Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1983/05/18 - Agenda Packet
C�Cn.NOHC` a CITY OF RANCHO C ".NI NCu1 o � CITY C iNU !] NEA J > 1977 Lions Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California May 18, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. All items submitted for the City Council Agenda mast be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. B. Roll Call: Buquet ,, Dahl_, Frost_ . Schlosser ., and Mikels ^. C. Approval of Minutes: 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Presentation of Proclamation for Spring Clean Sweep Week, May 14-21. b. Presentation of Spring Clean Sweep Poster Contest Place Winners. c. Thursday, May 19, 7:00 p.m. - PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE - Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. d. Thursday, May 26, 7:00 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. �• Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83 -05 -18 and Payroll 1 ending 5 -01 -83 in the amount of .$353,010.51. 46 City Council Agenda -2- May 18, 1983 b. Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Warrants for April 3 1983 in the amount of $235,506.63. c. Approval of Assessment District 82 -2 Warrants for April 4 1983 in the amount of $15,237.50. d. Forward Claim against the City by Hughes Development 5 Corporation to the City Attorney and Carl Warren Co. for handling. e. Request approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract 9 Change Order No. 4 relating to the deletion of curb and gutter and a catch basin near Station 76 +75.13, Sixth Street. f. R @quest approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract 11 Change Order No. 7 relating to the necessary relocation of d, 6" water main and a 12" water main, both belonging to the City of Ontario, located in Milliken Avenue, north of Fourth Street. • g. Request approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract 18 Change order No. 8 relating to a deviation in storm drain pipe alignment for the storm drain west of the west end of Trademark Street connecting to the Deer Creek Channel. h. Approval of reimburseme t agreement with Lewis 11omes and portion of 21 Rob t and Karen Pac)6er for the fdir share Hellman Avenue and Foothill Boulevard reconstruc6ion and widening project. b RESOLUTION NO. 83 -56 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUGAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AVENUE. i. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for 32 Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 5760 submitted by 0`Donnel, Brigham & Partners located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue. i mnw � City Council Agenda -3- May 18, 1983 F- I L RESOLUTION NO. 83-57 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL 7 OF PARCEL MAP 5760. j. Acceptance of Agreement, Security, and Final Map for 41 Tract 12090 submitted by USA Properties Fund, Ltd. located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -58 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL TRACT MAP 12090. . k. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement 54 Security for Director Review 80 -04 submitted by George Robins and Berry Construction, Inc. located on Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -59 56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 80 -04. 1. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for CUP 60 82 -24 submitted by McIntyre Partners located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -60 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 82 -24. m, Acceptance of Final Maps for Tract Nos. 12021 and 12022 67 for Marlborough Development located east of Archibald Avenue, south of Church Street and west of Ramona Avenue. C� City Council Agenda -4- May 18, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -61 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NUMBERS 12021 AND 12022. n. Approval of Change Order to design contract for Hellman 70 Avenue restoration project to increase design scope of work and budget to include plans for widening west side of Hellman Avenue from Church Street to Southern Pacific tracks. o. Approval of Contract Revision for changes in work scope 73 for the Beryl - Hellman Storm Drain design to include additional foundation investigations and revised topography required to reflect recent storm erosion. Contract with Bill Mann 6 Associates. p. Authorization to advertise for bids on construction of a traffic signal at Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street. A • federal aid project with 100% funding of the estimated $92,000. Authorization is contingent upon receipt of authorization from CalTrans. q. Request authorization to establish a Disaster Repair 80 Account under the Systems Development Fund. Ip order to fund necessary disaster work, an account with sufficient funding must be established. r. Request authorization for the Engineering Division to 81 seek bids for the annual contracts for Parkway Landscape and Irrigation; City -wide Street Tree Maintenance; and Street Sweeping. s. Approval of Parcel Map 5795, bonds, and agreement - 82 Granger, located on the south side of Wilson at Mayberry Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -62 84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 5705, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. 31 t. Approval to destroy certain records in the City Clerk's 89 Office. City Council Agenda -5- May 18, 1983 9 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -63 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090. u. Adoption of Resolution authorizing purchase of CDMWD property for Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood expansion project. Item approved at the May 4, 1983 city council meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -64 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SALINA STREET AND MALVERN AVENUE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA • v. Set Public Hearing date of June 15, 1983 for annexation 98 No. 13 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract No. 11734. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -65 100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACT 11734). RESOLUTION NO. 83 -66 104 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. 13 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. 11 City Council Agenda -6- May 18, 1983 91 w. Set Public Hearing date of June 15, 1983 for Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. RESOLUTION N0. 83 -67 107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. RESOLUTION 110. 83 -68 111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983 -84; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1982; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO. • 4. PUBLIC HEAP,T_9G5 A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF 7TH STREET. Located on the 156 south side of 7th Street, east side of Center Avenue. IItem originally set for public hearing on March 16. Request that the Vacation be continued to June 15, 1983. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 158 R3 -03. An amendment to the residential use standards to allow for second dwelling units on single family zoned residential lots. Approval is recommended and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. ORDINANCE NO. 204 (first reading) 189 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.024 A(b) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES. C. EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES TO MEET NATIONAL NEEDS (FEDERAL 191 D JOBS BILL PROJECTS). In order for the City to receive funding under the Community Development Block Grant /Jobs Bill, the Federal Department of Housing and Community Development requires that the City publish, distribute, and hold a public hearing on its intended projects. City Council Agenda -7- May 18, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -69 M2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HELLMAN AVENUE WITH FUNDS RESERVED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 98 -8 (EMERGENCY JOBS APPROPRIATIONS BILL) TO BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 5. NONADVERTISED ORDINANCES FOR CONSIDERATION None submitted. 6. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS • A. KEEPING OF ANIMALS IN EQUESTRIAN /RURAL AREAS. The 204 establishment of a City Council policy that subdivision CC &R's shall not prohibit the keeping of animals in the equestrian /rural areas. Staff report by Rick Gomez, City Planner. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -70 209 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WITHIN EQUESTRIAN /RURAL AREAS OF THE CITY. B. RECO141END APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED JOINT USE OF ARROW PARK 209 RI CITY AND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. It is recommended that the City Council approve a proposed relocation of a north -south street to serve both the City park and the new elementary school. It is further recommended that the funds for the construction of the street required for park access be financed from park development fees. Staff report by Lauren 'Wasserman, City Manager, C. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 214 SAEDCOM COUNTY -WIDE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman. �1 i City Council Agenda -8- May 18, 1983 r1 D. PROPOSED COUNTY SOLID WASTE REFUSE RATE ADJUSTMENT. 220 Staff report by Robert Rizzo, Administrative Analyst. None submitted. 7. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO FILL A VACANCY TO THE 224 PARES ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE 91739 AREA. 9. ADJOUNWENT Meeting to adjourn to Monday, May 23, 6:15 p.m. for public hearing on Ordinance No. 200 -A, extending moratorium on adult businesses. 40 Pa67 CITY Cr It 4'41/1 Glf d +'1',ff N.IPPAht 0.F,fII04C ATIfH 5/18/93 PAGE I MARK A vFI. A V F N O C R N A M F IT IF ryryIL LL1 DISCOUNT NET pA PC�ERFNCE �� 9 T {{ ^5 1%V NFN TI nFVI{P'VAT 5%�) /1`l pp 3 :407.90 of DER 4/ ?7 /1`1 3.SP ".lE .ry tT4 If Cf'•nt UilrIP'1 ron 4 /17/A1 5,090.)7 Inn 9 1PL30 1 ^On 4550 INC SC MA ISFR FO11'.OATICN MEAIT f / ?I /ol 4r 121.39 1 1611 POR FMP1 RETaPFM[•IT SYS 4/21313 10, 046.23 1061, 71Pi SAN POND To FCfPOER 4/29/93 1.00 10613 .410 'lnn SAN NCRN1Vn1•In CC 4/)9/13 7.00 2 ?5.00 lnF14 310 F41H'yI HA9PY J /O? /Pi 66.00 Ln615 10610 Al25 P11- It 4GUF OF CALIF fITIFS IM1IF A-fNT^ f ' '.V'W intl L 5 /O1 /Al 111.3/91 too .n0 S.00 IC117 1130 041PY VVIN PC ^IICI 5/04/93 2, 104 AC 10619 4650 '3305 t'NnAIF FlnF'R4l AVING -NT 5/04/93 561.66 I 0639 F'DLCY.c P.T OFVL OEP CF 5/04/11 /04/83 9,109.33 1n640 I'90 RVIM AMFRICA 5/M /1`3 IS0.00 10641 I011? 0110 079 4FST V4LLFY 1RSH]LL CITY F RANCH' CIICeoCNG 5/04393 �k 1143 Pn44 PASCI'r CUC - +O'C5 + IOY 5/114 "'t 3L00 51.00 11644 1` 45 14" 9-;9 SAV P011 CC PR,PATICN .�ST FAP N:ITFO MAY 9/04/R3 U: go 10646 11.47 713 x410 \ :NP.IJNO I fnC ERA fR II /04/91 y5/04/81 5 /04/81 4:873.50 0641 2 ^.11 CALIF GA'.G INVESTIGATOR 1/04/93 110.00 ' 1149 0799 TP44S YFST OISCOHNT FOR 5 /n6 /1`3 40.45 1^149 Vntn Gpv.S 1EICN9INT 5/11/93 lel4n V °tn [nR PS At IC- -lT 5/1111`3 l41 °0 V ^In Fr'RNS 5 /19 /Pl IPl5l V111 FnPUS Atl "'MrhT 5/18 /1`l 25.56 111 51 09 ^L S 4 E0ofPwrHr !tF'ITAIS 5/18/83 40.00 19153 OW? A -AABLF IOCR C FEY 5/19/93 5119/83 19n.00 1PISA IRISS OOt 14 4 -I IINFN VCFF 1155 AGOURAT CRAM9FR COMMR 5 1111 336.CC MIT n,4? At TA ICMA FLORIST 5/18/93 23.85 199. t1 19149 1300 41SFlll'c 4VP WAPF 5/I 9/83 5 ?_45 t 31`9 1310 GP 'NI`I 31 °e S`VICF /10 /nl L45.69 ' 19160 1360 BkLL A HUMFLL MOIR3 92 5/19/ 62.40 19161 1e1N IR15 1915 BUSINESS RESEARCH CAnnYLAK SYSTFMS INC 5/10/93 19.90 -I4161 ?041 CAI TFnPN14 JOURNAL 9/15/03 72.00 01.00 19104 ?091 CAMP9FLL LCniS �ITIFS /IB /Rl 5/191P1 229.25.061 13161 ?1,14 rFNTRAL STGH SER °FO -FPr_F 5/19 /1`1 (,11 I.". ' !9 '+034 rH 4rr [IF rCN CHCISTOnwfq /I1` /1`3 T6.OS 111'7 CHFVr MAPM =FM1TAI . 5119/83 A.00 lel/R 0115 CIFY r0 5/19/Pl 90.34 19[09 R0 a Ck... NC.4T RU1c PRINT 5/18/83 106.39 1911;1 2111 2331 COCA C .7L4 POTTLINC CrC4 CCLA POT71 ING CO 5/lA3Pl 33.00 I, M71 7? 1151 CnLL14S Un'lnt cTIRY S/I9/91 IP5.50 IP113 Vnt9 VFN ^nR 4l. ^°TS 5/19 /1`3 890.14 19114 7Si5 CUr4MC 4..1 f.' '.:STD• CiST 5/1R/P3 114.49 1^175 145 CUCAMONGA P414T1N1. 5/19/133 5 /I9 /1`l 675.00 IBI76 2641 CARL, MALGFN S1IR/83 790.15 ' 101 TT 2650 DAILY REPORT 5/19/83 45.05 10 7A 2655 GALION 9nnKSFLLFR, 8 5/10/81 .0.00 LRI79 2695 GERI OF FORESTRY S /l9 /Al 219. n f, IR160 2710 DESERT PACIFIC CHAPTER 5/!0 /93 20.45 ' 18191 1819, ?-I5 7967 DYNAMICS CP4PHICS lNC HANKS CARRY, $.RYILE 5/S S /R3 R.411 19L83 ?964 PAINS -. GF•S 5/19/53 30.43 AIA4 2969 SPFF -D LUNCH INC CATRS 5/18183 9.00 - RIBS ?970 SAMYFP MFAT HARVEY 5/18/93 /IP /R3 ?3.9R 16.50 1RIR6 2931 FYI TE45 PI U} 5 /IA /93 34.27 1916] 1 RI Ra 2914 2475 NA TURFS DESIGN L A 1R ACE C^. 5/16/83 17.99 I1`IP9 llln FMPFY. HAPPY J 5119193 200.00 19190 703 TI` EMPIPF C, 1119/93 40.On 4611 GFNIPAL TFIFPH04E CC 5 /I9 /81 67.03 200.00 'IA191 19192 441`3 GOMEZ, RICK S/11/43 /Ol 00 1115.6193 4775 GRANT. JFRRY A S /IR 5119/91 200.nO 9194 4901 HOLLFY WILLIAM L 5/19/93 536.57 18195 4915 WE[(, I PnF/ CC INC 5/lA/93 T6 4.A5 11196 4915 5 HOYT LIIMRrR Cn 5 1I8 /R3 170.00 10197 5359 INTL TIME RECORDER I .Iry - , .,ern C. 'c wa IA^ JF I5FY Is' T Isl a T tPHAL CX oa AI 71 J ^ +S A'A1l A'4" �0 IpS IP�4fON, Pr!:AI 11 ''I ..750 KAVL ANr 7FPFr1Tll nl Af +4 e11 FN IINF Cnn P�PATI'rN 11 IF -5 11 KI I4 :I vy Cn 05 66.4n f1IPn C0HSTP Ur TIrII CO 0q 6.45 IAA. JACK nT ATjS IIF9ARY rF tj"AN AFFAIP I. tga_I Hf Mgl1.',Hq VI V, PCPFPT 09 7151 IT 1519 NATIF F!CPFITIPA. INC LZ 755S CIS TMr SP97 191PLICATPRS 13 1415 nn{ W 1 0 Pt -TO LAO 'I4 TKS MFM fI Fr-TL Ir 15 ?I'S PAC II Ir CrX'OFIX CIVVIY LA la 19 011 1111 c'CV • rtlwlL C 'I7 )TO P4.TT /': `.LI'S 0 oP 19 7 11 PFPPYr LILLIA11 19 7?tl4 PIPNCrP rI I.r HLTANTS ?n I"Il OITVFV P"4rS ?I 17V5 V.9! OIST¢1I'ITINC CC 22 1909 PPFr15IJN "Inn llI IC. SYS 'O3 Zola VP(NTI'.n SF"V/PrC Prur 21 1u'1 PR11. 1. 55 1111 FT IN "5 7a00 '. :1I r CPI IF —'CULTS ?A 2016 RArK •Fl sl `11 PINC 4 !I, f:IS "'41 2P 90s0 RAYRKI 4rICAL CLINIC '"'9 -171 P.M1 PIN ^ATA (IC I^ 90,77 oAlp S TI9E .'-.IR It 8':5 R' FIf CFV- 11I�O:T, A H 32 al 15 PF SCI1F Rr °TFR 33 Nl °1 Pc11,0.1.11, JaN((.e 14 °IS't PITZ r]acPa rFNFFR 15 0,11 R -u l�.Sfv J'P!S 4 1p P� "J P/✓+P ('I L`FFa pFq N•q n SP CALIF FnISrN f1 I SP iii it GAi Un CO 'J Sn CAI IF LAV1SCAPF •C.9T SFXVICF I. VIFRAIII N[CLINIC lIIL (IATION nq TF XLIFFPfNCE FINAL TOT41S 5/19/93 OISCOUNT NET 2.4'9.01 Itn.nO r, 3.oc 474.na 414.00 1400.00 21.10 Lns.4S )45.45 77M.110 sa.Aa LT4.T1 f 9.rt 70.01 n).n1 l0<r7C4. ?1 t L�•JF R.,CHO LGLAA JI, J,1 • UiRd:'d:T P. EG ,"SSESSMENT I:TE. 015 T, JET 32 -1 ,CT IVITY i,CCWNT :: AMOYJNT 04/04/83 2,j STATIONER'S CORP. OFFICE SUPPLIES 45-23 -24 S 12.25 241 P.OHDEMAN- M,CAIN CONTRACT SERVICES 4y -23 -Z8 221,194.49 u'./04/33 242 N.S.I. CONTRACT SERVICES 49-23-28 7,8D8.80 04/05!33 1 bE PETER W. SMITS REFUNDS - VOIDED 45-23 -98 (5,771.85) 65133 243 PETER W. SMITS REFUNDS 49-23 -58 5,771.85 04/06:'33 244 G.T.E. UTILITIES 45 -23-21 33.55 04 /Go 83 245 RITZ CAMERA. PRINTING E 9b6LICATIONS 49 -23 -23 10.41 v"4/06 /S3 246 HATCH 5EOROSIAN CONTRACT SERVICES 49-23-28 1,280.CO O4; .Ji3> 2d7 W TCH 6EDRUSIAN CONTRACT SERVICES 49 -23 -23 4,256.00 .;4/27/63 243 ST. ;TIONER'S CORP. OFFICE SUPPLIES 49-23-24 55.34 " CAPITAL EQUIP. 49 -23 -44 483.7`i '4;27/83 249 WILLOAN ASSUCIAHS CONTRACT SERVCIES 45 -23 -23 372 00 TOTALS..... 5235.506.63 ctvi ....RANT rEGIS -EP n..SE SSMENr DISTRICT c2 -2 ACTIVITY .ti CGUNT `.11C PIT D:,!27/83 505 DON OWEN' & ASSOC. CONTRACT SERVICES 49 -24 -28 $ 1,710.00 0,% =7f83 50, ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS CONTRACT SERVICES 49 -24 -28 5,700.00 04/27/83 507 DONALD G. KING CONTRACT SERVICES 45'24-28 7,684.40 04 -27/83 503 ERTEL AIRBORNE SYSTEMS PRINTING & PUBLICATIONS 49 -24-23 143.10 - TOTALS..... $ 15,237.50 Li�IJA� � ADMINISTRA-TMEry AN Me S ft 7(819191111¢11 A BEFORE THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SRN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Claim of ) NO. HUGHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) (Government Code Section 910) Claimant The above -named claimant hereby claims against the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation and JON P. MINELS, its Mayor, and CHARLES J. BUOUET II, PHILLIP D. SCHLOSSER, its City Council- men, the a. of $750,000.00 (which figure is an approximation of the damage suffered and is subject to modification up or down upon a more precise determination of the damage suffered), of such other sum • as may be fully compensatory for the damage suffered, and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. The name and post office address of claimant is as follows: Hughes Development Corporation 510 West Citrus Edge Glendora, California 91740 2. The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notice to be sent is: William E. Dennis, Esq. 212 Yale Avenue Claremont, California 91711 3. The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted and a general description of th, obligation incurred so far as known to claimant at the time of prssratation of this claim is as follows: A. The above -named claimant is the owner in fee of two parcels of real property (herein "the property "), 4.06 acres located at the east side of Sapphire Street and an irregular shaped parcel on the east side of Carnelian Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and southerly of the Freeway, or major transportation corridor, and is more particularly described in the Tentative Subdivision Map attached hore.to and marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by referourp. b. The property in question is surrounded on the south • boundary by a residental area, to the north exists A church and vacant land exists to the east antl west of the project site. c. Claimant is a California Corporation and has owned the property for approximately six 167 years. d. The CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (herein "THE CITY") is a municipal corporation located in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. JON D. MIRELS is the duly elected and serving Mayor of the CITY, and CHARLES J. BUOUET II, RICHARD M. DAHL, JAMES FROST and PHILLIP D. SCHLOSSER are the Councilmen of the CITY. e. On July 28, 1976, Claimant filed a Tentative Map with the CITY to develop the Sapphire property into eighteen (18) single - family residential lots, as revised from time to time is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A and incorporated herein by reference. f. On or about January 19, 1983, the City Council of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA approved the recommendation of its Planning Director, who had arbitrarily and capriciously required the preparatle of a Focused Environmental Impact Report to analyze transportation, land use and planning issues of the project at a cost estimated by the CITY to be $30,000.00. A copy of the staff report is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Said recommendation was made with the sole objective being to limit claimant's use of its land until the State purchases the highway land. Request to file focused F..I.R, was sent January 25, 1983. This namtive is not exhaustive but lists only representative acts and circumstances in the course of conduct by which claimants have been damaged. 4. The aforesaid damage and injury arose out of a series of acts or course of conduct by officials, agents and employees, all acting in their official capacity of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and of the State Of California, Department of Transportation, and the agents and employees of other agencies working in their official capacities in cooperation with the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and the State of California or both of them. At all pertinent times herein, the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and the State of California, by and through its • Department of Transportation were acting in concert with and as agents of each other. 5. This series of acts, or conduct, has caused the property to suffer a serious dimecition in value and has prevented reasonable development and use thereof, and has caused the continuing payment of taxes, operating costs, holding costs, and other expenses, all to the serious detriment of the claimant herein. The impact of the CITY and the State of California and its agents and officers, including (but not limited to) the arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory refusal to approve the Tentative Map as submitted and the request for a focused E.I.R. and without the payment of just compensation therefor, have caused a severe and continuing diminution in the value of the property, and have deprived the claimant the opportunity for reasonable development of the property consistent with legitimate expectations contrary to the 14th amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 6. The plan and scheme of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA and the State of California, its officers and agents named herein,has been to cause the benefit of the property to inure to the residents and • citizens of the CITY and of the State of California, generally, while simultaneously requiring claimant only to absorb the full impact of the concomitant burdens. They have in this manner confiscated and appropriated the property for public use and benefit, without payment of just compensation therefor. Further, they have acted in bad faith in an effort to either 11) obtain the benefit of the property without payment of compensation, or 171 obtain the property at a depressed Value. 7. With reference to the names of the officers and employees of the CITY and State of California causing the damage, claimant notes that there have been so many officers, employees and agents of the CITY and the State of California involved, that it would serve no useful purpose to at forth all the specific names. The CITY should have no difficulty in ascertaining the identities of all those involved, if such information is deemed relevant, and informing itself of the particulars of the course of conduct herein described. 0. The amount of this claim includes $600,000.00 for diminution Is and lose of value of the property, plus $150,000.00 for holding costs, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and interest at 91 per annum from January 15, 1983, -3-7 9. A claim substantially identical to this has been filed with the State of California. 