addressed to us, and a supplemental opinion of Bond Counsel dated the Closing Date and addressed to us, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. (d) The Agency shall have received an opinion of Haynes 6 Miller, Special Tax Counsel, to the effect that the Bonds are not "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the Code and the regulations thereunder, and that the effective interest rate on the - Mortgage Loans within the meaning of Section 103A of the Code'and the regulations thereunder, assuming the Mortgage Loans are made In accordance • with the provisions of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements,Ithe Servicing Agreements and the Commitment Contracts, will not exceed the = yield on the Bonds, within the meaning of said Section and regulations, by ' more than 1.125% and that the present value of expected payments of principal of and interest on the Mortgage Loans at 1004 FHA California prepayment experience is not less than the amount stated in said opinion using a discount rate equal to the yield on the Bonds plus 1 percentage point. (e) We shall have received opinions, dated the Closing Date and addressed to us, of: (i) counsel to each Developer in substantially the form attached to the Commitment Contracts; and (ii) counsel to each Lender in substantially the form attached to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements. (f) We shall have received a certificate, dated the Closing Date and signed by an authorized officer of the Trustee, to the effect that: (i) he is an authorized officer of the Trustee; (ii) the duties and obligations of the Trustee under the Indenture have been duly accepted by the Trustee; (iii) the Trustee has all necessary corporate and trust powers required to carry out the trust intended under the Indenture; and (iv) to the best of his knowledge, the acceptance by the Trustee of the duties and obligations of the Trustee under the Indenture and compliance with the provisions thereof will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or default under any law, administrative regulation, consent decree or any agreement or other instrument to which the Trustee is subject. (g) We shall have received a certificate, dated the Closing Date and signed by the Chairman of the Agency, to the effect that: (1) except as disclosed in the Official Statement, no litigation or other proceedings are pending or, to his knowledge, threatened in any court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal, in any way (A) restraining or enjoining the issuance, sale or delivery of the Bonds, (B) questioning or affecting the validity of this Purchase Contract, the Bonds, the Indenture, the pledge to the Bondholders of any moneys or other security provided under the Indenture, the Program, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements, the Servicing Agreements or any other transaction referred to in the Official Statement, (C) questioning or affecting the validity of any of the proceedings for the authorization, sale, execution, issuance or delivery of the Bonds, (D) questioning or affecting the organization or existence of the Agency or the title to office of the officers thereof or (E) questioning or affecting the power and authority of the Agency to issue the Bonds, to adopt the Program, or to execute this Purchase Contract, the Indenture, the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements; (ii) to his best knowledge and belief, the Official Statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statemepts contained therein, in light of the circumstances under which they Jere made, not misleading; and (iii) the Agency has complied with all the agreements and satisfied all the conditions on its part to be performed or satisfied at or prior to the Closing and the representations and warranties of the Agency contained herein are true, complete and correct as of the Closing Date. (h) We shall have received written evidence that Standard 6 Poor's Corporation has issued a rating of " , or better, on the Bonds and the documents delivered at the Closing Date shall satisfy the conditions to the continuance of such rating. (i) We shall have received on or prior to the Closing Date letters, dated the Closing Date, from each of the Developers and the Lenders in substantially the forms provided therefor in the Commitment Contracts and Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements, respectively. (j) The Underwriter shall have received an opinion of Haynes S Miller, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Purchaser, as to such matters the Underwriter shall reasonably request. In rendering such opinion, Haynes 6 Miller may rely as to all matters of California law upon the opinions of Bond Counsel. (k) We shall have received a letter, dated the Closing Date and addressed to us, from Empire Economics confirming that it is an independent firm specializing in preparation of housing demand studies with respect to real estate development of the types described in the Official Statement and other related matters and stating that, on the basis of specified procedures, nothing has come to its attention which would cause it to believe that any amendment of or supplement to its report referred to in the Official Statement (or the summary thereof appearing as an appendix to the Official Statement) is required in order for said report or summary not to contain any untrue statement of a material fact nor to omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in any material respect. (1) At the Closing Date, we shall have received an opinion of counsel to , dated the Closing Date and addressed to us, covering such matters as we may reasonably request with respect to the private mortgage insurance. All the opinions, letters, certificates, instruments and other documents mentioned above or elsewhere in this Purchase Contract shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions hereof if, but only if, they are in form and substance satisfactory to us. 8. Termination. We may terminate their obligations hereunder by written notice to the Agency if, at any time subsequent to the date hereof and on or prior to the Closing Date; (a) (i) Legislation shall have been enacted by the Congress, or recommended to the Congress for passage by the President of the United States or the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Internal ?Revenue . 