10. William E. Dennis, Esq., as attorney for claimant, has been authorized to sign this claim on behalf of claimant. Date: May 4, 1981 HUGHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BY WILLIAM E. Attorney for Claimant • +� -4- V 9 • i STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Resident Engineer, AD 82 -1 w w�. ,w SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract Change Order No. 4 relating to the deletion of curb and gutter and a catch basin near Station 76 +75.13, Sixth Street Because street construction on Parcel Map No. 7797 has started adjacent to the aforementioned area and because proposed improvements for said parcel map will result in the demolition of the items specified, it is recommended that these items be deleted from the contract. If approved, this contract change order will result in a credit of $4,221.96 to the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve Contract Change Order No. 4 resulting in a credit of $4,221.96 to the project. Respec'fully submi ed, LBH: OL.jaa Attachment y� • ASSESSMEMT DISTRICT 82 -1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCNgNGA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 Sheet 1 of 1 PROJECT: Assessment District 82 -1 CONTRACT 10. A.D. 82 -1 E TO: Booadiman- McCain, Inc. , Contractor, You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the City Engineer Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price ad force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time and equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change requested by: City of Rancho Cucamonga h¢ last t �i percentage shown is the net accumu ated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Engineer's Estimate. 1. Delete Catch Basin (w =12') at STA 76+75.13, Sixth St. @ 13,300 53,300.DD 2. Delete 167.52 L.F. curb 6 18^ Gutter from STA 75 +91.37 to STA 77 +58.89 on the north side of Sixth Street @ $5.50 per L.F. _ - 921.36 TOTAL - $4,221.36 Estimated Cost: Decrease S 4,221.36 or Increase S completion will be adjusted as (alloy?: NOT ADJUSTMENT Approved: and hereby agree. If this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equ pment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all service necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Approved: Date_ Contractor > 1, li {1I By: G'. i L Title Assessment Engineer, Mayor: Date: j —3 — K3 Date:_ Attest: 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �aTo STAFF REPORT' m r ill DATE: May 18, 1983 F' Z U. > T0: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Resident Engineer, AD 82 -1 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract Change Order No. 7 relating to the necessary relocation of a six -inch water main and a twelve inch water main, both belonging to the City of Ontario,'located in Milliken Avenue, north of 4th Street Water mains belonging to the City of Ontario (but within the city limits of the City of Rancho Cucamonga) have been found to be shallower in depth than anticipated. Therefore, it is necessary to lower these mains to a sufficient depth in order to prevent potential damage. The cost of lowering these mains will be approximately $12,175.00. It has been determined by Staff that it is the responsibility of the Assessment District to have these mains lowered. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve Contract Change Order No. 7 resulting in an increase cost of approximately $12,175.00. Respectfully submitted, LB%MDL:jaa Attachment • ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 82 -1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOMGA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 7 Sheet 1 of 5 PROJECT: Assessment District 02 -1 CONTRACT NO. A.D. 82 -1 TO: RONADIMAN- MCCAIN, INC, Contractor. You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the City Council completion will be adjusted as fol l 30 and hereby agree. If this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all ser it necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Approved: Date Contractor 8onadiman- McCain, Inc. 8y: ��~ Title F,,demt It ilba mi \l. Ilpnadr man Assessment Erg l me J' Mayor: i Date: __?— _i Date: Attest: E Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time and equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change requested by: City of Rancho Cucamonga he percentage shown rs the net acc umu ate mcre ase or decrease rqn the or tgtnal quantity in the Engineer's Estimate, 1. Relocate a 12" water main and a 6" water maim at Station 5 +94 (Approxj Milliken Avenue per attached drawings and City of Ontario Standards 412 and 413 and applicable portions of the special provisions. Pipe materials shall be 10 gauge steel, cement mortar lined and wrapped Class 150. • 2. Repair street in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga City Standard 0312. Payment shall be in accordance with Section 3 -3.2. WMX Naop %NrM XMptN>p%Yd(kigN % %M Oe%tted %a6<NNk;tY4gteX9a <1SpXFOk yP.gMdx Ni4lj ��Ik M11CPX f'aN Xr %abroX `3MS %gd41WbY18:alfa.AN7L� a,8aktq Ra7:(0'd4iNAM1 <iW X%q kK lfB(MLIe% �% a/f .,r�\�(rr Estimated Cost: Decrease S or Increase S 12 175.00 {" completion will be adjusted as fol l 30 and hereby agree. If this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all ser it necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Approved: Date Contractor 8onadiman- McCain, Inc. 8y: ��~ Title F,,demt It ilba mi \l. Ilpnadr man Assessment Erg l me J' Mayor: i Date: __?— _i Date: Attest: E 111 I� I 'e CITY of ONTARIO ARID STAMDARD 1333:ti M'j' G INSTALL MIN. 30" COVER 2 GALV. 2 90° ELL,. T.R.E. 2" GALV. PIPE 6 METER BOX • EMETE r2 PLUG n LJ JONES J -372 VALVE OR APPROVED EQUAL %OOR.APPROVED ONES J-41 CORP STOP L -2 900 ELL, T.3.E. EQUAL. 1/2 CPLG., TOE. > NOTE: Q FRONT OF METER BOX TO BE LOCATED 4 BEHIND BACK OF WALK FOR SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO CURB. AND q "BACK OF CURB FOR SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO RIGHT OF WAY UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED. TYPICAL INSTALLATION MAIN IN STREET AREA STEEL PIPE O 2" GALV. PIPE 90° ELL, T.B.E. IES J-41 CORP. STOP O OR APPROVED EQUAL, — SMITH -GLAIR #311 SERVICE SADDLE OR APPROVED EQUAL- C.I. PIPE '. ci MAIN BEHIND CURB CONNECTION TO C.I. PIPE • Drawn Sy R.L.W. Date 12 -II -73 APPROVED �`liYin urr ncr- a 211 BLOW OFF �,3 ..412 3 0 C:TY of ONTARID STANDARD DRAW Nj G ;lain Line Case A Install Std. Tee in Main Line v /Flang 90° Elbow Main Line C.I. Valve Cover (Alhambra Foundry OA -29606 or 4A -29608 as Required-for Sleeve Six.) 12" Long Galvanized, Split Sleeve Black Plug (Weld 2" Operating Nut on Toy. Black Coupling Thin Wall Steel Valve Box . O r Cate Valve v /2" Square jq{1{ ,cam, Hpq�/ Operating Nut Std, Steel Pipe, TBE — /Std. Steel Pipe, TOE T 90° Cast Elbow, TBE — q0ei� Flange Case B 'L' (See Plan) Install Flanged Tangential Outle A.W.W.A . C208 Table 3 NOTE: AI-1'buried pipe shall be thoroughly cleaned and given two coats of Scotch Clad 244, as manufactured by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co, or approved equal, except mortar coated pipe. The dry film thickness shall be applied in strict accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. PCC Thrust Block per Std, Dwg.403 Drawn By D.G. A., Inc. Date December 1981 APPROVEDi /iiP,' —: -✓ TRANSMISSION MAIN BLOW49FF ASSEMBLY 413 01-in Line) (Nnmiunl $i.zr of 11.P.r1-off Pipe fi (:a [r V,nlvr) - -- - 12" thru 16" 4" 18" thru 24" 61, Drawn By D.G. A., Inc. Date December 1981 APPROVEDi /iiP,' —: -✓ TRANSMISSION MAIN BLOW49FF ASSEMBLY 413 0 H J N G Q-Z A1-'i';��jV f � o�'�Cci[Y G4e l��w �ilClG/ nW V43.24 FL. .ftl rc. F/rueE 4z.Qo c1, �'� F.5 L'eHOVE -EnST. ELee w -mow £' -m. T TZ` PIPE At :a. 900 EIL W Gow5T 54± L. F. l2'sri —PIPE koelz = 1" = lol VG eT n 1° v'LI lJ 0 o C y � C m m r— N Zr zD r v `D 'y m (n n 0 O Z Z nm N �D i f m •. P p cn �p w F O o n a U o y j n � + Z a s w m m z nl m 0' 'I O N I tp, 574 5+54 t_APr�x� LSeGKI NCi �o �tY� -� WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 155 HOSPITAL Y LANE, SUirE 110, SAN BERNA� DINO. CA 92403 ENGINEERS • PLANNERS (714) 824.2143 DATE Z/ lr,18 PROJECT el" W&-r-?, ZL-octT t SHEET ' OF 'L__ GATE Z Ib B3 LOCATION —!Tam n iM L — \ �l 1' JOB N° C 111'x. SUBJECT ��FLI n1E '¢ci nrb ,� 1 �..� —_ _ �— 11 1 T\� 1 1 •ts n3� N c 1 1 u � 1 _. _ 1 F 6s �o `p� UL QI IO tiw W J tl 1 j v n 11 1 Q W Ld y WJ 1 :I' ni 311: i � 11 F9- W 1� -Z w a m m P 1i ctl} mil I 1 S.B. N8, 114 DATE 7-82 W G 11 F V� LL J +I N IR iu Z O of _ LU O a � °, 04 s7 i- O N E.'Ly of rcne:.o e eo. �o:��a S7 �1Cu�171r% vaw vrw• T t:-�r,, 9 min. 90% R.C. mm. 85% R.C. mm. JL J Type C2 -AR -4000 A. c. Finl sh surface to b placed no souner than 14 days nor later 35 days after Base paving. Type B -lR -4000 A.L. Base course to be placed within 72 hours after consolidation of backfill. 5 D 9 °, 0 •l',.30' min . B' CLASS 2 AGG. BASE ALL TRENCHES LESS THAN 100' IN LENGTH. SEE GENERAL NOTE Ho. t. + 1 BEDDING ND SHADING PE UT R UTILITY INVOLVED. • NONE REQUIRED USE CLASS 2 AGG. BASE. j GENERAL NOTES: 1. A11 trenches 100' In length or longer shall be backfi l led and consolidated in accordance with the ST,!ICSPC SFEC IFICAT IONS `OR 'IIBLIC 11DRKS CONSTRUCT I3_4. 2. Spreader bores may m y be eployed for d',T -c _ paving _ jo 5 ess [ban b iT n. �t 3. Al Joints shall be vertical butt joi nts; lap or feathered joints are not acceptable. 4. Unless otherwise Instructed by City E69 veer, french patch shall be st raI ght grade across width, and sh„II not be crowned at center. 5. Prior to p accnent of A.C., pavement edge shall be cut to a clean vertical and straight edge. 6. The entire traveled lane_ 12' ml n., shall be over I ayed with .10 min. C2 -AR- 4G00 A.C. using a pelf propelled paving nn dine for all trenches 500' in length nr longer. TRI -MCIA h[-:PAIR 1312 Ll • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 181, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Rubbs, City Engineer BY: Michael D. Long, Resident Engineer, AD 82 -1 or!JCA a}Qlc Z„ } \pr, 9V7 z 19" SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Assessment District 82 -1 Contract Change Order No. 8 relating to a deviation in storm drain pipe alignment for the storm drain west of the west end of Trademark St. connecting to the Deer Creek Channel Because a San Bernardino County Flood Control District side drain structure (located at Station 171 +02 Deer Creek) was 21 feet further south than anticipated, it has become necessary to realign a portion of the existing and proposed storm drain. This realignment is necessary to keep the proposed storm drain within the confines of the Flood Control District right -of -way and City obtained storm drain easement. The approval of this contract change order will result in an increase of cost to the project of approximately $4,000.00. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve Contract Change Order No. 8 resulting in a cost increase of approximately $4,000.00. Respectfully submj�ted, :jaa Attachment z. • ASSESSMENT DISTRICT a2 -1 My OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER N0. 3 Sheet 1 of E PROJECT: Assessment District 32 -1 CONTRACT N0. 4,D. 22 -1 TO: 30nadimn- McCain, Inc. Contractor. You are Hereby di rotted to make the herein described chances from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this Contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the City Council Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price am force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time and equipment is actually used and no allowdnce will be made for idle time. Change requested by: City of Rancho Cucamonga The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Engineer's Estimate. This Contract Change Order refers to the Trademark Street storm drain as shown on sheet number 49 of 75 of the contract plans. 1. Remove existing 42" RCP to withn B ft, of the existing side drain. • 2. Reconstruct salvaged pipe to Station 3+20.35 as shown on the attached drawing, New 42" RCP (12000) shall be used to complete this item.) 3. Construct the collar as shown on the attached drawing. 4. Construct manhole AX as shown on the drawing. Attest 4a. Raise the manhole ring and cover I foot minimum above surrounding grade, 5. Construct the remainder of the 42" RCP per sheet number 49 of 75 of the contract plans. Removal and reconstruct ion of existing 42" RCP shall be paid per SEction 3 -3 of the Standard Specifications, The manhole AX including the raising thereof and specified collar shall be paid per She contract proposal. All work shall be dune in accordance with the applicable portions of the contract documents. Estimated Cost: Decrease E or Increase 3 4,000100 y reason of this order the time o 11 Completion will be adjusted as folloys: ubmitted by; ate :�.�_ Approved: City Engineer - Date: —We Ue un Aersigned contractor hav given care a cons iderntion to the c" I'll proposed and Hereby agree. If this proposal is approved, that we will prnvtde all equipment, furnish all mater,a Is, accept. as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the orires shown ahn ve. tpornvrn; Oar,e Contractor_ i ^111' �_x �• �. 0y : _._l_1= ,..]•✓/� /yam / � `x.!L = T i t l e . . AiS essmen<t fnl1g i nttn//er_�..f' /,jlr Mnyor: ^u aL r.: 5?_J,✓p JY2r YY` -- Date: Attest 0 ta v \� QN v \ 17V3V19S`d� -_ 3� �ib'DO, SZ .�11� \ Uc"S F2 t � � V L9 - -- - ' 1 a l v „ 12 do :,^ TZi hr' 1� - SdaD A9 i NH 3 - -- - ' 1 a l v „ 12 do :,^ J \ a ` I�nn ''Onn - -- - ' 1 a l v „ 12 do :,^ ;0 11 STAFF REPORT�c'ry��c °r i DATE: May 18, 1983 F, TO: City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Lloyd S. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: John Martin, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Reimbursement Agreement for Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue Attached for Council approval are reimbursement agreements with Lewis Development Co, and Robert and Karen Packer for the installation of storm drain structures and street widening at Hellman Avenue and Foothill Blvd. This improvement is part of the approved project of Hellman Avenue Reconstruction and Widening. li The attached agreement have been approved as to form by the City Attorney. The form includes the provisions to prohibit future construction until the reimbursement has been made. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the Reimbursement Agreement for Street and Drainage. Improvements at Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue with Lewis Development Co. and .Robert and Karen Packer and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign same. esp tfully submii ed, LBH:JM:jaa Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. * ? - lj (, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS FROM LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND ROBERT AND KARE3 PACKER, FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration a Reimbursement Agreement executed on May 2, 1983 by Lewis Development Company, Inc., as developers, and on May 12, 1983 by Robert and Karen Packer, as owners, for the installation of storm drain facilities and street widening to be constructed for proper drainage and traffic circulation, generally on Hellman Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City, at city's own expense, will install the planned facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within 18 months; and WHEREAS, developer and owners will refund to City improvement costs, as stated in agreement prior to further development of developer's and owner's property, as described in agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Reimbursement Agreements be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Reimbursement Agreements on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto, PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City clerk ;10 Jon 0. Mike s, Mayor n �� RECORDING REQUESTED BY: • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION P. O. BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this_day of 1983, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY" and LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO., a partnership, hereinafter called "OWNER" provides: • WITNESSETH WHEREAS, in the opinion of the CITY it is desirable for the enhancement of public health and safety and for traffic efficiency to widen and provide drainage improvements at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue; and WHEREAS, said improvements will benefit OWNER to the extent of relieving fronting properties of normal development requirements; and WHEREAS, it is of mutual benefit to the OWNER and the CITY to proceed with said project as expeditiously as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE: 1. The CITY hereby agrees to construct the Foothill Blvd.- Hellman Avenue Intersection Project hereinafter known as PROJECT with CITY funds and provide to OWNER notice of expenditure and itemization of all cost A, relative to said PROJECT upon completion. Such construction shall 8�- commence within IS months from the date of execution of this Agreement, ibal failing which this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect. l — y Initial n 2. The OWNER agrees for consideration of the improvements (provided by the CITY to the OWNERS property described in the attached Exhibit • "A ") to reimburse the CITY the proportionate share of improvements LOX provided by the PROJECT plus ten percent (10 %) per annum simple In ial from date of completion of said work A Ii ,r interestAprior to issuance of any building permit on said property. Initial A. No further improvements upon owner's property shall be ./7�,�, constructed, and no building permit for any improvements on owner's I— nitial of the amount due from the undersigned is tendered property shall be issued, until full reimbursementtto the CITY as herein it� provided. 3. The proportionate cost of the PROJECT attributed to OWNERS property shall consist of the actual cost of those street and drainage improvements fronting on OWNERS property extending to the centerline of Foothill Blvd. or Hellman Avenue. The quantity summary and cost estimate are shown on Exhibit "B". Actual costs to be determined by the CITY upon completion of the project and audit of all • costs; provided, however, that costs exceeding twenty percent (20 %) of saic I itial estimate shall be at the sole risk and expense of City. n4��r ' 4. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Bernardino nitil al County Recorder and owner's obligation hereunder shall run with owner's property until such time as all of owner's obligations hereunder have been discharged, at which time City shall execute a quit claim deed or 1 ilia similar release in a form satisfactory to clear title to the property. 5. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each of the rhi tial parties hereto. 6. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is entitled to recover 2 • �; 4 • • IC Initial II nib E from the OWNER hereunder the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as shall be awarded by the Court. ( See below.)' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. Crry: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation Jon D. Mikels Mayor Attest: Lauren Wasserman City Clerk OWNERS: LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO., a partnership By:'L..✓' Its Autprized Agent Subscribed and sworn to before me this day 7. This Agreement shall not constitute a partnership, agency, or other business relationship between the parties hereto. City agrees to save, indemnify, and hold Owner harmless against any and all liability, claims, judgments, or demands, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein under- taken, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Owner by reason of such matters. of v of Mav 2 ,1983. /() )' .c..� ,,n,me,m,ii., m+„�mmmmin�mm,s:..wn OFFI<IAL SF.AI. Notary Public in and -- or the County of A, R091N$ON San Bernardino 54AEDNA No,eNV vNanc.cAovonNw State of California. X" OTC' 'N e,N Nr.NNeNmNn cr,vnrr My Commission Expires March 1'7 My1COmm^ssmnEro'res Mar. tom], 19A 1987 ..... uY 7. This Agreement shall not constitute a partnership, agency, or other business relationship between the parties hereto. City agrees to save, indemnify, and hold Owner harmless against any and all liability, claims, judgments, or demands, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein under- taken, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Owner by reason of such matters. of v 0 EXIIIBIT'A' OWNER: LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. ASSESSOR'S NO.: 208 - 261 -25 do 26 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Section 10, Township 1 South Range 7 West San Bernardino Meridian, in th City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, bounded as follows: - ON THE NORTH BY: the south line of Foothill Blvd. as described in a deed to San Bernardino County recorded in Book 7464, Page 497 on June 18, 1970 as Document No. 681 of Official Records of the County Recorder of said County. - ON THE WEST BY: the north line of Tract No. 9083 -2 in said City as per map filed in Map Book 130, Pages 14 do 15 in said Recorder's Office. • - ON THE EAST BY: the west line of Helms Avenue as said west line is described in deed recorded in Book 8948, Page 875 on June 15, 1976 as Document No. 611. 1 J� 'vi • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE For Improvement of: Foothill and Hellman Improvements - Lewis Development Co. Date: March 23, 1983 Computed by: John L. Martin NOTE., Does not include current fee for writing permit or pavement deposits. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM UANTITY UNIT UNIT COST $ AMOUNT P.C.C. Curb - 12" C.F. 375 L.F. 8.00 3000.00 P.C.C. Curb Return 55 L.F. 8.00 440.00 Street Excavation L.S. 4,575.00 Crushed Aggregate Base 261 Tons 6.00 1567.50 A.C. (over 1300 tons) • Removal of A.C. Pavement 670 Tons 30.00 20,000.00 L.S. 2,250.00 Removal of P.C.C. Curb L.S. 1,750.00 Stop Signs 1 Each 250.00 250.00 Removal of Channels L.S. 2,250.00 R.C. Box 45 L.F. 125,00 5,625.00 Outlet Structure Std. 502 1 Ea. 21,875.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1,000.00 Plug Exist. Box L.S. 1,000,00 CONSTRUCTION COST $ 65,582.50 d I EXHIBIT "B" RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ENGINEERING DIVISION P. C. BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT AT FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ of 1983, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, California, a municipal coporation, hereinafter called "CITY" and Robert Packer and Karen K. Packer hereinafter called "OWNER" provides: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, in the opinion of the CITY it is desirable for the enhancement of public health and safety and for traffic efficiency to widen and provide improvements at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenues; and WHEREAS, said improvements will benefit OWNER to the extent of relieving fronting properties of normal development requirements; and WHEREAS, it is of mutual benefit to the OWNER and the CITY to proceed with said project as expeditiously as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE: 1. The CITY hereby agrees to construct the Foothill Blvd. - Hellman Avenue Intersection Project hereinafter known as PROJECT with CITY funds and provide to OWNER notice of expenditure and itemization of all cost relative to said PROJECT upon completion. 2. The proportionate cost of the PROJECT attributed to OWNERS property shall consist of improvements 1 n cy� c� the actual Cost of those street fronting on OWNERS property \J L • CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation Jon O. Mikels Mayor Attest: Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk �t 2 OWNERS: �^ (� Q Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1983. Notary pub Fic in an or the County of State of California. My Commission Expires . 1983 extending to the centerline of Foothill Blvd, or Hellman • Avenue, The quantity summary and cost estimate are shown on Exhibit "B ". Actual costs to be determined by the CITY upon completion of the project and audit of all costs. 3. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the San Bernardino County Recorder and owner's obligation hereunder shall run with owner's property until such time as all of owner's obligations hereunder have been discharged. A. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, succesors and assigns of each of the parties hereto, 5. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is entitiled to recover from the OWNER hereunder the prevailing party shall be entitiled to recover its costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as shall be awarded by the Court. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 0 Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation Jon O. Mikels Mayor Attest: Lauren Wasserman, City Clerk �t 2 OWNERS: �^ (� Q Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1983. Notary pub Fic in an or the County of State of California. My Commission Expires . 1983 0 EXHIBIT 'A' OWNER: ROBERT PACKER ASSESSOR'S NO.: 208 - 632 -46 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Parcel Map No. 4270 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as recorded in Parcel Map Book 39, Pages 43 & 44 in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. u • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE For Improvement of: Foothill and Hellman Improvements - Bob Packer Date: March 23, 1983 Computed by: John L. Martin NOTE: Does not include current fee for writing permit or pavement deposits. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST I AMOUNT P.C.C. Curb - 100 L.F. 8.00 800.00 P.C.C. Curb Return 55 L.F. 8.00 440.00 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 400 S.F. 4.50 700.00 Street Excavation L.S. 4575.00 Crushed Aggregate Base 95 Tons 6.00 570.00 A.C. (over 1300 tons) 254 Tons 30.00 7620.00 Removal of A.C. Pavement L.S. 2250.00 Stop Signs 1 L.S. 250.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1,000.00 CONSTURCTION COST $18,205.00 U EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF RANCHO CliCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 0 DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr. Assistant Civil Engineer GUCAA4Q/V ` 1 IZ 19]7 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 5760 submitted by O'Donnel, Brigham & Partners located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue (DR 82 -21) The subject Parcel 7 located on the northeast corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue, is submitted by O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners. The proposed project, (DR 82 -21) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1982. The Improvement Agreement and Security have been submitted by O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners to guarantee installation of the off -site improvements for the following amounts: • RECOMMENDATION Faithful Performance $27,000.00 Labor and Material $13,500.00 It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. Respectfully submi LBH: {1S: jaa Attachment 10 ---I 01 CITYOF RANG 10 CA..'C,\.% I(AGA tiQ ------------- D A EN F. FR ING DIVISION o VIC IN I TY MA p INK page, RESOLUTION NO. * "i; 3 - - - • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL 7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5760 (DR 82 -21) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on April 11, 1983 by O'Donnel, Brigham and Partners as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue: and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Director Review No. 82 -21; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is herby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C er 10 Jon D. Mi a s, Mayor 3, The developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than 30 days prior to the default date , and including a statement of circdmstances of necessity for additional time. In considera- tion of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the 0eve leper faits or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right At any time to caute said provisions to be completed by any law- ful mean v, and tharnc,,r to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing, 5. Constrwctian permits shall he obtained by the level_ one' fr0a, the Office pf tlo City Engineer prior to Start of any York within the public right -of -way, and the developer shall conduct Such work io full compliance with the regulations contained therein, 1Qn-c,r,1. An ce may result In stopping .f the work by the City, and an es5 meet of the penalties prov, did. 6, iabI is ri,lnt -,f-way improvement 'work required shall be rgr,5 t r nc t ed in cnnf arm in c, with ail o'c',d irto r ovement p ins $t in d, rd SPec,ficit,ans, and St,, lard /r aw, 'Is and any spa c, ai amend^en[s thereto. f,nnstrur.ti.ii shall include any transit,.,, and / in nth ^l iriclugntil wary ,lee mrJ necessary for drainage or ? e CITY OF RANCHO cue aYO AGA IMPROVEMENT HEFT AGH F.EMEYi FOR Parcel ' of Parcel Mao 576 -_ n.P. 22.21_.___ KNOB ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement 15 made and entered into, in with the nr.vis,ons of the Code and 0.x3ulati.n5 of the City of Rancho Luc Cod roferr, State of anon, hereinafter rNfxrr- State .f Calif oty, i, a 'nd i,ee coo inr bi ed to the City, and Jred en So in City and e'pon r.e 1, 9righan ne er b Partnersnere:naf ter refe'red to as the Developer. THAT, 'AHEREAS, A.,d levelooe• desires to 9 .. =_top certain real property in said fit, Incited At the northeast corne- of Milliken Avenue and 6th Stre 't; and WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to he met by said Developer as prerequisite to granting of final Approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The 0e v 10 p er he r P. by agrees to construct at • developer's expense all improvements described on page 4 hereof within 12 months from the date hereof. 2. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the resolution of the council of said City approving this agreement, This agreement shall he in default or fho day r.il,w- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exten- sion of time h'.5 beer granted by said City as hereinafter provid, ed. 3, The developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than 30 days prior to the default date , and including a statement of circdmstances of necessity for additional time. In considera- tion of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the 0eve leper faits or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right At any time to caute said provisions to be completed by any law- ful mean v, and tharnc,,r to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing, 5. Constrwctian permits shall he obtained by the level_ one' fr0a, the Office pf tlo City Engineer prior to Start of any York within the public right -of -way, and the developer shall conduct Such work io full compliance with the regulations contained therein, 1Qn-c,r,1. An ce may result In stopping .f the work by the City, and an es5 meet of the penalties prov, did. 6, iabI is ri,lnt -,f-way improvement 'work required shall be rgr,5 t r nc t ed in cnnf arm in c, with ail o'c',d irto r ovement p ins $t in d, rd SPec,ficit,ans, and St,, lard /r aw, 'Is and any spa c, ai amend^en[s thereto. f,nnstrur.ti.ii shall include any transit,.,, and / in nth ^l iriclugntil wary ,lee mrJ necessary for drainage or ? e pub1i6 safety. error• or ommesslens :deseovered Cv nnc cuts, Lill s'n a'1 ba corrected vus, tae dl red te pn of the C,ty Engineer. Revised 'wore due td s 1 plan rooi`ications shall be covered by the orpv,)I, of th, agreement rnd ;el,lgd by the surety cove -ing the pn gn.. planned acres. 7. 'wort ;one wit, existing streets shall co diligent- ly purs,.ed to comp'.etlon; the :I ty shay have the right to comDlete any and all work l the =vent of unjustif:,d delay in completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his d"tractcr by any lawful reaps. 9. The Developer shall be response ble for replacement, relocations, or r =„oval of any component of any r, gati on water system in conflict with the rec lrad work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the 'water system. 9. The Developer shall be response bee for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right -of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The improvement secvr ity to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the aoprovaI of the City Attorney. The prin- cipal amount of said improvement security shall not be less than the amount shown; • U � n �-A FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: Principal Amount: 527,000.00 Name and address of surety: MATERIAL AND LABOR Type: Principal Pmoun [: 537,500.00 Name and address of surety: CASH DEPOSIT MONUMEMTATION Type: Principal Amount: -D- Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN AITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto bave caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledge with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth opposite their signatures. Date by O'DONNELL, BR IGHAM 8 PARTNERS/ SO., Developer ig na[u re As Agents for the Melville Corp. t n me Date 4111/83 -- by • �, Developer Si g^na tore Donald S. Grant Accepted: City of Rancho Cucamonga, California A Municipal Corporation By: , Mayor A t t e St: City C I e r Approved; c,ty uprner 5Ta-E 01 C411inPNU nn mw Ilth ,_mvm -Lnnl rpr urnnrirpnna a Vnla 7 n,,pn., in an0 'nr o Sr lie Deanna ral 19 P3 iii; aid : ,rm par n r1a.Nr1.i , ERl`cltAM s Pnurl�d�7jt0 DLrior1r, I,!gn !n rry mmm ra r-, n^ n1 harem eanuan',ory •rm.�cn ro nn me Demo+ wno ..n OM mt .rnma in,rm no eenaa nl� r rluaa,mvsmo nameu m:.arr","amw. IF 5 nra•n V.A {I la• nG rdl OArrnfrn ., K Ulta it CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM04GA • CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE For (mproYemBnt of: Northeast corn ^r of Milliken and 5th Strut $24,440 CONTINGENCY COSTS Date: 3128 /83 Co ^.p uted by: �,yde, .tr, P E, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 527,000 _L. File Re erencet City Owg. No. _ LABOR ANU MATERIAL SECURITY (50 %) NOTE: Does rpt include current fee for EOGI'IEERINO INSPECTION FEE S 1,340 writing permit or pavement deposits. _ _ 0 _ _ CONSTRU•CT10N COST FSTIMATE ITEM Ipi�N : dNIT UNIT COST AMOUNT P.C.C. Curb - 12" C.F. P.C.C. Curb - 8" L.F. P.C.C. Curb only 6" C.F. 4.L, Berm ($200 min.) 4•' P.C.C. Sidewalk 5520 S.F. 1.75 9,650 6" Drive Approach 1112 S.F. 2.50 2,780 B" P.C.C. Cross Gutter Street Excavation Imported Embankment Preparation of SUbgrade Crushed Aggregate Base (per in. thick) A.C. (over 1300 tons) A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) A.C. (under 500 to 900 tons) A.L. (under 500 tons) Patch A.C. (trench) 1" thick A.C. Overlay Adjust sewer manhole to grade Adjust sewer clean out to grade Adjust water valves to grade Street Lights 8 EA. 1500 12,000 Street Signs Street Trees CONSTRUCTION COST $24,440 CONTINGENCY COSTS E 2,560 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 527,000 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SURETY (100 %) S27,000 LABOR ANU MATERIAL SECURITY (50 %) 513,500 EOGI'IEERINO INSPECTION FEE S 1,340 40NL4ENTATIOd SURETY (CASK) _ _ 0 _ _ • U T i BOND NO. S79 63 78 PPP.11114i $605.00 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONO WHEREAS, the City p✓th�NSl CFJNSRRSICTi6,J c4f, otucag I. ii�lSG 6 Stale of California, an� 0 ;2d5�1pl1TBE&i�s AA eats fo�M_e vii eCe�orat on (hereinafter designated as ^pr,nc,pal'•1 aye entered into an agreement whereby princlnal agrees to install and complete certain designated public imp rp v ?menu, which said agreement, dated 196 , and identified as pro j oc mare— Z'/oEt r ei�ap 5750 -- is her ^by referred to and made a paYC hereof;a0E^ WHEREAS, said principal is raduired under the terms of said agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance Of said agreement. NON, THEREFORE, we the principal andAEl'NA INSt)FANCS COMPANY as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of TdOUID Cucamonga (hereinafter called •' City" ), in the penal sum of twenty -seven thousand and 00 17000c11ar, ($27,000.00) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum Hell and truly to be made, 'we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded principal, his Or its heirs, executors, adml m l 5trators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep antl perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein troy ided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and In all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall todemn ify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and empI dynes , as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall became null and vni d; otherwise, it shall be antl remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount Specified therefor, there shall be ire Toted costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all is he taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the speci- fiCatfOIS accompanying the same shall in anywise affect iti obligations On this bond, and It does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alt, rat ism Or add itlon to the terns of the agreement or to the work or to the spec i fi cat l Ins. IN 'd ITh ESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Princ+ pal and surety above named, on April 11 1993 Q� '09TH SRIGHAM ;, Pf TO 'RS /SOUTHERN AS AGENTS`• o,. S. Grant A81NA INSURANCE COMPANY l drve In nor j- — ra tY M V,NS OOOS R;;C T l 1 CO. 83Y u ft Gr " -- . __ _i- kfLMtYd"ilitAY4- P.O. Bo% 7710, Durhunk, C., PLEASE ATTACH POWFR OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS 91510 SIGNATURE .', MIST BE NOTARIZED ^ FOR THE !^FI.uILLE (CRP. BOND NO. 379 62 78 Premium ini,.Iddmd in LABOR AND NATERIALME4 BOND Pertormanca Bond • WHEREAS the ;i to r, o'.n :11 f 'h?� State Of Calif Ornt 3. , ^„TMA.RS NST ^Lr...IO!ty CFf n6g OTYc wx Da,A°r "y_a�pliM @Tvii Ye NCO [fora a ion ( hereinafter des ignited is 'Jrin�.;pdi "f all .Cr ?d into de a 912 E? men, whe,-by pn rcl0a 3graes to install antl cn,Olete certain designated publ'c no rove ne.mts, ahicn said agreement, dated 193 , and Identified as pro;'P�rcel 7 of Pa rcZ$ao576U— .5 hereby rererr =d to dud r tle a part -"-- WHEPEAS, under the terms of said agreement principal is required before entering upon the oerrormance Of the cork, to file a good and sufficient 0 y.nent sand with the Ci[y Of Rancho cdca�m Onga to secure the slain, :n ahiCn • =f =r ?nfe Is nd, ^,ap l Title is ;c011orcing with Section 37,2) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a corporate surety, are held firmly baund unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of Thirteen thousand, five hundred and 00/100 Dollars (S13, 500. 00), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for for due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that said surety Dll set pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount et forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof, Costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonab 7e attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and filed by the Court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this band Shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commenting Section 3082) of part 4 of 0ivison 3 of the Civil Code, so As t0 give d right Of action t0 them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full farce and effect. The surety hereby stipulates and agrees tha' no change, extenslnn of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations an this bond, and it does here- by waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration or addition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the principal and surety above named, on April 11 1983 PLEASE ATTACH PONIR OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS SIGNATUPLS MOST BE NOIARIEED �I r.: O'DO':h F1L, 3R If H,iM .t PARTNERS /SOU iNEBN AS NIiIAL Af,E'Ii5 TOR iNE MELV II L° DRp. In na ld 5. Grant AETNA INSONAICE COMPANY _ J BY P,O. Box 7011 rbank, Ca. 91510 Burbank, PLEASE ATTACH PONIR OF ATTORNEY TO ALL BONDS SIGNATUPLS MOST BE NOIARIEED �I r.: C� • V 07mv nc D a \TO Un OT TO A TAVO A STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer 1977 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Agreement, Security and Final Map for Tract 12090 submitted by USA Properties Fund, Ltd., located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Boulevard The subject map located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Boulevard, is submitted by USA Properties Fund, Ltd. The tentative map was approved by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1982 consisting of 128 townhouses on 9.2 acres. The improvement agreement and security have been submitted by USA Properties Fund, Ltd. to guarantee installation of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond; $49,500.00 Labor and Material Bond: $24,750.00 Monumentation Cash Bond: $ 7,600.00 Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Cucamonga School District and Cucamonga County Water District. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of improvement agreement and security and the signature of said map. Respe fully submit d, �l LBH: :jaa Attachments y a 111 CITY OP RANC1►O CucA:�IONCA ENGINEERING DIVISION ' T tvn vlclNtry titAr i title; page RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 12090 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract Nc. 12090, consisting of 128 townhouses, submitted by USA Properties Fund, Ltd., Subdivider, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Boulevard has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution by said City, together with good and sufficient Improvement Security, and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is • approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney; and 3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: .ip Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ! !3 CHAFFE" JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (O )lt �. r.'.1 \i I: FEi .ii.'vill LA LiFf.v 1!J X11 ]tip USA PROPERTIES 1801 Wilshire Blvd. "A" Santa Monica, CA 90403 Letter of Certification of School District Caaacity 11ithin the Cha`__`ey Joint Union Hiah School District and the Alta Loma Ri'gh School attendance boundaries for the following described project: Location /Description: Tract 412090 NE corner of Archibald & Peron Rancho Cucamonga, CA • Number of Dwellings: 128 (Townhouse condominiums) Anticipated Completion Date: December 1984 The school district hereby certifies that the capacity for 19 students will be provided within 24 months of the completion c£ the above project. This certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy G. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocation Board may fund all school building projects under its current rules and regulations without priority points. The commitment of this capacity shall expire 9.0 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that % -day period shall validate such cov. itment. •� • Superintendent Asst. Superin nt by Dianne Allen I-DL&A,.,o. cc: Planning Division April 21, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga t� �) ti r> ROB E r.TO VEI.ASOIICZ Cucamonga School District 877G Arcn• bald Avence Rancho Cuca,cnna. Cshforniz 51730 Telephone :711;587.8001 AUril 21, 1983 -- pate `- --- LETTER OF CERTIFICATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPACITY 60AX0 Oi TNVST� •.nao�: _:rcvEn `i a L.Aw c .:•w,o F.n9 ^.IA GS,. -Fltr —LIA:. �1., :Cl ,4ith in Cucamonga School District and Cucamonga School District attendance boundaries for the following descriued project: Location /Description Tract 812090 Ilorth East corner Archibald and Feron Plumber of Dwelling Units 128 Townhouses Anticipated Completion Date 10/27/84 Gentlemen: The Cucamonga School District herebv certifies that the capacity `or 38 students will be provided within. 2; months of the completion of 'he above project. 711i certification is given on the condition that the State of California continues to fund the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene Lease /Purchase Act of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that the State Allocations 3oard may fund all school building projects under its current rules and regulations without priority points. The commitment of this capacity shall expire 60 days from the date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within that 60 day period shall validate such ccmnitrant. rnrVJl� cr Sup intendant cc: Planning Division, city �rf R�utt, nu Cucdmon7d 2V: vc if 5 • • C SPUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT %611 SAN 3EPN IPO:NO 1p �ANONG. _141 X17 - 1 ]1.11J9 I �I, _mot, VICTOR A. CHERBAK. JR.. PnE —' April 21, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Availability of Water and Sewer Service for Tract No. 12090 Gentlemen CimpmN E FRANK LESINSKY &nemn. G_'N K.—." LLOYD W. MICHAEL .—l— EARLS R. ANDERSON ROBERT NEIJFELJ BEVERLY E. BRADEN The above mentioned property is entitled to water service . from this District, and said service is subject to pipe- line extension policies, rules, regulations and rate or- dinances of this District. Adequate waterline and water storage capacity exists and will exist to serve the above referenced property at the time of occupancy. In addition, the sewer system capacity and the sewer treat- ment plant capacity will be sufficient to serve the above mentioned property at the time of occupancy. Yours truly, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DI TRICT da mes H. J.1 Assistant Civil Engineer bf cc: USA Properties 0 /.RN USA Prnnerties Fund April 21, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9328 C Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: TRACT 12090 Discovery Village Townhomes To Whom It May Concern: USA Properties Fund, Ltd., as owner and developer of the above referenced tract, agrees to join, when established, the city -wide landscaping and lighting district. Sincerely, USA PROPERTIES FUND, LTD. By: USA PROPERTIES FUND, INC. General Partner y `Zcl,d Surinder S. Kahlon Vice President SSK /amlh 1801 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, PO. Box 2165, Santa Monica, California 90406.