4 Service or any member of the United States Congress, or favorably reported =for passage to either House of the Congress by any Committee of such House -to which such legislation has been referred for consideration, or (ii) a decision shall have been rendered by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, or the United States Tax Court, or (iii) an order, ruling, regulation or communication (including a press release) shall have been issued by the Treasury Department of the United States or the Internal Revenue Service, in each case referred to in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), with the purpose or effect, directly or indirectly, of imposing Federal income taxation upon interest to be received by any holders of the Bonds. (b) Legislation shall have been enacted or any action taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission which, in the opinion of our counsel, has the effect of requiring the offer or sale of the Bonds to be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Indenture to be qualified as an indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 or any event shall have occurred which, in their judgment, makes untrue or incorrect in any material respect any statement or information contained in the Official Statement or which, in their judgment, should be reflected therein in order to make the statements contained therein not misleading in any material respect. (c) li) In our reasonable judgment, the market price of the Bonds is adversely affected because: (a) additional material restrictions not in force as of the effective date hereof shall have been imposed upon trading in securities generally by any governmental authority or by any national securities exchange; (b) the New York Stock Exchange or other national securities exchange, or any governmental authority, shall impose, as to the Bonds or similar obligations, any material restrictions not now in force, or increase materially those now in force, with respect to the extension of credit by, or the charge to the net capital requirements of, underwriters; (c) a general banking moratorium shall have been established by Federal, New York or California authorities; or (d) a war involving the United States of America shall have been declared, or any other national or international calamity shall have occurred, or any conflict involving the armed forces of the United States of America shall have escalated to such a magnitude as to materially affect our ability to market the Bonds; (ii) there shall have occurred any change, or any development involving a prospective change in, or affecting the mortgage market in the general area of the Agency which, in our reasonable judgment, materially impairs the investment quality of the Bonds or our ability to market the Bonds; or (iii) any litigation shall be instituted, pending or threatened to restrain or enjoin the issuance or sale of the Bonds or in any way contesting or affecting any authority for or the validity of the Bonds, or the existence or powers of the Agency. 9. Expenses. (a) Whether or not a Closing shall take place hereunder, we shall be under no obligation to pay, and the Agency shall pay or cause to be paid out of Bond proceeds or otherwise, any expenses incident to the performance of the Agency's obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to, the cost of printing the Bonds, the Preliminary Official Statement, the _ Official Statement, this Purchase Contract, the Blue Sky Memorandum and the Memorandum as to Legality for Investment and furnishing copies thereof to the Purchaser, the fees and expenses, if any, of Bond Counsel, the fees and _ expenses, if any, of Special Tax Counsel, the fees and expenses, if any, of Empire Economics in connection with its housing market study, the fees and expenses, if any, of the Trustee, the fees and expenses, if any, of Standard & Poor's Corporation relating to rating the Bonds, fees and expenses for computer and cash flow calculations and the fees and expenses, if any, of any other counsel, consultants, accountants or other experts retained by the Agency in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds. The estimated expenses of the Agency incident to the performance of the Agency's obligations hereunder are set forth on Schedule III hereto. (b) The Developers and the Lenders shall pay their own expenses, including the fees and expenses of their counsel. (c) We shall pay our own expenses, including all advertising expenses incurred in connection with the public offering of the Bonds. 10. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Agency under this Purchase Contract may be given by delivering the same in writing to the Agency at its address set forth above, and any notice or other communication to be given to the Purchaser under this Purchase Contract may be given by delivering the same in writing to Stone & Youngberg, One California Street, San Francisco, California 94111. 11. Successors. This Purchase Contract is made solely for the benefit of the Agency and us (including successors or assigns) and no other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. The representations, warranties, and agreements contained herein shall remain operative and in full force and effect and shall survive delivery of and payment for the Bonds hereunder, regardless of any investigation made by us or on our behalf. 12. Governing Law. This Purchase Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 13. Effectiveness. This Purchase Contract shall become effective upon the execution of the acceptance hereof by the Agency. Very truly yours, STONE & YOUNGBERG Accepted by resolution adopted at Rancho Cucamonga, California, on , 1983. RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY N 1911 MATURITIES, PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS AND INTEREST RATES Maturity Principal Interest s Date Amunt Rate 10 SCHEDULE II ESTIMATED ISSUANCE EXPENSES OF AGENCY Purpose Amount i Bored Counsel - Jones Hall Hill S White $ Standard 6 Poor's Corporation Rating Fees Initial Trustee Fee - Security Pacific National Hank Bond printing - Official Statement Printing and Mailing - Feasihility Consultant - Empire Economics First Year Special Hazard Insurance Premium - Special Tax Counsel - Haynes 6 Miller Verif ; -ation - Total 7' 11 EXHIBIT A Letterhead of BOND COUNSEL = (Closing Date) ! Stone S Youngberg One California Street San Francisco, California. 