(213)453-3311 47 E • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESESTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and of the applicable Ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between said City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and USA PROPERTIES FUND. LTD. her einer ter referred to as tho eve Doer, WITNESSETH: THAT, 'WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop certain real property in said City as shown On the conditionally approved subdivision known as TRACT 12090 ; and WHEREAS, said City has established Certain requirements t0 be met by said Developer as prerequisite t0 ioproval of said subdivision generally located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Feron Boulevard NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by said City and by said Developer as follows: 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at Developer's expense all improvements described on Page 6 here- of within twelve months from the effective Oa t¢ hereof. • 2. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the resolution of the Council of said City approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day follow- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exten- sion of time has been granted by said City as hereinafter provid- ed. 3. The Developer may request an extension of time to complete the terms hereof. Such request shall be submitted to the City In writing not less than 30 days before the expiration date hereof, and shall contain a statement of circumstances necessitating the extension of time. The City shall have the right to review the provisions of this agreement, including the Construction standards, cost estimate, and improvement security, and to require adjustments therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term hereof. 4. If the Developer fails or neglects to Comply with the provisions Of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions t0 be met by any lawful means, and thereupon recover from the Developer and /or his surety the full cost and expense incurred. S. The Developer shall provide metered water service to each lot of said development in accordance with the re 9ulations, schedules, and fees of the Cucamonga County Water District. 6. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or removal Of any component Of any irrigation water system in Conflict with construction Of required Improvements to the satisfaction Of the City Engineer and the owner of such water systea ..:� a Tracts and Comm /Ind. P.M. L�� n u ], lmpr ovements re mu r red t0 be constructed -shall conform to the Standard Drawings and Standari specifications of the City, and to the Improvement Plan aonrRVed by led on file in the office of the City Engineer. Said InbrAVasents are tabulated on the - Construction and Bond Estimate, wrecy 'icorPmrated on page 6 hereof, as taken from the improvement clans listed thereon by number. The Developer shall also be r =soonsiole for construc- tion of any transitions or other incidental work beyond the tract boundaries as needed far safety and creator surface drainage. Errors or ommissions discovered during constructin shall be corrected upon the direction of the City Engineer. Revised work due to said plan modifications shall be covered by the provisions of this agreement and secured by the surety covering the original planned works. 81 Construction permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of the City Eng,nee` prior to start of work; all regulations listed thereon shall be observed, with attention given to safety procedures, control of dust, noise, or other nuisance to the area, and to proper net l flcatien of Roblin utilities and City Departments. Failure to calmly with this section shall be subject to the penalties provided ttierefor. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rocks amd other debris from oublic rights -of -way within or adjoining said development resulting from work relative to said development. 10. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cast and expense incurred from the • Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. 11. Said Developer shall at all times following dedica- tion of the streets and easements in said subIllvision, up to the completion and acceptance of said work an improvement by said City Councl 1, give good and adequate earning to the traveling public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said street or easement, and will protect the traveling public from such defective or dangerous conditions. Until the completion of all improvements, herein incorporated on Page 6 , to be performed, each of said streets not accepted as improvements shall be under the charge of said Developer. Said Developer may close all or a "rtion of any street subject to the conditions contained in a temporary street closure permit, issued by the City Engineer, whenever it is necessary to protect the public during the construction of the improvements herein agreed to be made. 12. Parkway trees required to he planted shall be planted by the Developer after other improvement work, grading and cleanup has been completed. Planting shall he done as provided by Ordinance in accordance 'with the planting diagram approved by the City Community Development Director. The Developer Shall be responsible for maintaining all trees planted in good health until the end of the guaranteed maintenance period, or for one year after planting, whichever is later, 13. The Developer is responaibl± for meeting all condi. tints established by the City pursuant to the Sgbdivision -Z- • �r • L, Map Act, City Ordiam.es, and this aoreer.ent 1,r the devul'Drient, and for the :maintenance of all improvements co n strutted thereunder until the improvement is accepted •na to ten once by the City, and no improvement security provldep mere1 n.a i th shall be released before such aC'o PtdmC1 on!e I otherwise provided, and autharzed by the City Council of the 14. This agreement shall net term ^,.rte until the maintenance guarantee security hereinaft ?r des :ribtd has been released by the City, or until a new agreement together with the required improvement security has been submitted to the City by a successor to the herein named, and by resolution of the 'it/ Council same has been accepted, and this ogreeren. and .the improvement security therefor has been 15. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer with this agreement shall consist of the fol iawind end shall be in a form acceptable by the City Attorney: To secure faithful perf or:nance of this agreement. 1. A band or bonds by one or nore duly authorized corporate Sur -ties i o the for, and content specified by Government Code Section 66499.1. 2. An Improvement Secure ty Instrument in the form and content specified by the City Attorney. 3. A deposit with the City of money or negotiable bands of the kind approved for securing deposits of public monies. To secure laborers and Oaten almen: 1. A bond or bonds by one or more duly authorized corporate sureties in the form and content specified by Government Code Section 66499.1. 2. An Improvement Security Instrument in the form and content specified by the City Attorney. 3, A deposit with City of money or negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing A cash deposit with the City to guarantee payment by the Developer to the engineer or surveyor whose certificate appears upon the Final Map for the setting of all boundary, lot corner, and street centerline monuments and for furnishing centerline tie notes to the City. The amount Of the deposit may be any amount certified by the engineer or surveyor as acceptable payment in full: or, if no value is submitted, the cash band shall be as shown on the Construction and good Estimate contained herein. Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as proce- dure permits after receipt by the City of the centerline tie notes and written assurance of payment in full from the engineer or surveyor. The required bends and the principal amounts thereof are set forth on page 6 of this agreement. 16. The Developer warrants that the improvements described in this agreeme ^.t shall be free from defects in materials and workmanship, Any and all portions of the improve- ments found to be defective ai thin one (1) year following the data on which the improvements are accepted by the City shall be repaired or reolaced by Developer free of 311 charges to the City. The Developer shall furnish a m airtenance guarantee ser,un by in a sum equal to ten percent ;10:) of the constructl on -3- �� 0 estimate or 5200.00, whichever is greater, to secure :he fAi :nfal performance of Developer's obligations l; 1 ^s: r:bed this para- graph, The maintenance guarantee secur'•r s 1113 secure the faithful- performance by the 3evelone- -,3Z 1 01 Af, Developer to do specified .ors it, ..i sc ect "Y para.val maintenance assessment district. Dnn t '�- orhvgneht5 nave ^ accepted and a maintenance auarantee Security has teen accepted by the City, the other improvement seconty described in this agreement may be released provided that such release is athe^a i;e authorized by the Subdivision Map Act Ind any loolicable city Ordinance. 17. That the Developer shall t,,e out l.hd maihtain such public liability and property damage it,,uri, is I hall Inc act him and any contractor or subcontractor oe,` :� : wo, -e rep by this agreement from claims for proper:, fa'iages ahi ch arise because of the nature of the wore or frori aoe,ations under this agreement, whether such ape r at10 c he D I aif or by ahv contractor or subcontractor, or anyone di - e ctlk I indirectly employed by said persons, even though such da�a,as e not caused by the negligence of the Developer or Ill con t rI c Ill subcontractor or anyone employed by said ne ^sans. T'ne pea r liability and property damage insurance shall list the City as additpnal insured and directly protect the -lty, its cff,Ce'S, agents and employees, as well as the Oeveloogr, his contractors and his subcontractors, and all insurince ool :cies issued hereunder shall so state. The minimum amounts of such insurance shall be as follows: Contractor's 1 ab it Ity insurance or ov i di ng bodl I injury or death liability limits of not less the • $300,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each accident or occurrence, and prnperty dal,ge liabil- ity limits of not less than SIO0,g00 fen each acci- dent or occurrence with an Aggrenate 1111" of $250,000 for Chios which may arise_ fror the cuera- tions of the Developer In the perfor'-anCe of the work herein provided. Automobile liability Insurance covering all vehicles used in the performance of this agreement providing bodily injury liability limits of net less than 5200,000 for each person and 5300,000 for each accident or occurrence, and orooerty iamaae liability limits of not less than 550,300 for each accident or occurrence, 'with an aggregate of not less than $100,000 which 'hay arise fro, the ...ra- tions of the Developer dr his Contractor in performing the work provided for herein. 18. That before the exec a ti an of this agreement, the De in toper shall file with the City a certificate or certificates of ins v an re cov erI,q the spe cif iaa insurance. Each such cent i f i r. ate shall bear an endorsement precluding the cancellations, or reduction in coverage of any policy evI dences by Such certificate, before the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall have received notification by registered mail from the insurance carrier. As evidence of understandinq the provisions contained herein, and of intent to comply with same, the Subdi nder has submitted the foli0winq dehcr,bad improvement security, And has Iffiaed h15 s,glatvrc her¢to: -a- • ;; 'si CA UN(6A Ci:';w1l'I "'r I "'. i, f!' %%NT DEPT 1983 AM PM 71819110111112111213141 0 16 } MCI f� Centennial Sayma gS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION May 13, 1983 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91703 RE: Heritage Park - Rancho Cucamonga Mayor and Members of City Council: In review of your Draft Development Agreement for the above referenced project, Centennial Savings and Loan Association would find it impossible to make a loan to Calmark or any other Developer with a restriction on rentals in this manner. We are presently making loans to Calmark in similar type projects under the guidelines of Internal Revenue Code section 103 (b) (12). We recommend you use these rental guidelines in your future agreements as they have been proven in the industry. Very truly yours, 1 Michael K. Dooley Vice President PROD: j ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE • 1701 FOURTH STREET, P.O. BOX 0598, SANTA ROSA, CA 95402 • 1071540-2M 0 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: P ^•.:•J :1 :. ,, ^.t: S,., i0 00 Name and acdress of surety: Amwest Surute Insura ncc Co.. Los Aneules. CA MATERIAL AND LAB0R PAYME,IT Type: Prin6:J I :-olnt: $B;. 7i0.00 Name and address of surety: Amwest Surety Insurance Co.. Los A. ^_cles, CA CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTATION Type, p..,c:'.o;l Name and address of surety: MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE Type: .e,Jel :,n.lrn Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties h =veto hn<e caused these • presents to be duly executed and acxno.rledged ai th at formalities reouired by la' on he data, at fort, op.os,te their • signatures. �Jl� (Ic, 00, tOBN by 0.` L �+r/ -- -1 's�+d:' Oevelnper Data Nlerch Srgna Llre ' of ce�.nrnE Surinder S. Kahlan IQ rpnnrinn .,, nnn<r .t a ;'I IT mnrr 11) `/� ar CAL,rruru N COUNTY oP_ Los Angeles } sS o...�p1IL$9. 1988 ., Ferere mq Pn rmd.n¢.eJ,+ Hm+p Pu in nd Im v. 1^ee 'd Sure, yen.rrdp .......e GuTu d�yl.ahloo Ines o e L, the USA Properties Fund, to I, :q. 4y ul rLr sir,, im ,..L, of ulA m'1•ur u �a �. l.. 'in) lne .. , Lt an. of iAe V,r Y +1 USA Properties Eund. LId_ . ..... I"I e oe es ht �rl.�p Y . ea ne„ .—__ALLTANIARE— LEKIS— _. t, —. (I m,d.r Plm,d) DEVELOPER'S SIG,.. ...OIA.. -_ ......_..,......r :. MUST BE UIM1N UCu SIGNATURE B N -5- • CITY OF RANCHO CUC,l`ONGA • CONSTRUCTION ESTIMIC ENLROAC118ENT PERMIT FEE SCUEOULE For imorove*ent or: '193 Data: 3,1j7 , -nu.,l File Ratere rca:.,:% E " ^g. ,o. NOTE: Does not include current fee for 111'iting permit or pavement deposits. L.°. P.C.C. Curb - 12" L.F. P.C.C. Curb - B" C.F. 24" Getter 620 L.F. ....5 P.L.C. Curb only 6" C.F. A.C. Berm ($200 min.) 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 6,]50 S.P. 1.15 11,612.50 1 084 S.F. 6 Drive Appr.acn B" P.C.C. Cross Gutter 9.15 Street Excavation TON Imparted Embankment 3,990.00 Preparation Of Subgrade B,700 Crusned Aggregate Base (per in, thic41 A.C. (over 1300 tons) '.0,500.00 A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) '.;J A.C. (under 500 to 900 tons) 65 P.C. (under 500 tons) 385.00 Patch A.C. (trench) 3.30 1" thick A.L. Overlay 30,]30 Adjust sewer manhole to grade ]5.::0 Adjust sewer clean out to prase 1.00 Adjust water valves to grade Street Lights T Street Signs Street Trees Barricades (Intersec. $500 'In) MINI Removal of A.C. Pavement 1,100 Removal cf P.C.C. Curb 110 Removal of A.C. Berm 75 Sewo.t 380 S.F. 9.15 1,305.60 TON 69.]0 3,990.00 S.F. 0.30 9,_219.00• EA 1500.00 '.0,500.00 '.;J 509.10 S.F. 0.35 385.00 L.F. 3.30 396.00 L.F. 1.00 ]5.::0 L.F. 1.00 280.1)0 CONSTRUCTION COST $44,957.50 CONTINGENCY COSTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FAITHFUL PERFORMAPICE SURETY (100:) LABOR ANO MATERIAL SECCRITY (50X) ENGINEERPi3 INSPECTION FEE MONU "E'IidTICN SNi1ETY (CASH) $ [ 542 50 549 50O_00 $49 50n.nO S24 75n GO -n- • +F CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer �(� oucr+MO'1'c L y C1 K % r O A LI: > 1977 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for Director Review 80 -04 submitted by George Robins and Berry Construction, Inc. located on Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street The subject Director Review, located on Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street, is submitted by George Robins and Berry Construction, Inc. The Director Review was approved by the Planning Commission on March 26, 1980 with time extensions approved on September 24, 1982. The Improvement Agreement and Security have been submitted by George Robins and Berry Construction, Inc. to guarantee installation of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance $17,000.00 Labor and Material E 8,500.00 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. lly submitted, LBH:V, Attachment E o c,4sio,� t it CITY OF RANCHO Cl CA,\iO \GA w /\ ENGINEERING DIVISION —�— 6 N m VICINITY MAP page RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 80 -04 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on April 4, 1983 by George Robins and Berry Construction, Inc., as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, Director Review No. 80 -04; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said • Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is herby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C er Jon D. Mi a s, Mayor • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW asa O -04 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement 1s made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cali- fornia, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and GEORGE G. ROBINS and BERRY CONSTRUCTION, INC. hereinafter referred to as the Developer. WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the City of Di c or P.eview 80 -04 in accocdance with the provisions of t e repore of the Community Development Director thereon, and any amendments thereto; located on Hyssop Street, south of 7th Street ; and WHEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be met by said developer prior to granting the final approval of the development; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all improvements described on page 3 hereof within 1 year from the date hereof. E 2. The term of this agreement shall be commencing on the date of execution hereof by the Cite y V This agreement shall be in default on the day following the last day of the term stipulated, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter provided. 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In consideration of such request, the City reserves the right to review the pravis ions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and suf- ficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any lawful means, and thereupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. 5. Encroachment permits shall be obtained by the Developer from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public right -of -way, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regulations contained therein. Non-compliance may result in stoppinq of the work by the City, and aSS'essment of the penalties provided. 6. Public right -of -way improvement work required shall be • constructed in conformance with approved improvement plans, Standard S pecifitations, and standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. Construction shall include anv transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainan=_ or public safety. ]. Vark done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. R. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or removal of any component of any irragation water system I- conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right- of -wav resulting from work done on the adjacent property or within said right -of -way. 10, The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be oubjeet to the approval of the City Attorney. The principal amount of said improvement security shall be not less than the amount shown below: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUBMITTED: Faithful Performance Bond sn n00 DD Material and Labor Bond < a ao0 DO • IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and ackne' ^.edged with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth apposite their signatures: DEVELOPER BY: GEORGE G. ROBINS ( DATE:-- /,y, /�f_ -- BY' DATE: BERRY I I Qf.CT Nr T4-83 BY: MARC � BERRY, N _ DATE: i -4 -Bl MA RC BERRY, Vice -P[es Gent CITY OF RANCMOr CL'CA.MONGA, CALIFORNIA mra�iiiry .emeu- �a���r>mo���� �sz- �aazemy Sldteol California Onlluflne4011da1o1 — Ll�198J,palon ml. C ounty of San Bernardino } �' SANDRA GENE GREGORY i - -- me undenpned NI Nell, personally appeared 1 t MARC BERRY atonal me personally G Gene Gruetws to proved tome on the eanold eon the enhurylementt °andrd NlN 1 ptPU +ry;al'rtICIC IO e0111e- the e2K Uild lnl NII IIId In dlNmenl ie IN VFK.I..lNolmn YN PrIage1M'nO VLCC- _prCSld Cnt r on eeW o} the nuppeI them, r-1.1 ver21p199Y My COmmnpm fmnef Fq }a 1965 lne eor • pgllrOn lelCYldd 11. nalTNIESS my hard se*l. WDNEBB my nand and olllcul deal. Net.,, Nu Serene - - — --- ................. ins .,rr, rv,nir.d. r, e�rn.0 .no-] lurafix��+r�w.fplr r Ngndlu ! +>` •— aynu+carpeloveretro -rod • • Clrf OF 1XN00 COST^,I:CTIC:: A::D 50:10 CSTI:L \TE ENCROACIDIENT 2ER:IIT FEE SCHEDULE (A ",h W °Inspec.o['s Cosy') DATE; 9/21/82 FERYIT ::0. COMPUTED RY j- Stota, St. File Reference D.R. 80 -04 Ci[Y Drawing eo.s Hyssop S/0 7th NOTE; Does not include current "I for vritinn scrnit or Pavement resiace- aenl desoa xts. CONSTRUCTION COST F.STIYATE ITEM rn'AMIY "slT IIV 0. T AI ^: $17,000 FAITHFUI, PERFOMANCE RENO (1002) $17,000 `6.00 S 0,500 C.F. z4D (FEE SCHEOL'I.E) 1.a30 $ -0- \.1:. Per -. I)2011 'din I If.. Iv. L "'+I;.F.. cidI1,11k nrivc dnnrnach Cut[p[ s. F. $reel XNtcevntion 1 C. ;, red EnO an kmen[ —t fon of Sub rade I - I - . \.C. I r 1100 Inns,^ pis A.[. 1901, to )00 tans) IU:: A. III con inn illy 60.00 30 000 \ enc tch A.C. [ h) l' ' "hick \. ,\aunt sewer C.O. to Trade I FA. \Alas[ IU ter 1'a Ives [o fra c FA n . It ee < [ FA FA. $ Tnes I'd. earn canes 500. 0 x e wooa a ec I I I 1 I CONSTRUCTION COST $15,548 CONTINGENCY COSTS $ 1.457 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $17,000 FAITHFUI, PERFOMANCE RENO (1002) $17,000 TAPER AND MTERIAL BOND (50X) S 0,500 F.NCINF.EBING INSPECTION FEE $ 850 (FEE SCHEOL'I.E) N081AENTATI04 ROND (CASH) $ -0- • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT J DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer rpp%.b/p Nc9 MIT 1977 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Security for CUP 82 -24 submitted by McIntyre & Partners located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route The subject CUP, located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route, is submitted by McIntyre Partners. The CUP was approved by the Planning Commission on February 9, 1983. The Improvement Agreement and Security have been submitted by McIntyre Partners to guarantee installation of the off -site improvements in the following amounts: \J RECOMMENDATION Faithful Performance $23,200.00 Labor and Material $11,600.00 It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of the Improvement Agreement and Security and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. Res ectfully su itted, LBH.JS:jaa Attachment r� V I} I r- PKOJEGT i I i i c +l tiIIv; CITY OP RrWCFlO CICAi\10 \'CiA A CUP 82 -24 ' GN(;ItiGI:RIVC DIVISION VICINITY I \I, \P N page 191 • RESOLUTION NO. * ` - (10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 82 -24 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on April 15, 1983 by McIntyre Partners as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to Planning Commission, CUP 82 -24; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said • Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is herby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. 'Wasserman, ity er Ell Jon O. Mikels, Mayor C" • CI RANCHO CIE C AMONGA TY OF IMpROV EMEFO AGREEMENT FOR cue 82 -24 KNOW ALL MEN By THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Cade and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referr- ed to as the City, by and between said City and < l� i hereinafter referred to as the evelppe.. THAT, WHEREAS, said Developer desires it s to sdevelop r arft�liaven real property in said City located and Arrow Route ; and WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be met by said Developer as prerequisite to grant ing of final approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as f011gw S: I The Developer hereby agrees to construct at . developer's expense all improvements described on page 4 hereof within 12 months from the date hereof. • 2. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the resolution of the Council of said City approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day follow- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exten- sion of time has been granted by said city as hereinafter provid- ad. 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than 30 days prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In considera- tion of such request, the City reserves the right to review the test provisions hereof, including construction standards, the improvement security, and to estimate. and sufficiency of require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any law- ful means, and thereupon to recover from said Bevel oper and /or his Surety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. S. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Be'vel - oper from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the public ,ht-Of way. and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regulations contained tneroin. Ilon-Com -0liance nay result in stopping of the work by the City, and oisessment of the penalties provided, 6. Public right -of -way improvement work required shall be constructed in con•nrnance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special 1- " � S.F.. D.R., Res.. P.M-CUP amendments thereto. Construction shall include any transitions • and /pr other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage -or public safety. Errors or omaissiens discovered during construc- tion shall be corrected upon the direction of the city Engineer. Revised work due to said plan modifications shall be covered by the provisions of this agreement and secured by the surety covering the original planned +arks. 7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligent- ly pursued to completion; the city shall have the right to complete any and all work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and ee pen se incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawfil means. S. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocations, or removal of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the Sattifa c ti on of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9, The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right-of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and na ht aim parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director- 11 , The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee camp l at on of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The prih cipal amount of said improvement security shall not be less than the amount shown: • .Z. • 0 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: Prine:pal :,cunt: $23.200 Name and address Of surety: MATERIAL AND LABOR Type: Prircrpal Amount: 511.500 Name and address Of surety: CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTATION Type: Principal ..n.urt- Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly eAeCUted and ackneaiedge with all formalities reQUlred by law On the dates Set forth Opposite their signatures. O ate y/y — >S3 by,� , Developer Signature a. o I sn.r o: <nlwno,r. 1 l,o. AnO 83 April ... .. ISLE . ,.w N. S. Jett iM.1P• p�itom trio ry• Auedeis 4 Yilltr L. McInt) - , 1311 i By: Mayor Attest: fity Clerk f / Approved: Ctty q t eF ern y DCVFLOPER'S SIGNATURES MAST BE NOTARIZED V] �� ✓J _3_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE For Improve -ent of: C -P is Date: 477,'.°3 .c-cutea A.L. (over 1300 tans) A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) File Reference: ity Dwa. ;.o. P.C. (under 500 tons) fi5 NOTE: Does not include current fee for Adjust sewer manhole to grade writing permit or pavement deposits. Adjust water valves to grade Street Lights CONSTRUC:ON f.CS. FS- : ".,7E Street Trees ITEM Barricades (Intersec. 5500 min) T ,NIT COST S A v)UJ Removal of F.C. Pavement 360 L.F. 5awcat P.C.C. Curb - 12" C.F, P.C.C. Curb - S" C.F. 24" Gutter 350 L.F. 6.50 2,340 P.C.C. Curb only 6" C.F. A.C. Berm (5200 min.) 4e P.C.C. Sidew'al'k 2.374 S.F. 1.7S 3.630 6" Drive Approach 710 S.F. 2.50 1,775 B" P.C.L. Cross Gutter Street Excavation Imported Embankment AS, C.Y. 1.50 675 Preparation of Subgrade 5,3CC S.F. .15 795 Crushed Aggregate Base (per in. fhicfl A.L. (over 1300 tans) A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) A.L. (under 500 to 900 tans) P.C. (under 500 tons) fi5 Patch A.C. (trench) 1" thick A.C. Overlay Adjust sewer manhole to grade Adjust sewer clean out to grade Adjust water valves to grade Street Lights 2 Street Signs Street Trees Barricades (Intersec. 5500 min) MIN 2" x 4" Redwood Header 15 Removal of F.C. Pavement 360 Signal Relocation 5awcat 360 CONSTRUCTION COST CONTINGENCY COSTS TOTAL C0-;ST RUCTION FAITHFOL PERF'OR"ANCE SURETY (100.1 LA50R ;CIO MATERIAL SECURITY (SO.) ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE MO'IUENTATION SURETY (GASH) _4_ .gT TON 60.00 3,900 • EA. ,500.00 3,000 500 L.F. 1.75 26 S.F. 0.35 126 L.S. a000.00 4,000 1.00 360 21.127 2,113 23,249 -- 23,200 11,600 r 1 r 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 E'- T0: City Council and City Manager 197 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Final Maps for Tract Nos. 12021 and 12022 - Marlborough Development located east of Archibald Avenue, south of Church Street and west of Ramona Avenue The subject map located east of Archibald Avenue, south of Church Street and west of Ramona Avenue is submitted by Marlborough Development. The tentative map, Tract 11663, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1981 consisting of 393 townhouses. The development of Tract 12021 consists of 33 townhouses and Tract 12022 consists of 36 townhouses as part of the 393 townhouses previously approved. The improvement agreement and securities have previously been approved with Tract 11663 and Tract 12019 to guarantee installation of all off -site improvements for the entire development. Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Central School District and Cucamonga County Water District. The CC &Rs have previously been approved by the City Attorney on the overall Tract 11663. REC"ENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the signature of said final maps. Respectfully sub 'tted, iS:jaa Attachment PROJECT N CHURCH _� I Fb6THiLL I STRE °T L_ STAFFORD STREET I VICINITY MAP NOT TO EXACT tS 1] F: CITY OF RANCI IO CUCA��90.AGA t� ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP tom, Y., A O� ` N title; Tract 12022 page RESOLUTION NO. * '�?.!, 1 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO'S. 12021 AND 12022 WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No's. 12021 and 12022, consisting of 69 townhouses, submitted by Marlborough Development, Subdivider, located east of Archibald Avenue, south of Church Street and west of Ramona Avenue, has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City. • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, 1ty C erk V] Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor L I 0 C 11 A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer Gam` 4pl,C-r J x 1977 SUBJECT: Addendum No. 1 to Agreement for Consulting Services for Design and Restoration of Street and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations The attached addendum increases the budget for the above referenced contract in the amount of $5,000.00. The changes are required to extend the widening of 4ellman Avenue on the west side between Church Street and the Pacific Electric track and to increase the estimate for construction staking for the total restoration project. Construction staking is contracted time and materials with budgets only being provided as estimates. Additional design services will not exceed $2,000.00. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve Addendum No. 1 to the Design Services Contract for Design and Restoration of Street and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign on behalf of the City. Total budget increase is $5,000.00. Respectfully submitted, Attachment L. D. King, Inc. 517 N. Euclid Avenue Ontario, California 91752 17141989 -5492 ENGINEERS /PLANNERS May 11, 1983 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Subject: Hellman Avenue Fite: 135 Dear Lloyd: Enclosed for your review is Addendum No. 1 to our Agreement reflecting the additional design survey, design and construction survey involved in adding that area 5603 feet north of Church Street to the SPRR on the west side. Compensation includes the following: • Design Survey $ 800 PS & E 1,200 Construction Survey 1,000 3,000 Plus Construction Staking, 2,000 Locations 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 5,000 Construction Staking for Locations 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 was not previously included in the original $8,000 construction budget. This work has been com- pleted. Also, included with this transmittal is the original mylar for the traffic signal plan, Sheet 1 of 1, of the Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue inter- section. it is my understanding that Caltrans will incorporate this plan sheet into their PS & E for the signal project. Cordially, f x? � X D, H. MAYS, P.E. Branch Manager DHM:sw . Encl as noted Ofntta m ONTARIO and SANTA ANA 7 May 11, 1983 • ADDENDUM NO. 1 to the AMENDMENT to AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES dated March 17, 1983, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and L. D. King, Inc. For Design and Restoration of Street and Drainage Improvements at Various Locations Section 5. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS Task 2 -4 - Widen Hellman Avenue to 44' curb to curb at the following locations: a) no change b) no change c) no change d) no change e) 560' north of Church Street to the SPRR, approximately 1,300 LF, on the west side, including driveway approaches • Section 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED FEE A. no change B. no change C. PROJECT NO. 3 - Location 2 Preliminary Study (no change) $ 1,000 Final PS & E 13,200 Design Survey 4,650 ESTIMATED FEE Construction Survey at T &M in accordance $11,000 with L. D. King Rate Schedule, including improvements to Hellman Avenue from 700' south of Foothill Boulevard to San Bernar- dino Road, including Project Nos. 1 and 2 Page 1 of 2 Addendum No. 1 0 • 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18 ,1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer G� C9 1977 SUBJECT: Contract Revision For Changes in Work Scope for the Beryl - Hellman Storm Drain Design The City is currently under contract to complete design of the Beryl- Hellman Storm Drain for the City. The attached change order increases the budget for this design from a not -to- exceed amount of $40,800.00 to $49,722.00. The increase of $8,972.00 reflects further phasing of the project, additional soils investigations required and updated topographic surveys to reflect extensive erosion caused by winter storms. The project as now structured, will be constructed in three phases. The first to be advertised June 1 and to include reconstruction of Beryl with channel to Nineteenth Street. The second phase would include channel from Nineteenth to Hellman Avenue. Hopefully, right -of -way acquisition will occur to allow summer construction. The third phase would complete drains in Hellman Avenue to the Cucamonga Storm Drain south of Base Line Road. No schedule has been established for the third phase. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract Change Order No. One to the Beryl- Hellman Storm Drain Agreement be approved increasing the overall not -to- exceed budget to $49,722.00. Respectfully submi Attachment 7�; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER CONTRACT FOR Beryl- Hellamn Storm Drain Agreement Order No. ONE Storm Drain Design, Topographic Surveys and Soils Foundation Investigation Date: May 18, 198 To Bill Mann & Associates ngineer You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the agreement for engineering services. Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE in Contract Price in Contract Price See Attached List TOTAL $8,972.00 • Questionable soil conditions require additional foundation investigations. Erosion from recent winter storm require new topographic surveys and revised contract phasing. The amount of the Contract will be (Ofoto$$00)(Increased) by the sum of: Ei ht thousand nine hundred seventy two Dollars ($ 8,972.00 The Contract Total Including this and previous Change orders will be: Not to Exceed Dollars (5 09 722.00 The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will be ( Increased )(000/OOOOOI(VO¢HA$900) See Attached Schedule Days This document will become a supplement to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto. RequesA16) / 5 -/2-83 eer . ub s, City Engin Date Accepted Engineer Date Approved By • City of Rancho Cucamonga Date This information will be used as record of any changes to the original engineering agreement dated: July 7, 1982 �-u DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES A. PHASES OF WORK 1. Phase I -- Plans and specifications for storm drain improvements from the existing 10' x 6' RCB at 19th Street to the south side of the future Foothill Freeway, and Beryl Street plans from the "Beryl Dip" to the south side of the future Foothill Freeway. 2. Phase II -- Plans and specifications for channel improvements through the Wash from Hellman Avenue to 19th Street. 3, Phase III -- Plans for storm drain improvements for the remaining portion of the project. The specifications for this phase will not be prepared at this time. B. ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK 1. New Topographic Surveying Provide new topographic surveying over the Wash area between Hellman Avenue and 19th Street. Provide 1" =401, V contour interval mapping, (2) mylar plan and profile sheets. Estimated Additional Budget: $2,100 • 2. Soils Engineering Investigation Provide field exploration and soils testing within the Wash area and the Beryl Street dip area. The soils report and analysis will include recommendations for construction through the fill area below 19th Street and Beryl Street, and storm drain construction above 19th Street. Additional Soils Investigation: $3,600 Less Original Budget: $1100 Estimated Additional Budget: $2,600 3. Additional Engineering and Design Due to Changes Replotting of cross- sections; calculation of earthwork quantities; probable redesign of channel, profile and alignment; redraft of northerly part of the right -of -way map. Estimated Additional Budget: 120 Hrs. 2 S30 /Hr = $3,600 16 Hrs. a $42 /Hr = S 672 4,272 NaTOTAL ADDITIONAL BUDGET: 58,972 'S C. SCHEDULE OF TIME OF COMPLETION • Phase I ...... ...........................June 1, 1983 Phase II ..... .........................August 1, 1983 Phase III ..... ........................August 1, 1983 The time of completion is based on obtaining the topographic mapping and soil analysis in a timely manner, and reasonable response from reviewing agencies and utilities. • • f vd BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES Civil Engineering • Drainage — Flood Control • Special Studies • May 10, 1983 File No.: 82 -11 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 -C Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: Beryl- Hellman Storm Drain Agreement, Dated July 7, 1982 Dear Mr. Hubbs: Pursuant to our meeting on April 27th, regarding the need for additional topographic mapping through the Wash area and the need for extensive soils investigation through the Wash area, the following additional work under the Agreement is recommended. At that meeting, it was decided to provide additional aerial mapping through the Wash area, because of • the winter floods. The soils investigation was determined necessary because of the old fill area along the Wash below 19th Street. I Because of the delays made necessary by providing new topo- graphic mapping, and the soils investigation, it was decided to further phase the project. This proposal is based on the following project phases: A. PHASES OF WORK 1. Phase I -- Plans and specifications for storm drain improvements from the existing 10' x 6' RCB at 19th Street to the south side of the future Foothill Free- way, and Beryl Street plans from the "Beryle Dip" to the south side of the future Foothill Freeway. 2. Phase II -- Plans and specifications for channel improvements through the wash from Hellman Avenue to 19th Street. 3. Phase III -- Plans for storm drain improvements for The remaining portion of the project. The specifi- cations for this phase will not be prepared at this time. 1814 COMMERCENTER WEST - SUITE A • SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408 • 17141 8854309 Page 2 File No. 82 -11 B. ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK 1. New Topographic Surveying Provide new topographic surveying over the Wash area between Hellman Avenue and 19th Street. Provide 1 " =40', 1' contour interval mapping, (2) mylar plan and profile sheets. Estimated Additional Budget: $ 2,100. 2. Soils Engineering Investigation Provide field exploration and soils testing within the Wash area and the Beryl Street dip area. The soils report and analysis will include recommen- dations for construction through the fill area below 19th Street and Beryl Street, and storm drain construction above 19th Street. Additional Soils Investigation: $3,600. Less Original Budget: 11000. • Estimated Additional Budget: $ 2,600. 3. Additional Engineering and Design Due to Changes Replotting of cross- sections; calculation of earth- work quantities; probable redesign of channel, profile and alignment; redraft of northerly part of the right -of -way map. Estimated Additional Budget: 120 Hr.. @ $30. /Hr. = $3,600• 16 Hr. @ $42. /Hr. = 672. $ 4,272. TOTAL ADDITIONAL BUDGET: $ 8,972. The additional budget is an increase over the original budget amount of $40,750. made necessary by the re- flying of the topo, probable redesign due to the fill areas, separating the project into additional phases, and additional right -of -way mapping. • Page 3 File No. 82 -11 C. TIME OF COMPLETION .., Phase I . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . June 1, 1983 Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 1983 Phase III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 1, 1983 The time of completion is based on obtaining the topographic mapping and soil analyses in a timely manner, and reasonable response from reviewing agencies and utilities. The above changes and /or additions to the Scope of Work, time frame, and budget are amendments to the original contract. Except as amended herein, the agreement dated July 7, 1982, will remain in full force and effect. Sincerely, Consulting Engineer Is r • LJ STAFF REPORT 9 3 � DATE: May 18, 1983 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd S. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization of Establishment Disaster Repair Account under the Systems Development Fund In order to provide funds for payment of disaster repair work, it is necessary to fund an account to cover this work. In the past, funds for this type of work were provided from the General Fund. Due to the deficit state of the General Fund, the Finance Director and myself recommend that the account be established in the Systems Development fund. If reimbursement from the State or Federal Government is received, the funds will be paid back. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that a Disaster Repair Account be established within the Systems Development Fund. Respectfully submyitted, LBH: 'aa y' o • P CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Dave Leonard, Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: Annual Maintenance Contracts p cu�a+ati `C C9 ' z 1977 Three annual contracts for Parkway, Tree and Sweeping Maintenance are up for renewal June 30, 1983. The contracts covered a two year period with annual review for either continuation or termination. Having the contract cover a longer duration has provided reduced cost for the contracts and City cost for administration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council authorize the Engineering Division to seek bids for: Parkway Landscape and Irrigation City Tree Trimming City Street Sweeping Bids are to cover a 12 month period, renewable for an additional two years with a negotiable not to exceed 10% per annum clause. Respectfully submitted, � L1 d B. Hubbs City Engineer LBH:DL:bc �l C] F- IL &I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ° M04c STAFF REPORT' j yl 1 DATE: May 18, 1983 a TO: City Council and City Manager 19" FROM: Lloyd B. Rubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Approval of Parcel Map 5795, Bonds and Agreement - Granger located on the south side of Wilson Avenue at Mayberry Avenue Parcel Map 5795 was approved by the City Engineer on March 25, 1980 for the division of 2.37 acres into 4 parcels within the R -1- 20,000 zone located on the south side of Wilson Avenue at Mayberry Avenue. An agreement and bonds in the amount of $34,000.00 have been submitted to guarantee the improvement of Wilson and Mayberry Avenues. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 5795, bonds and agreement and authorizing the City Clerk and City Engineer to sign same. ly submitted, jaa Attachments TENTATIVE - MAP PARCEL MAP N° 5795 r ypyW� A� .Y x r AV6NUG�- d� 5, � z -- r.I — .1] Y A 3 .Y N i J� ♦{ICefJ 9n.a Jl..'will RESOLUTION NO. * ' • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 5795, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5795), IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 5795, submitted by Peter Granger, Subdivider, and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the south side of Wilson Avenue at Mayberry Avenue, being a division of a portion of Section 26, T. 1 N., R. 7 W., San Bernardino Base and Meridian was approved by the City Engineer as provided in the State Subdivision Map Act and is in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 5795 is the Final Map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map, said subdivider submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: 1. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map • delineating same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the certificate thereon behalf of said City; and 2. That said Parcel Map No. 5795 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: 9 Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk U Jon D. Mikels, Mayor E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR Parcel Map 5195 KNOW ALL MEN All THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referr- ed to as the City, by and between said City and Peter L. Granger hereinafter referred to as the Developer, THAT, WHEREAS, said Developer desires to develop Certain real property in said City located on the south side of Wilson at Mayberry; and WHEREAS, said city has established certain requirements to be met by said Developer as prerequisite to granting Of final approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the Developer as follows: 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at • developer's expense all improvements described on page 4 hereof within 12 months from the date hereof. 2. This agreement shall be effective on the date of the resolution of the Council of said City approving this agreement. This agreement shall be in default on the day follow- ing the first anniversary date of said approval unless an exten- sion of time has been granted by said City as hereinafter provid- ed. 3, The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, In writing not less than 30 days prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In considers - tion of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cast estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4, If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions to be completed by any law- ful means, and thereupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cost and expense Incurred in so doing. 5. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Devel- oper from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of any work within the pub] it right -of -way, and the developer shall conduct such work in full compliance with the regulations contained therein, Non - compliance may result in stopping of the work by the City, and assessment of the penalties provided. 6. Public right -o£ -way improvement work required shall be constructed in conformance with approved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto. Construction shall include any transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or • ,I I1 u • public safety. Errors or ommissions discovered during construe- tion shall be corrected upon the direction of the -City Engineer. Revised work due to said plan modifications shall be covered by the provisions of this agreement and secured by the surety covering the original planned works. 7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligent- ly pursued to completion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. 8. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocations, or removal of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all These rock and other debris from the public right -of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The prin- cipal amount of said improvement Security shall not be less than the amount shown: • ,I I1 u i c T • E FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE Type: Principal Anount: $34,000.00 Name and address of surety: MATERIAL AND LABOR Type: Principal Amount: 517,000.00 Name and address of surety: CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTATION Type: Principal Amount: -0- Name and address of surety: TO BE POSTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledge with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth opposite their signatures. STATE OF cALIFOR\Ia� COVYTY OF D- 1"'rn ^.tra n 55 on �S11 :.� 2 IHF`J wlen �, Ibe mrrt -yl4 pr me' want el lne;fnr rwn111 .FMrM 1 � n (( Frrronllr Im Arm to meta pew" re mr on IM Mv. W.'alu.ry aranvel to R ux pernn Mew nme n v..., i.,h.,nnrvmem .N .ono. kJLea lnY M 11h or 1111 ..tared n. SrM lu re C' ` i 5f,f��:.r; H qur Pu w., in eM Inr ud Coumr end S..re Attest tu City Clerk a� C' Approved: X/lf ty Aftntrii lU C!54rpE J,,IR!iCHE.4 `�'AiCi SAy Cnli r +p�:0 �1 DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURES MUST RE NOTARIZED FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP CITY OF RANCHO CDCAMONGA CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE For Improvement of: v +Yberr v n; .,lsnn Avenue 833.00 CONTINGENCY COSTS Date: /29/83 Camou:ed by: 5........a" TOTAL CONSTROLTI @I • File a-.7-re rence: Pane Mao @; 96 f.i ;y Jw9- NO -35 325.00 325.00 NOTE: Goes not include current fee for S.F. .80 2,653.60 writing permit or pavement deposits. S.F. .70 9.604.00 MONNMENTATION SURETY (LASH) _ CONSTRUCTION COST EST ^'ATE L.F. 2.00 890.00 ITEM N Ni ° Ue IT UNIT -CST 5 AMOUNT P.C.C. Curb - 8" C_F.x 2d •' 110 L.F. 6.60 6.25 748.0` 2,887.'C P.L.C. Curb - 8" L.F. x 1B" 462 L.F, 6.00 342.01 P.C.C. Curb only 8" 57 L.F 31 . E. 8.00 248.0( A.C. Berm ($200 min.) . 1050 S.F. 1.40 1,470.0( 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk b 506 S.F. 1.80 910.3( 6 Drive Approac 8'• P.L.L. Cross Gutter Street Excavation Imported Embankment Preparation of Subgrade Crushed Aggregate Base (per ,n. ..,mk) P.C. (over 1300 tons) A.C. (900 to 1300 tons) P.C. (under 500 to 900 tons) P.L. (under 500 tons) Patch A.C. (trench) 111 thick A.C. Overlay Adjust sewer manhole to grade Adjust sewer clean out to grade Adjust water valves to grddo Street Lights Street Name Signs Street Trees .30' Asohalt .25' Asphalt Redwood Header 2 "x4'• Type "L" Markers Type •'M" Markers Cross Gutter b Spandrel Remove A.C. Berm Furnish and install 24" L.M.P. one headwall, one catch basin, one local depression, rip -rap per plan Remove rip -rap on adjomting property at later date 2975 S.F. .28 833.00 CONTINGENCY COSTS Sy TOTAL CONSTROLTI @I • 1 EA, 325.00 325.00 3371 S.F. .80 2,653.60 13720 S.F. .70 9.604.00 MONNMENTATION SURETY (LASH) _ 445 L.F. 2.00 890.00 4 EA. 80.00 320.00 1 EA. 110.00 110.00 595 S.F. 2.70 1,606.50 250 S.F. 1.00 250.00 140 L.S. 7650.00 7,650.00 60 L.S. 300.00 300.00 CONSTRUCTION COST S31,148.40 CONTINGENCY COSTS Sy TOTAL CONSTROLTI @I 534 000 11 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE. SURETY (100 %) 534,000.00 LABOR AND MATERIAL SECURITY (50%) 111 000.00 ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEE S 1 680.00 MONNMENTATION SURETY (LASH) _ 'D- y,w, -V . M E M O R A N D U M TO: Beverly Authelet, Deputy City Clerk FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, -City Attorney DATE: May 5, 1983 RE: Destruction of Records Enclosed please find the approved Instructions for Records Inventory worksheet as modified. RED:sjo Enclosures • a INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDS INVENTORY WORKSHEET DEPARTMENT CITY CLERK FILE CAB. NO. DRAWER NO. • LOCATION SECRETARY'S OFFICE SHELF CASE N0. SHELF NO. PACE 111*0. 1 of 2 OTHER PREPARED BY /DATE authel et /4 -H -B3 VOLUME (CL'.FT.) INCLUSIVE DATES SERIES TITLE(S) 6 DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS Claims which were denied -- time expired: Claimant: Beattly, Clifford P. Blasingame, Mr. 6 Mrs. T. L. .93e✓' --r �f Brown, Cheril Lyn Cortizo, Mr. 6 Mrs. Martin De Luca, Patrick Derho, Ernest Fowler, Richard Gallucci, James Vincent Gibson, Andrew Gregory, Robert Glen lleisen, Mr. 6 .Mrs. Edward Honey, Green Andrew Ilsley, Peter Jones, Kerry aka Lehde, Kerry Jones, Early Steven III Joyce, Lawrence M. Lane, Randy Lee Lawrence, Robert Raymond Luce, Bonnie, Kevin b Kerry Meint.s, Larry W. Madison, Agnela Nittler, David Lee Oskins, John L., Jr. Parcell, Robert J. Parks, Marlene A. Payes, Marcelo Julian APP REMARKS: Letter of denial sent: August 4, 1980 April 28, 1980 ,f April 3, 1979 August 9, 1979 May 28, 1980 August 17, 1979 ,k12iT21 -1 1 March 22, 1961 June 18, 1980 July 10, 1980 June 18, 1980 June 14, 1978 October 24, 1979 September 18, 1980 October 6, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 October 6, 1980 March 15, 1979 November 4, 1980 August 28, 1980 April 3, 1979 February 21, 1980 January 2, 1980 May 4, 1981 DISPOSITION OF RECORDS: 7 • Page 2 of 2 Perry, Gladys March 24, 1980 ! Roberson, Paul E. June 18, 1980 Salser, Kenneth /Frank, Kenny May 31, 1979 Scott, Dayle S. August 28, 1960 Solderberg, Laura Jean January 2, 1980 Soldman, David M. February 13, 1981 Utley, Robert April 16, 1979 Wallace, Edgar R. March 24, 1980 Wink, Mr. 6 Mrs. George April 3, 1979 Small Claims: Claimant: Date Settled: • Marquez, Francis A. September 21, 1979 Martinez, Anita A*9�9' Pianalto, Cecelia January 12, 1979 Rodriguez, Ramon 6 Nellie Smith, Jeannie C. June 20, 1980 Settled Claims: Claimant: Date settled: Block, Jeff November 2, 1978 Mendias, Linda December 3, 1979 Wislon, Pamela September 1, 1978 u Y • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090. WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records under the charge of the following City departments are no longer required for public or private purposes: City Clerk WHEREAS, it has been determined that destruction of the above - mentioned materials is necessary to conserve storage space, and reduce staff time, expense, and confusion in handling, and informing the public; and WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the head of a City department to destroy any City records and documents which are over two years old under his or her charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same are no longer required, upon the approval of the City Council by resolution and the written consent of the City • Attorney; and WHEREAS, it is therefore desirable to destroy said records as listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, in storage, without making a copy thereof, which are over two years old; and WHEREAS, said records have been approved for destruction by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 That approval and authorization is hereby given to destroy those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2 That the City Clerk is authorized to allow examination by and donation to the Department of Special Collections of the University Research Library, University of California, or other historical society designated by the City Council, any of the records described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, except those deemed to be confidential. SECTION 3 That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. Is PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 1983. AYES: * NOES; 1`� ABSENT: # • ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • LI L • EXHIBIT "A" CLAIMS DENIED -- TIME EXPIRED Claimant: Beattly, Clifford P. Blasingame, Mr. 6 Mrs. T. L. Blevins, Edgar Cortizo, Mr. S Mrs. Martin DeLuca, Patrick Derho, Ernest Fowler, Richard Gregory, Robert Glen Heisen, Mr. 3 Mrs. Edward Honey, Green Andrew Ilsley, Peter Jones, Kerry aka Lehde, Kerry Jones, Erly Steven III Joyce, Lawrence M. Lane, Randy Lee Lawrence, Robert Raymond Luce, Bonnie, Kevin S Kerry Meints, Larry W. Madison, Agnela Nittler, David Lee Oskins, John L., Jr. Parcell, Robert J. Parks, Marlene A. Perry, Gladys Ransfer, Mr. S Mrs. James Robertson, Paul E. Salser, Kenneth;Frank, Kenny Scott, Dayle S. Solderberg, Laura Jean Utley, Robert Wallace, Edgar H. Willett, Joan S Volney Wink, Mr. 6 Mrs. George Claimant: Marquez, Francis A. Pianalto, Ceclia Smith, Jeannie C. Claimant: Block, Jeff Mendias, Linda Wilson, Pamela SMALL CLAIMS SETTLED CLAIMS Letter of denial sent: August 4, 1980 April 28, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 August 9, 1979 May 28, 1980 August 17, 1979 June 18, 1980 July 10, 1980 June 18, 1980 June 14, 1978 October 24, 1980 September 18, 1980 October 6, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 October 6, 1980 March 15, 1980 November 4, 1980 August 28, 1980 April 3, 1979 February 21, 1980 January 2, 1980 March 24, 1980 April 16, 1979 June 18, 1980 May 31, 1979 August 28, 1980 January 2, 1980 April 16, 1979 March 24, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 Date settled: September 21, 1979 January 12, 1979 June 20, 1980 Date settled: November 2, 1978 December 3, 1979 September 1, 1978 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDS INVENTORY WORKSHEET DEPARTNM %T FILE CAB. NO. DRAWER NO. • LOCATION SHELF CASE NO. SHELF NO. PACE NO. OTHER PREPARED BY /DATE VOLLME (CL'.FT.) INCLUSIVE DATES SERIES TITLES) S DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS REMARKS: CLAIMS DENIED -- TIME EXPIRED Claimant: Beattly, Clifford P. Blasingame, Mr. 6 Mrs. T. L. Blevins, Edgar Cortizo, Mr. 4 Mrs. Martin DeLuca, Patrick Derho, Ernest Fowler, Richard Gregory, Robert Glen Heisen, Mr. R Mrs. Edward Hoxey, Green Andrew Ilsley, Peter Jones, Kerry aka Lehde, Kerry Jones, Early Steven III Joyce, Lawrence M. Lanue, Randy Lee Lawrence, Robert Raymond Luce, Bonnie, Kevin 6 Kerry Meints, Larry W. Madison, Agnela Nittler, David Lee Oskins, John L., Jr. Parcell, Robert J. Parka, Marlene A. Perry, Gladys Ransfer, Mr. 6 Mrs. James Robertson, Paul E. APPROVED FOR IIP.STROCTION V CITY -'TT'TORN E't ._ W Letter of denial sent: August 4, 1980 April 28, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 August 9, 1979 May 28, 1980 August 17, 1979 June 18, 1980 July 10, 1980 June 18, 1980 June 14, 1978 October 24, 1980 September 18, 1980 October 6, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 October 6, 1980 March 15, 1980 November 4, 1980 August 28, 1980 August 28, 1960 February 21, 1980 January 2, 1980 March 24, 1980 April 16, 1979 June 18, 1980 DISPOSITTON OF RECORDS: a Salser, Kenneth;Frank, Kenny Scott, Dayle S. Solderberg, Laura Jean Utley, Robert Wallace, Edgar U. Willett, Joan 6 Volney Wink, Mr. 6 Mrs. George • Claimant: Marquez, Francis A. Pianalto, Ceclia Smith, Jeannie C. Claimant: Block, Jeff Mendias, Linda Wilson, Pamela C J SMALL CLAIMS SETTLED CLAIMS n ' May 31, 1979 August 28, 1980 January 2, 1980 April 16, 1979 March 24, 1980 April 3, 1979 April 3, 1979 Date settled: September 21, 1979 January 12, 1979 June 20, 1980 Date settled: November 2, 1978 December 3, 1979 September 1, 1978 0 RESOLUTION NO. 83 -64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PEAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SALINA STREET AND MALVERN AVENUE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Jon D, Mlkels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk P The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby reso Ives as foil..,: SECTION 1: Tne City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, nereby authorizes the purchase by the City of Rancho Cucaaonga, California, loom the owner thereof, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, the real property located at the northeast corner of Salina Street and Malvern Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, more particularly described as fellows: Parcel 209 - 041.44 of Parcel Map 4875, P.M. 46141,92, Par. Cucamonga Fruit Lands, M.B.4 /9. SUBJECT 70; All reservations, restrictions, rights and right- of-way of record. SECTION 2: With respect to the property referred to herelnabove, the City Council hereby authorizes the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to pay the amount of $65,700, in cash, upon close of ex row, to Union Basin Municipal Water District. • SECTION 3: The City Clerk is authorized sad directed to prepare all conveyances and other Snstruaents necessary to effectuate the exchange of a land, and the s me shell be signed by the City Clerk as to acceptance an behalf of the City. The City Clerk is authorized and Instructed to accept and record In the Office Of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, a deed of trust with respect to said real property hereinabove described. PASSED. APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: Dahl, Bu9uet, Schlosser, Frost, Mlkels NOES: Nan, ABSENT: None Jon D, Mlkels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk P i) L • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager or . C F V1 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for Annexation No. 13 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract No. 11734 Attached for Council approval is a resolution declaring the City Council's intent to annex Tract No. 11734 to Landscape Maintenance District No. I and setting the date for public hearing on June 15, 1983. A letter of intent to join the landscape and lighting district has been received from the developer, American National Group. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution declaring the City's intent to annex Tract No. 11734 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and setting the date for public he 'ring for June 15, 1983. Respectfully submitted, Attachment C � American National Group • 405 Sa BessVy Oma Be'" Hill- Califomia 90212 • 12131879 0900 EEmund F. Sdmledara, dr. Chavman of the Board :a '�T1 � 1!1�I lVllil 1.UCA::�D ilk September 9, 1982 "' `'r' -' " "' ' :.rvo;l Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P.O. Box 11807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 1/11734 Dear Mr. Hubbs: We are the developers of Tentative Tract 1111734 (Mulberry Place). We agree to have this tract included in the Special Assessment • District for landscape and the Special Assessment District for lighting, as provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely, AMERICAN NATIONAL GROUP Martha S. Schnieders Vice- President MSSO1hc • Reel Estate Services Investment - Design'Deelo m t - Cnnstr tm hn nce Marketing Manag, nt.Insulsnce 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. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 WHEREAS, on May 11, 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 de scr�i 'Fe-3—in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions oved land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved 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 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: /� Resolution No. Page 3 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Engineer's Report for ANNEXATION NO. 13 to the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 Tract 11734 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 11734 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 11734. 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 he 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 costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (including Annexation No. 13 comprised of 13,720 square feet of landscaped area) is shown below: • /,01/ 1/ is Engineer's Report Annexation 13 Page 4 Total Annual Maintenance Cost 3.30 X 284,766 square feet = 85,429.80 Per Lot Annual Assessment 85 429 80 = 44.36 9_9x_ Per Lot Monthly Assessment 44.36 = 3.70 7� Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner maintenance. SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram • A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby incorporated within the text of this report. SECTION 6. Assessment Improvement for Annexation No. 13 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. Engineer's Report Annexation 13 Page 5 5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the City Council-. • 6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and approves, or modifies and 'approves the individual assessments. • • �� i RESOLUTION NO. • 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. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as follows: SECTION 1. 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 rig t -o -way and landscaping easements of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 13 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ". SECTION 3. Description of Assessment District: That the contemplatein the opinion of said ity Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said district is assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which district is described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within, the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Annexation No. 13 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 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983- • • SECTION 4. Re ort of Engineer: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. as 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. 13, 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 5. Collection of Assessments: The assessment shall be collected at the same time an in t e same manner as County taxes are collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing upon said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined. SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearing_: Notice is hereby given that on June 158 at t e hour o 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 to identify property in which each signer thereof is interested, sufficient to the the same, and must be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior time set for the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be • considered. If the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property described in the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described. SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through 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 ma� pursuant to Section o t e overnment Code. The Nayor 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, N—i ornia, and circulated in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983- • • lil ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ANNEXATION NO. 13 L L A. V� IN 6 CITY OP R,k%,N'Cl-l() CUCAMC ENGINEERING DIVISION Vi Y VICINITY NIAP 1, Am6t)mr A N pag, • RESOLUTION NO. * ' CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA IT COUNCIL H F RANCHO OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITYY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvement of said Landscape Maintenance District No. 1; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said 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, it is ordered as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental in connection therewith, contained in said expenses report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. That the diagram showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the land within said boundaries of the subdivisions of Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 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, incidental respectively, from said work and of the expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4 said shall sand a or the Annual Report fiscal years 1983 -84Engineer's purposes of all subsequent proceedings. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1983 -84 ENGINEER'S REPORT • FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT This report is prepared in compliance with the requirement of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). SECTION 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The report deals with the actual costs for Fiscal Year 1982 -83 and the estimated assessments for Fiscal Year 1983 -84 of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for various subdivisions throughout the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Areas to be included in the work program are specifically defined in the body of the report and on the attached Assessment Diagrams. The total area of said parkway being 223,396 square feet. Work to be provided for, with the assessments established by the District are: The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operating, servicing and restoration of any parkway . improvement. Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be divided an a per lot basis. SECTION 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Parkway improvements were constructed by the developers for the individual subdivision parkways. The plans and parkways are as stipulated in the conditions of approval for each subdivision and as approved by the City Planning Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract maps and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the landscape areas. The plans and specifications for landscape improvement on the individual tracts are hereby made a part of this report to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto, Detailed maintenance activities on the enumerated parkway areas include: the repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, the maintenance, repair, and replacement as necessary of all irrigation systems, and the removal of graffiti from wails immediately adjacent to the cultivated areas. J • SECTION 4. ESTIMATED COSTS Due to general deterioration, vandalism or loss various parkways within the District will be renovated, repaired and replanted at an estimated cost of $15,566.29. Based on historical data adjusted for inflation, it is estimated that maintenance cast for assessment purposes will equal seventeen cents (S.17 ) per square foot for the fiscal year 1983 -84. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment will be based on actual cost data. 1982 -83 Estimated Assessment Cost $.20 X 199,936 square feet = $39,987.00 $39,987.00 = $44.83 ($45.00) 89 lots 1982-83 Actual Cost Summary Restoration of parkway at Base Line nd Rmona Labor and Materials $5,048.32 • 82 -83 Actual Parkway Maintenance Costs $4,847.52 utilities 1,635.57 City Labor 643.95 Parts Contract Maint. 22,368.88 Weed Control 924.61 2.702.52 Administration E TOTAL $33,123.05 Actual Assessment ($39,987.00) less Actual Cost ($33,123.05) + ($58048.32)r at$15,5751.29v CARRYOVERS FOR683-84s RESTORATIONn Cost 1983 -84 Estimated Assessment Cost $,17 X 233,396 square feet = $37,977.32 Restoration of the folowing parkways estimated at $15,575.29: Southeast corner Lemon & Hermosa 19th at Jasper (P.M. 5922) Archibald @ Placer (Tract 10569) v SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM A copy of the proposed Master Assessment diagram is • attached to this report and labeled "Exhibit A ". Detailed diagrams of each tract are included. These diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report. Lot dimensions are- as shown on individual Tract Maps as shown in records of County Recorder. TOTAL ASSESSABLE LOTS 1982 -83 = 892 ANNEXATION SOMAMRY TRACT NO. Of LOTS *ASSESSABLE Tract 9658 Tract 12040 Tract 10045 _ Total Lots NOTE: Only annexed Tract for assessment purposes. TOTAL ASSESSABLE LOST 198 SECTION 6. ASSESSMENT 52 0 328 0 10 0 --STS ___U 60% occupied shall he included 3 -84 = 892 Improvement for the entire district are found to be of general benefit to all lots within the District and that • assessment shall be equal for each parcel. It is proposed that all future development shall be annexed to the District. ASSESSMENT = $37,977.32 divided by 892 lots = $42.58 ($43.00) 0 001, RESOLUTION NO. * • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983 -84 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 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, does resolve as follows: Description of Work SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for the fiscal year 1983 -84 for the maintenance and operation of those parkways and facilities thereon dedicated for common greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said District. 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. Location of Work SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within roadway ri- iTt-of -way and landscaping easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ". Description of Assessment District SECTION 3: 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 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 ", indicating by said boundary line 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. Reference is hereby made to said map for further, full and more particular description of said assessment district, and the said map so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment district. Resolution No. Page 2 • Report of Engineer SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. * has approved the annual report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district boundary, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report titled "Annual Engineer's Report, 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. Time and Place of Hearing SECTION 5: Notice is hereby given that on the 15th day of June, 1983, at the our of 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any and all persons may appear and show cause why said work should not be done or carried out or why assessments should not be levied and collected for fiscal year 1983 -84. 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 such protest must contain or be accompanied by written evidence that such signer is the owner of the • property so described. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through 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, Publication of Resolution of Intention SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in The Daily 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 18th day of May, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0, 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA BANYAN Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979.- _— City Clerk B W i ¢ 7 G W S W O 3 O J Q _m Z V Q r ST. LEGEND — Assessment District Boundary �s Landscaping Area TRACT 92(57 W W ti h ti N 1 14 W CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 53 5Z 5i 1 50 H9 48 M FNZ9N /Tq OR. ),17 SVN940WEA SL 21 Z2 23 25 1 6 17 16 15 /M /3 SVN940WEA SL Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this _ day of 1919. City Clerk ' N 'W t h W n 12 Wt9 V �J LJ LEGEND —Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area I �TIIRACT 9268 110E 2 u bl/ �npmlp Lc.1. llUl N� I% 16 b I 3 H 5 6 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this _ day of 1919. City Clerk ' N 'W t h W n 12 Wt9 V �J LJ LEGEND —Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area I �TIIRACT 9268 110E 2 u bl/ �npmlp Lc.1. llUl N� I% 16 b • r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF. SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this __ day of 1979. ,.. Si a W F LEGEND -- Assessment District Boundary "110�Landscapinq Area 7RAC7 9268 2 2oF2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA W/L SON AVE. H \9 3B 37 \-' X26 36 I 30 e 4L Z 3s 31 F 113 j 39 32 tJ C0770NWO0p 33 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this _ day of 1979. AW i/ 20 41 25 e 29 Z3 22 21 D J Q m 3 /9 U e /B LEGEND Assessment District Boundary .� Landscaping Area Ad TRACT 9269 I 1 A 2 n u 9 40 1 �y r tr CITY OF RANCHC CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF, SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA i k, ti W e WILSON p to 5/ y 52 5 5; C0777ONWe0O AVE. yB I 47 W ¢ 46 h = 45 U J ¢ 4Y WAY Filed in the Office of the City Clerk ''ii this _ day of LEGEND 1979. — Assessment District Boundary mmmill Landscaping Area TRACT 9269 117 2OF2 Y I'1 CIT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM . LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA \ /A /9 ZO Zf 22 Z3 29 Q C r Y Zq C ot,nq H/ yo YZ 39 41 3B HY 37 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 197?. Ci ty b a Q F Q On. Q Q m 1 U Q LEGEND Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area TRACT 9306 I l of 2 cnr ..vmw r.a..,nu -7w—.l ! �,- 4 0 • 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA !2 Q ys 35 30 Q N47 34 3! 9 R Q l 4H 33 32 s FILM OvP ST. Q m 7 6 5 Y 3 2 U Q Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of LEGEND 1979. — Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area City C1erY T". CT 9.306 2 F 2 r r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA hisC in the Office of the City Clerk this _ day of 1979. 6 0 79 �0 LL y0 sGC� hb T LE;E!;D — Assessment District Boundary wm� Landsca Vinq Area y i '7 bi 5 P� dti w d 9g 39 36 AO 5 TRACT 935/ l A 2 cn/ •nam�u nu. aw ?u� 1 0 I T L V v J C O � � N V N � ii L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF, SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA I5 !b 17 le N ti !9 � 0 2D 2/ MARBLE AVE. 2B 22 23 7 21 795 24 2 2 v v T V U L W O N V W •� O o � � o L V a .n am r L P LL a+ r I TRACT 9351 I2 OF 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEMON i 2 z ib 15 4 Z ORANGI G 0 .3 3e 3l 29 l7 8 I S 29 /e 7 b ¢ 27 eRlsroL OR. W m /9 % 20 ! 2; 22 27 24 c 26 I ZS Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 197?. City Clerk LEGEND —Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area TRACT 9402 6 • u T C! V- O W T 0 o° N .n m iz E� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 it I 13 /Z Ib \\ I`• 6RUToL N � ppvE v i to 11 20 Z, r i 25 �, L4 L3 it M 4 J 26 \ W SCHERSET Q 41 i qu�E Li — 10 —/ Se 21 30 31 34 33 j4 mi I i j 39 LI 37 GII .OY,11.., L4... ,.1,. .YI• nLTn LDMA apvE TRACT 9403 I5> 7 L F C 3 0 f VI t 4 Cl W � 01 6 = O w v+ u J N9 N C Q J t( T I 6 � t V! 4 2 I 1 7 If i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA W W Q ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE . OF CALIFORNIA POPLF%R 29 20 27 26 25 WILSON Filed in the Office Of the City Clerk this day of 1979. STgEFi • g h Q• 2Y 23 U LEGEND — Assessment District Boundary tom— Landscaping Area I TRACT 9430 I l of 2 �: A 0 • 0 1 PO CITY OF RANCHO ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CUCAMONGA DIAGRAM DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA WILSON FIVE. Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. City Clerk 1 J n\ W I� Z Z I LEGEND Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area i TRACT 9430 I2 of 2 ulI �n9mu1 Li.�. fLn W, I .z e CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE.. OF CALIFORNIA 29 25 26 j 27 W 4 2B 25 30 J 31 V 32 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979.— — City Clerk • LEGEND —Assessment District Boundary -um-01-andscaoinq Area I TRACT 9434 I 9 U • L. 11 i �• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. city Clerk 13 AVF ' /1 /3 ' 17 2s 2 27 24 2a LEGEND —Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area I TRACT 9436 ob rna�rou r.a�. uw T � n `f /O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM • LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 17 b IB /5 /! g I ze s zr • zz e z8 zS 2DA zJ Lb 4 Filed in the office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. City C erk LEGEND — Assessment District Boundary � Landscaping Area TRACT - 9437 1 // n U I 1 U CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF- SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA C6 2 —ZS N ti W 2 Q Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. LEGEND City Clerk — ,Assessment District Boundary — Landscapinq Area I TRACT 9444 I 12 YM jU i� 51 3 y3 2 y az � =-s � to c /A 4 41 3 9 � Y L7 U /3 - e 7 /6 BANYAN S 17 35- 37, 20 19 /B 36 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. LEGEND City Clerk — ,Assessment District Boundary — Landscapinq Area I TRACT 9444 I 12 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 01 U) 24 25I 2V 1 23 1 22 ZI ZO 1 19 /a 0 /G 25 BURGUNDY AVM. k ra ti N 3 N 4 9 10 /5 � U Q O A Filed in the Office of the City Clerk th15 day Of 9RG mBR<O FVENUE 1979. ty U, erk LEGIND — Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area TRACT 9445 I /3 z r/ Ya 39 39 37 36 35 3V 331 2 � Y3 BURGUNDY , x /2 ✓E- 3/ U�1 4r V5 50 5S SG G/ V �. .O YT YB 5/ T 3Y 57 60 Y6 Y7 /SB 59 52 � 53 FFC,Y19FL0 9VENVE 01 U) 24 25I 2V 1 23 1 22 ZI ZO 1 19 /a 0 /G 25 BURGUNDY AVM. k ra ti N 3 N 4 9 10 /5 � U Q O A Filed in the Office of the City Clerk th15 day Of 9RG mBR<O FVENUE 1979. ty U, erk LEGIND — Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area TRACT 9445 I /3 • KI Q 2 W Q 1 { CITY llF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5 b 7 Q 59 Se > 49 40 e ZH p 37 se a 36 '/a vv4/ e 5Z 7 44e 2 f57 6 i 3 c , 5 4S 44 <F V INE Q 79 30 � N 29 38 3/ ZH p 37 3Z 27 36 33 Zb 35 3Y LS .STREET 6 9 10 12 I /3 I N 115 I Ii I V 119 119 20 9 122 127 21 SOUTHERN PACIFIC q. R R1W Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. 1 411 �nqn rrr L4�1�1�� a°1� LEGEND Assessment District Boundary Landsca Dinq Area rRA C 9454 I /4 \ J � a• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA L ^J 0 n V j 0 c� w ci c w J ■ L CJ V T N u w 0 w w T O �n L v v �P sEc 4nr •.a ^••r ..a.. nn. T' 53 52 I J7 54 55 j 50 39 j 56 Q 49 40 57 48 4/ 58 V 47 42 1 59 46 43 J GO 45 4a Z HEATHER 30 35 34 33 32 3/ 30 29 28 8T RING AVE ]LMJ a 5 G 1 7 e i 9 /9 rH ST. TRACT 9472 UJI Q W m C /5 i r l 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 14 13 /2 /l /0 RING AVE ]LMJ a 5 G 1 7 e i 9 /9 rH ST. TRACT 9472 UJI Q W m C /5 i r l • Ll CITY OF RANCHO ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CUCAMONGA DIAGRAM DISTRICT NO. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA BASELINE _ 1 aal rcl sore ra 9/ 34�rlaLSr rn 1z U is aa�e> ne'a9 3 45 (� I�B�9 Filed in the Office of the City Clerk this day of 1979. City Clerk 4 w W U LEGEND — Assessment District Boundary Landscaping Area rRACT 9460 Lnr enomrrr r.ce. nm T � :r..i /G I w � ZY 25 26 27 20 29 22 L3 APRICOT 5T. 19 IB /] Tss R 0 ti 21 1 i 2 WI I =1 Q / 2 3 Y 5 b LEMON AVE, f� �AHI TRACT 9637 A ..... /.,. .v. I?dL L u CITY Or RANCHO CUJTvlONGA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE GIST RI CT NO. 1 ASSESSMENT OISTRICT41 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE. OF CALIFORNIA I w � ZY 25 26 27 20 29 22 L3 APRICOT 5T. 19 IB /] Tss R 0 ti 21 1 i 2 WI I =1 Q / 2 3 Y 5 b LEMON AVE, f� �AHI TRACT 9637 A ..... /.,. .v. I?dL L u • C CITY 6 RAIICI -) CUG,(�3i1GA ASS`SSMEN T DIAGRAt l LANDSCAPE MARITENtO;Cr. DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION "2 CITY OF RANCHO cUcAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BE= .ILARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ___/ \ __j 5UtFL 01.ER ST ti N rR,acr 9176 6 5 4 J 2 ! W at rR,acr 9176 __j L C4 AU GE I I 5'E�y 4 / \ I li\� �� 31 is 41 N � Z 5n �2 CITY CC RANCII C U C, Ord GA ASSESSMENT DIA.GRAivi LANOSCARE MA I N TE`l All',E O'ST RI CT N3. 1 ANNEXATION p2 CITY OF RANCHO CU CAUO': 3 CGUNTY OF SAN EERHAROINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA __j L C4 AU GE I I 5'E�y 4 / \ I li\� �� 31 is 41 N � Z 5n <,It •n�.�n Lc �.lnff acle se I 59 sf A,t ` I, pi i 1.4 / �I 4b v bT 63 49 TR'C 9225 r w V of 2 �2 49 W 93' 18 I 47 I U1 Uj I Hli i -LAt+V <,It •n�.�n Lc �.lnff acle se I 59 sf A,t ` I, pi i 1.4 / �I 4b v bT 63 49 TR'C 9225 r w V of 2 • • 19 •J. Ci'I't b RA= 1L1-1 ) CUC;(� iiJGH ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAPITENANLE DISTRICT 140. 1 ANNEXATION "2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA III . r� J 1 Hi -.S:a, .vio TRACT 9225 12 of 2 U U Z 7 W L: ASSLSSMENIT DIAGRAP,1 LANDSCAPE MAIN TE -U,N ._ CISTRI CT ..0. 1 ' ANNEXATION 1° 2 CITY OF RANCHO CCCAMO'IGA • CC .Nll OF S: STATE CF CALIFORNIA _ HIGHLAND AVE. W Q Q Q) W Z rP,:cr 9567 I '� • Li-F{ {- Cf1I�LI'J c ci IiH ASSESSMEN-i DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MA RITENA`ICE, DISTRICT N0. 1 ANNEXAT:CN 2 CIT'/ OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COON TV OF SAN BERN ARM NO STATE OF CAU FORMA 2] is 28 �9 ` J 14 ao 17 al $ 22 31 as JJ 20 w i I Jt I H01 X610 JS Ja at v`L - 1 19 I I IZ 10 PI 14 IJ Ib 17 16 9 1. a 1 r. Fes--- - 7 7 IMI TRACT [\JO, 9435 IBC P9 I OF I 1 -1fJ- I I j I I w TRACT N0. • I I 1 I I 9432 2] is 28 �9 ` J 14 ao 17 al $ 22 31 as JJ 20 w i I Jt I H01 X610 JS Ja at v`L - 1 19 I I IZ 10 PI 14 IJ Ib 17 16 9 1. a 1 r. Fes--- - 7 7 IMI TRACT [\JO, 9435 IBC P9 I OF I >I ` ti ,r it Lw.. C C ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I ANNEXATION NO.3 TR 12, I: zo: it ,, � �, . • ..�..., :_ 5 6 7 t ✓jjj 0 QQ �• �' rr9 16 - IS S: Id lil rd' Ip y j' CIT1'OP R, \ \'ChfO CCC ; \;; \IO \'G\CT excixr rktNc Dn Islo` kTR�JA VICI \'ITV 1 \I \I, 91 ; - r • 9 C C ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.1 ANNEXATION NO.3 cI or r.\NCI10 592-2 ilan 5922 EN(;I\'L'CI:I \G DIVISION �TI c NINETE ?4r4 /SL rE Mwr >J) 5� ?en+ __� III 1 »: W r III IT 'IFfl m m '• •• asCE'. S a:El c:l e i 'I• e 1 cI or r.\NCI10 592-2 ilan 5922 EN(;I\'L'CI:I \G DIVISION �TI ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I • 1 ANNEXATION N0.4 T 4 A • L A ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ANNEXATION NO. 4 Pi p-1 t II CITN'OFIZANCI 10 0 TR'CT EN'GINEERING DI\ IS;ON VI C I N I TY I 11 N 142 Exhibit- —A — - � \ , ' �----_-__-- ti F7 , ° A E,\'(":Nr.I:RING DIVISION to ASSESSMENT DIAGRA�'.,l VICINITY INIMI LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, I ANNEXATION MO.5 ' �----_-__-- ti F7 , ° A E,\'(":Nr.I:RING DIVISION to VICINITY INIMI A E,\'(":Nr.I:RING DIVISION VICINITY INIMI W • 1 .0 ASSESSNIENT DIAGRALM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ANNEXATION NO. 6 q i P", 14e, ..( 11 m i I CITY OP RANCI 10 (,Uc,\.\ lo',,G,\ TqACT 10 0 5-I ENGINFERING DIVISION T VICINITY NIAP W7 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I ANNEXATION NO. 6 �P 90 }5 10 1 99 ^1� I1 �7 90— I�3T •I 29 I', S 'I X39 J }0 22.Y 57 L L_ 21 '1221 I : }129.251L? '26 20 119 1 16 11) 116 10 1 9 !_ —� 0} 04 051p6'IOi 09 n_119 II312III�IIO 1091 `59 ^�aii',.n� 6 ISY0 3 2 LJ LINE CITY 01: RANG IO CUC\,\IONGA ` o ENGINEERING DIVISIO\ �7 r �i li VICINITY \1. \P I III • I Cd � B I i11 "6 TS T91 73� 0 it 192 19 90 el 9} 6� 'p 2 98 i9 J 50 70 1 1 I fa_l Q; 69 90 39899T,96851 6B 111 I j', ` 32 9J 991951 ^61 661 I is 101100 99001 97 ,��J �P 90 }5 10 1 99 ^1� I1 �7 90— I�3T •I 29 I', S 'I X39 J }0 22.Y 57 L L_ 21 '1221 I : }129.251L? '26 20 119 1 16 11) 116 10 1 9 !_ —� 0} 04 051p6'IOi 09 n_119 II312III�IIO 1091 `59 ^�aii',.n� 6 ISY0 3 2 LJ LINE CITY 01: RANG IO CUC\,\IONGA ` o ENGINEERING DIVISIO\ �7 r �i li VICINITY \1. \P I III • I 57 L L_ 21 '1221 I : }129.251L? '26 20 119 1 16 11) 116 10 1 9 !_ —� 0} 04 051p6'IOi 09 n_119 II312III�IIO 1091 `59 ^�aii',.n� 6 ISY0 3 2 LJ LINE CITY 01: RANG IO CUC\,\IONGA ` o ENGINEERING DIVISIO\ �7 r �i li VICINITY \1. \P I III • III • • • ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I ANNEXATION NO.7 4 -6 % CITY 017 IZANCI 10 CUCANIONGA A ENGINEFRING DIVISION VICINITY \I,\T, /q N i ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO.8 PHASE. : =2 PHASE-: _ • SIC_! ._ ,1 __ �• title, CITY 01: R: \NCI IQ CI:CA \TONG,\ TRACT N0. 9441 ENGINEERING DIVISION w T 1977 VICINIT}' MAP / IlO�ll pagQ A 0 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO.8 8 R y \r /- 0 \0 -10 CUC CITYOF RANCI WONGA DR-80-34 ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY NIAP III/. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.1 ANNEXATION NO. 8 title; CITY OF RANCI 10 CUCAN IONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION A VICINITY MAP N PAR 1971 56 l2� Vi 1w 0 • ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION N0. 9 \1 ' - y l Y t I L_ nM •nur ttf \tip t t It!; �. CITY OP RANCI IO CUCAN IONGA Tract r. �� ,7. ENGINEERING DIVISION _ �> VICINITY AIAP I ti / Pn^oe 19'; - ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION N0.9 CITY OF RANCI 10 Ct,'CAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISMN VICINITY %I\P Ian N P-1ge • • ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO.10 ICITY OF R; \NCI 10 Cl.'CAMONG\ w \ ICI`ITl NIAP /� Ullr; /J`A TP.. 9658 N --- .. i -- ------- ��•L_..- St�FEt__ I� I -_- -'B' -�_��! J i A ICITY OF R; \NCI 10 Cl.'CAMONG\ w \ ICI`ITl NIAP /� Ullr; /J`A TP.. 9658 N ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 ANNEXATION NO. II rf i 0 t It b•: k"ITY OF RAN'(] 10 u'Cxmo \G:A taaCr an zz G \'1C1 \ITl' \l: \I' page 0 0 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I ANNEXATION NO. l2 TENTATIVE TRACT N0 10045 IN THE CFTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY O6 SAN BERNAROW STATE OC CAL /PORN /A I ' xc u.a .umar .nv ,v f/irtu � r twn r... 'ITV 01: RANCI10 Cl_'C,\,N A ENGINEERING DIN'ISION VICINITY MAP tiUr r=pv N 1 ' I.• a ar r � r twn r... 'ITV 01: RANCI10 Cl_'C,\,N A ENGINEERING DIN'ISION VICINITY MAP tiUr r=pv N 1 ' I.• a ar 0 0 F- -I L-,A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician F I> 1977 SUBJECT: Request to Continue Public Hearing for the Vacation of 7th Street located on the south side of 7th Street, east side of Center Avenue California Finished Metals, Inc. has indicated that they will bond for the street improvements on 7th Street and are in the process of obtaining the bonds at this time. They are requesting that the public hearing be continued until June 15, 1983 to allow enough time for processing. Respectfully submitted, i • LBH K:jaa Attachments CJ 0 QM TO BE VAC*TED 11�ng,; — 'f ENCINH SINVO UTA'151( ?N VICINITY NIAP w a z w a x p ... 