94111 $35,675,000 Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1983 Series A Dear Sirs: On the date hereof we rendered to the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") an opinion approving the validity of $35,675,000 principal amount of the above mentioned Bonds (the "Bonds "), issued pursuant to Chapter 8, Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act "), and a Trust Indenture dated as of March 1, 1983 (the "Indenture "), between the Agency and Security Pacific National Bank, as Trustee. You are authorized to rely upon said opinion as if addressed to you. In that connection, we have examined (to be completed) Based on the foregoing, in our opinion: (i) The Agency is a political subdivision of the State of California established and existing under the laws of said State. (ii) The Agency has full legal right, power and authority to execute and deliver the Indenture, to authorize and issue the Bonds and to carry out the transactions contemplated by the Indenture and the Bonds; the Indenture has been duly executed and delivered by the Agency, is in full force and effect and constitutes the valid, legal and binding agreement of the Agency enforceable in accordance with its terns. (iii) The Agency has duly performed all obligations to be performed by it pursuant to the Indenture on or prior to the date hereof. (iv) The Bonds are not subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Indenture is exempt from qualification pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended. (v) The statements contained in the Official Statement under the captions "INTRODUCTION ", "THE BONDS ", "SECURITY FOR THE BONDS AND FLOW OF FUNDS ", "RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FINANCING PROGRAM ", "THE INDENTURE" and "LEGALITY AND TAX EXEMPTION" insofar as such statements purport to summarize, the Indenture, the Bonds, the Agency's mortgage financing 12 A -2 program and the documents described therein, and exemption from Federal income taxes of interest on the Bonds, present a fair and accurate statement with respect to the information contained therein. i _ (vi) The Agency has the power and the authority to purchase the Mortgage Loans on the terms and conditions contemplated by the Official _ Statement and the Indenture, and the making of Mortgage Loans by the Lenders and the purchase thereof by the Agency will not violate any interest rate limitations now contained in the Constitution of the State of California or any law or regulation of such state applicable thereto; provided, however, that no opinion is expressed with respect thereto at any time when the sum of (a) the "discount rate" charged by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to member banks (or as such rate is established by other applicable counterpart or designee) and (b) 5% shall be less than the effective interest rate on Mortgage Loans. (vii) The Agency has duly authorized and approved the Commitment Contracts, the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreements and the Servicing Agreements, and such agreements constitute valid, legal and binding agreements of the Agency. Based on our participation in the preparation of the Official Statement as Bond Counsel and without having undertaken to determine independently the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the statements contained in the Official Statement, we have no reason to believe that the Official Statement, as of its date, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (except for the statistical and other financial data included therein, as to which we express no view). Very truly yours, 13 0044H JHHW:ACH:ea 02/25/83 t FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROGRAM DEPOSIT AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Program Deposit Agreement (the "First Amendment ") entered into this day of February, 1983, by and between the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and Lewis Homes of California (the "Developer ") W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California has, pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 33750) of Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, authorized redevelopment agencies to purchase long -term, low - interest rate loans to finance new residential construction in redevelopment project areas in order to encourage investment within and to upgrade such areas and has authorized such agencies to issue revenue bonds to finance the purchase of such loans; WHEREAS, the Agency proposes to undertake a Mortgage Loan Financing Program (the "Program ") to purchase loans (the "Mortgage Loans ") made to finance new single - family owner-occupied residential units (the "Residences ") to he constructed within its Rancho Redevelopment Project Area ") and to issue Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance the purchase of the Mortgage Loans; WHEREAS, the Developer is in the process of subdividing land within the Project Area and intends to construct and market new single - family residential units thereon and desires to reserve a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to provide funds to purchase Mortgage Loans made with respect thereto; WHEREAS, in implementation of the Program and and issuance of the Bonds, the Agency and the Developer on December , 1982, entered into a Program Deposit Agreement providing, among other things, for the deposit of moneys by the Developer with the Agency for purposes of obtaining an allocation for a portion of the Bonds, the proceeds thereof to be reserved to purchase Mortgage Loans made with respect to Residences to be constructed by the Developer; WHEREAS, the Developer also desires to be able to reserve a portion of the proceeds of mortgage revenue bonds to be issued by the County of San Bernardino, a portion