0 il CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner ��ra.irol, ` � & SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT An amendment to the residential use standards to aT w for second dwelling units on single family zoned residential lots. SUMMARY: In response to recent state legislation, staff has drafted a proms Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow for "second dwelling units" and "elder cottages" in the R -1 zone. This item was presented to the Planning Commission on April 13 and April 27, 1983. After review and discussion of the Ordinance, the Planning Commission made the following changes: o Combined both regulations into one broad category permitting second dwelling units in the R -1 zone (which would include temporary elder cottages). o Established a Conditional Use Permit review procedure for a second unit (including temporary elder cottages) to provide an opportunity for public input regarding the compatibility. o Require that temporary structures be restricted to the back yard of the primary residence, o Clarified that a second unit could be rented or occupied by a member of the immediate family, but could not be sold. ANALYSIS: The Ordinance, as worded, would also permit the use of temporary removable structures for occupancy by a senior citizen (60 years of age or over). It was intended that the parking requirement of the Zoning Ordinance (2 covered spaces) be waived for these units based upon their temporary nature. Therefore, staff would recommend that subsection (f) be reworded as follows: (f) The unit shall provide parking and access pursuant to Section 61.0219 (b), except temporary /removable structures shall provide one (1) off - street parking space. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -03 City Council Agenda May 18, 1983 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been reviewed by the Senior Citizen's V.I.P. club. The proposed amendment received a favorable response from the group. In addition, this item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this amendment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review all materials and public input regarding this item. The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -03. Resppntfully submitted, 07,,y Rick Gomez City Planner RG:DC:jr 'Attachments: April 27, 1983 Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes of April 13, 1983 & April 27, 1983 Planning Commission Meetings Resolution recommending approval to City Council Ordinance • • • • E v ns n e wTnvn 110 a hnnNrn e STAFF REPORT DATE: April 27, 1983 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT An amendment to cne residential use standards to allow for elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. SUMMARY: At a public hearing on April 13, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed draft regulations to allow elder cottages and second units in single family zones. The Commission was concerned with the compatibility of temporary elder cottages and the surrounding neighborhood character. Further, the Commission considered temporary structures controversial; therefore, provisions for public input should be provided. A survey of second unit regulations in other communities has been attached. ANALYSIS: Temporary /removable structures could be prohibited from front yard areas to ensure preservation of the established neighborhood character, or temporary structures could be prohibited for use altogether as elder cottages or second units. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows mobile homes as a primary residence on lots of 7,200 square feet or less in area, if placed on a permanent foundation. If the Commission desires to require a public hearing for elder cottages, then a Conditional Use Permit would seem appropriate. The CUP requirement would eliminate the most significant distinction between the proposed elder cottages and second units as presented on April 13, 1983. Therefore, staff would recommend combining the regulations into one set of criteria for second dwelling units as shown on the attached Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed an Initial Study to etermine whether or not this amendment could cause significant adverse environmental impacts and have found that said amendment would not cause significant environmental impacts. 'U ITEM D Zoning Ordinance 33 C Planning Commission Agenda April 27, 1983 Page 2 CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing item in The Daily Report newspaper. In addition, staff will meet with the Senior Citizen's VIP group to explain the proposed amendment. An oral review of the senior citizen's concerns will be presented at the public hearing. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider all material and input regarding this item and adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment 83 -03. ly submitted, RG :DC:jr • Attachments: April 13, 1983 Planning Commission Staff Report • Survey of Second Unit Ordinances Resolution Recommending Approval Ordinance • 1 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAi ONGA GUGMp�C STAFF REPORT Tr i> DATE: April 13, 1983 iv,, TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT An amendment to the residential use standards to a ow or elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. SUMMARY: In response to recent State legislation regarding "granny fats" and "second units ", staff is bringing draft regulations to the Commission for their review and consideration ahead of the new Development Code. The attached memorandum outlines the basic provisions of the State legislation and surveys the issues and benefits of these two alternative housing concepts. To foster maximum discussion and provide the Commission with the widest range of options for • consideration, proposed regulations for both elder cottages and second units have been attached. No action is required at this time on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to review and consider all material and input regarding this item and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance for presentation on the April 27 agenda. Staff is seeking direction regarding the attached draft provisions (i.e., designation of areas, parking, setback, unit size) to be included in the Ordinance. Res c ully ubmitted, .r+Y"ywr„r R ck omez ty lanner G:DC:jr Attachments: Memorandum Dated March 18, 1983 Proposed Elder Cottage Regulations Proposed Second Unit Regulations I n ITEM G � l 0 PROPOSED ELDER COTTAGE REGULATIONS A. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director an application for a Temporary Use Permit for an elder cottage. B. The unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 60 years of age or over. C. The lot contains an existing single family detached unit. D. The unit is a removable detached structure on a parcel zoned single family residential. E. The unit does not exceed 640 square feet. F. The unit construction shall conform to the site development criteria applicable to accessory buildings in the base district in which the cottage is located. G. The unit may require architectural review, pursuant to Ordinance 89, as determined by the City Planner. H. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director • written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability including all supportive information shall be submitted. is I .. 7 0 PROPOSED SECOND UNIT REGULATIONS A. Second units shall be a conditionally permitted use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. B. The unit may be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence on a parcel zoned single family residential. C. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. D. The lot contains an existing single family detached residence. E. The unit does iDt exceed 640 square feet. F. The unit shall have a separate entrance from the main residence. G. The unit shall provide parking and access per Zoning Ordinance requirements. H. The unit construction shall conform to the site development criteria applicable to accessory buildings or additions to main residence in the base district in which the unit is located. • I. The unit may require architectural review, pursuant to Ordinance 89, as determined by the City Planner. J. The unit will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow in the area as determined by the City Engineer. K. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability including all supportive information shall be submitted. E 14 t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: March 18, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: UPDATE ON "GRANNY FLAT" AND "SECOND UNIT" LEGISLATION SUMMARY: The intent of this memorandum is to summarize recent State legislation granting authority to local governments to provide for "granny flats" and "second units" on residentially zoned property and generate Planning Commission discussion and input on potential regulations. In addition, this report will survey the issues of this alternative housing concept and provide information regarding actions taken by other cities in dealing with the new legislation. Copies of the new legislation are attached for your information. Staff proposes to discuss draft regulations at a public hearing on April 13, 1983. An ordinance will then be prepared based upon Commission input and presented on the April 27th agenda. LEGISLATION Two bills were enacted during the 1981 -1982 legislative session which encourage local governments to provide for second units in response to the need for affordable housing. The first bill, SB 1160 (Mello), which became effective January 1, 1982, permits a city to issue a zoning variance or conditional use permit for a dwelling to be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence in a single family residential zone. The bill was drafted in response to a critical statewide need for senior housing. The dwelling unit, or "granny flat ", must be for the sole occupancy of one or two adults who are 60 years of age or over, and a maximum of 640 square feet. The second bill, SB 1534 (Mello), which becomes effective July 1, 1983, is much broader in scope than SB 1160 and isn't limited to just senior housing. This bill authorizes cities to provide, by ordinance, for a second dwelling unit in single family and multiple family residential zones. Local governments may adopt ordinances regulating second units consistent with the following provisions: j� • Granny Flat & Seconu Unit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 2 (1) Areas may be designated in the jurisdiction where second units are permitted. (2) The designation of areas may be based on criteria, which may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (3) Standards may be imposed on second units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of the unit. (4) A Conditional Use Permit process may be required. Under the provisions of SS 1534, local governments may preclude second units altogether if the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that such action may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that second units would result in impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. This bill would exempt second units from CEQA and the Growth Management Ordinance. . In the event that a local government does not adopt an ordinance governing second units, the bill would require cities to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit attached to an existing single family residence, which is for rental purposes only, if the second unit complies with specified provisions. DEFINITION OF GRANNY FLATS AND SECOND UNITS: Granny flats are se - containe secon ary we Ing units, including kitchens and bathrooms, constructed on the same lot as a primary residence or attached to a primary residence. The unit is intended for the sole occupancy of one or two adults who are 60 years of age or over, and has a maximum floor area of 640 square feet. Examples of both attached and detached granny flats are shown in Exhibit "A ". The American Association of Retired Persons is promoting a particular version of the granny flat, called an "elder cottage ". An elder cottage is distinguished as a temporary use involving a removable dwelling unit such as a manufactured home or mobile home. The idea is to provide single family homeowners the flexibility to deal with the short -term problem of housing an elderly relative. A second dwelling unit versus a granny flat is a detached or attached dwelling unit which provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. The unit must include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the primary residence is situated. An example of an attached second unit is provided in Exhibit 118". Granny Flat & Secon nit Legislation i March 18, 1983 Page 3 BENEFITS: The following is a summary of the major benefitsl of second units granny flats: o The second unit can be created, financed, and marketed at a price far below that of a new unit on unimproved land. There will be no land cost and the infrastructure will already be available. The savings attributable to land and infrastructure is 25% - 40% of the cost of new construction. Additionally, various other costs, like landscaping, will already have been covered. o The second unit will permit homeowners with declining income to retain and maintain their home. o Homeowners faced with high interest rates and adjustable rate mortgages will be able to better afford the high monthly payments. Potential rental income will enable some prospective homeowners to qualify for the mortgage. o The second unit will produce relatively affordable rental housing for low and moderate income households without any public subsidy. Energy, maintenance, and repairs will be shared by two households instead of one single one. Where common walls are used, savings on insulation costs can be realized. • o The constructive use of existing in -place infrastructure is a more environmentally sensitive and cost - effective approach than requiring the construction of expensive infrastructure to serve new undeveloped areas. Other resources would also be used more effectively (land, building materials, energy, etc.). o The presence of a second household can provide security for homeowners, particularly older people who fear criminal intrusion and personal accidents while living alone. o Companionship and intergenerational support and contact will result, Incidential personal services for older homeowners could be provided inexpensively by tenants in return for a reduction in rent. o Second units could allow persons needing non - specialized assistance to remain in their homes rather than enter long -term care facilities, Sometimes grocery shopping assistance is the difference between institutionalization and non - institutionalization. • 1 Department of Housing and Community Development, State of California, A Survey of Second Unit Ordinances in California, November, 1982. I� ~ Granny Flat & Secol Jnit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 4 • GENERAL PLAN SUPPORTING POLICES: The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan . recognizes the need for housing designed to meet the needs of low- and moderate - income individuals and households. The General Plan states that a "major constraint. to affordable housing is not only higher construction costs, but also the density and types of housing units being built in the City ". The following General Plan policies provide a strong impetus for adopting provisions for second units and /or granny flats: 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 should develop programs to increase the affordability of the existing housing stock, especially low and moderate cost units (p. 81). • e. The City shall encourage the dispersal of affordable housing units throughout the community, such that they satisfy the widest possible range of housing location choice and needs (p. 78). f. The City shall work with developers and the local Building Industry Association to promote the use of innovative housing techniques and development with a variety of housing types (p. 90). ISSUES: Permitting second dwelling units and granny flats on single family residential lots raises some important issues that the Planning Commission and City Council must weigh in considering adoption of second unit regulations. Attached is an excerpt from a State survey discussing seven major barriers to second units and granny flats (see Exhibit "C ") . The following is a brief discussion of the important issues for the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Neighborhood Character - Individually, the impacts of increased density anared uci ng air space between residences aren't usually significant. However, cumulatively, these actions could change the character of a single family residential neighborhood. The physical and sociological impact of a second unit would be similar to the impact of the construction of a guest house, which is permitted on all single family lots. The impact of an elder cottage could be considered less Is significant because of its temporary nature. Granny Flat & Secoq lnit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 5 • 7 LI) _1 V Design Compatibility - An important concern is the architectural compatibility of second units with the established architectural character of the neighborhood. Removable elder cottages seem ready -made for mobile home manufactures, particularly where there is enough distance between houses to allow access to backyards. ordinances can be adopted to ensure aesthetic compatibility regardless of means of manufacture. Design review may be required for all second units or on a case -by -case basis. Compatibilit with General Plan Goals - The legislation is intended to improve ut lization of existing housing resources and to reduce the barriers to the provisions of affordable housing. These goats are clearly identified within the City's General Plan, as previously discussed. SB 1534 states that second units "shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot ". Although SB 1534 does not require any changes in the General Plan to implement the bill, it may be desirable to incorporate specific references and policies applicable to the creation of second units. Regu lotion of User - The purpose of allowing second units would he to provide affordable housing to low- and moderate - income households. The City may require that the unit be for rental purposes only. It would seem unlikely that persons or families with greater than moderate income • would occupy a second unit. SURVEY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY OTHER CITIES: A survey of surrounding communities an their responses to SB and S8 1534 is provided in Exhibit "D ". More detailed information may be found in "A Survey of Second Unit Ordinances in California ", available in the Planning Division. GRANNY FLATS VS. SECOND UNITSt Any regulations permitting second units would allow occupancy OT a second unit by a senior citizen. However, the Planning Commission may want to distinguish between granny flats and second units for several reasons. First, granny flats are primarily intended to provide temporary housing for an elderly relative - the concept embodied in the "elder cottage" program. Therefore, granny flats or elder cottages lend themselves to removable structures requiring a temporary use permit. Secondly, the Commission may want to designate specific areas for second units, yet allow granny flats in all single family zones, or vice versa. Finally, if the City permits only permanent additions or construction of second units, this would preclude the possibility of low cost temporary housing, and reduce opportunities for affordable housing. • 7 LI) _1 V Granny Flat & Seco( Jnit Legislation March 18, 1983 Page 6 • PROPOSED REGULATIONS: To foster maximum discussion and provide the Commission with the widest range of options for consideration, proposed regulations for both granny flats and second units have been attached (Exhibit "E" and "F "). 'Staff is seeking direction regarding the appropriate provisions (i.e. designation of areas, parking, setback, unit size) to be included in the ordinance. Attachments: • J Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit SB 1160 SB 1534 "A" - Granny Flat Examples "B" - Second Unit Example "C" - Barriers to Second Unit Ordinances "0" - Survey "E" - Proposed Granny "F" - Proposed Second (MELLO) - Granny Flats (MELLO) - Second Units R0 Flat Regulations Unit Regulations Fairfax Area Granny Flat ©!lleF! �N00� INIiMY YNIW � M!w 11f11NM i �M" Floor plan show IY AM"? how Fairfax area. granny flat was converted from two -car detached garage. PM spa - --- nme.a�y 7"o�C1L A n ^p pV �ncrt rots - �!o sir ay Y 6 ' 1 +' CITY OF RA—NO IO CUC NUN(I:1 PI A\NIVG DIVISION 7( V \ORTI I IT e `I s •t 1 — " — TITLE • 0 • before floor plan Hill front elevation k after second unit conversion b r r, - — — llVing VV Ir m f E kit. bath entr .1y bd,m. rj bdrm. garage floor plan tTem• Id ml cr. the With the feat to the tvk of th, hn"61' 'it is +vted� )1,e main unit is a ].. ^.OU e�unre foot, :;- Fr.bwm, She u it j6 � 670 gq�, The front nl nruat ion rrmx COS th, 1,1, oft. r r1,.. ..... C� V %11()IZTI I e-dV'MD UMT CM, OF ITEM: R,1 Nc11oCU('A\K).NG\ PLANNING DIVISION FXI 1111IT: I>— SCALE! kit. LIU garage k after second unit conversion b r r, - — — llVing VV Ir m f E kit. bath entr .1y bd,m. rj bdrm. garage floor plan tTem• Id ml cr. the With the feat to the tvk of th, hn"61' 'it is +vted� )1,e main unit is a ].. ^.OU e�unre foot, :;- Fr.bwm, She u it j6 � 670 gq�, The front nl nruat ion rrmx COS th, 1,1, oft. r r1,.. ..... C� V %11()IZTI I e-dV'MD UMT CM, OF ITEM: R,1 Nc11oCU('A\K).NG\ PLANNING DIVISION FXI 1111IT: I>— SCALE! BARRIERS TO SECO'10 UNIT ORDINANCES Seven major reasons were cited for rejecting second units in single family zones. In order of frequency, they are: • enforcement problems • chapping the nature of single family neighborhoods • traffic problems • infrastructure constraints • density increases • general plan restrictions • public opin4on 1. ENFORaMENT PROBLEMS The most common reason cited for rejecting a second unit ordinance was the problem of enforcement. Local governments generally wished to restrict occupancy of the second unit, requiring monitoring. Therefore the comments from local jurisdictions focused on code enforcement or administrative costs and difficulties in implementing ordinances. The stipulation in Senator Mello's bill, SS 1160 (Chapter 887 of 1981), restricting second units to seniors only, was the most common subject raised in enforceability comments. The subject of limiting second units to rental by relatives only also came under attack for enforceability. For example, the City of Sunnyvale, population 108,600, in Santa Clara County, commented on the enforceability problem: "The City can easily control the structural components of adding a second unit. But it is next to impossible to actually enforce the • social oriented ideas for creating a second unit. For example, it's been suggested that the units be permitted only for senior citizens ... I would not like the City to get into a position where it has to ask the age of every person or any person who lives in