of the proceeds of which will be available to fund Mortgage Loans made in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to cooperate with the County of San Bernardino in authorizing the funding of home mortgages made within the City in a manner, however, which will not adversely affect the Program of the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the Developer desire to amend the Program Deposit Agreement to provide for participation of the Developer in the program of the County in a manner which will not adversely affect the Program of the Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PREMISES HEREIN SET FORTH, AND FOR OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY AGREED, as follows: I . The following paragraph 12 is added to the Program Deposit Agreement to read as follows: "12. The Agency shall request the City of Rancho Cucamonga to enter into an agreement to cooperate with the County of San Bernardino to provide funding of home mortgages made with respect to homes to be constructed by the developers within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, subject to the following conditions: _ (a) The Reservation of the Developer shall be in an amount of not less than $ (b) The number of Residences in the purchase price range of 875,000 to $95,000 to be financed with the proceeds of the Agency Bonds plus the number of homes in such price range to be finances with the County of San Bernardino mortgage revenue bonds shall together not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the estimated market absorption for the City of Rancho Cucamonga of single - family homes in such purchase price range for the three (3) year period commencing with the date of delivery of the Agency's Bonds, such market absorption to be determined conclusively by Joseph T. Janczyk, Empire Economics, as set forth in Mr. Janczyk's Market Analysis Study, dated January, 1983, prepared for the Agency's Program; (c) In the event that the allocation for issuance of the Bonds granted by the State Mortgage Bond Allocation Committee on February 17, 1983, shall expire without the Agency's Bonds having been sold, then the limitation upon the Developer contained in this paragraph 12 shall have no further force and effect; and 2. Except as herein specifically provided to the contrary, all of the provisions of the Program Deposit Agreement by and between the Agency and the Developer shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their representatives thereunto duly authorized the day and date first above written. RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By By RESOLUTION NO. 83 -27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AND REQUESTING GOVERNOR TO (1) PROCLAIM A STATE OF EMERGENCY; AND (2) REQUEST A PRESIDENTIAL DECLARATION. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 104 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga empowers the Director of Emergency Services to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when said city is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been requested by the Director of Emergency Services of said city to proclaim the existence of a local emergency therein; and WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within said city, caused by storm and flood commencing on or about 8:00 -a.m. on the 27th day of February, 1983; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED that a local emergency now exists throughtout said city; and IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of the city shall be those prescribed by state law and by local emergency operation ordinance and resolutions of this city approved by the City Council on May 27, 1980. WHEREAS, it has now been found that local resources are unable to cope with the effects of said emergency; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that a copy of this resolution be forewarded to the Governor of California with the request that he proclaim the City of Rancho Cucamonga to be in a state of emergency; and further that the Governor request a Presidential major disaster declaration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the State Director of the Office of Emergency Services. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that Lloyd Hubbs, city engineer, is designated as the local Hazard Mitigation Coordinator of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of assessing damage within said city and consulting with Federal /State survey teams about hazard mitigation actions; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that Jack Lam, Community Development Director, is hereby designated as the authorized Hazard Mitigation Planner, and Lauren M. Wasserman, city manager, is hereby designated as the authorized representative for individual assistance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for Resolution No. 83 -27 Page 2 the purpose of receipt, processing, and coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available state and federal assistance. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk A Jon D. Mikels, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 83 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES FOR REPAIRS OF PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS, INCLUDING RIGHT OF WAYS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 37906 WHEREAS, severe storms and flooding commencing on or about February 27, 1983 have caused extensive damage to public roads and streets, including right -of -ways, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, such storms may continue and may cause further damage within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has declared that a local emergency now exists within the City from said storms and flooding; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: 1. The public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money for the repair and /or replacement of public roads and streets including right -of -ways in the City damaged by storms and floods since February 27, 1983 in order to safeguard life, health, and property. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of March 1983 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk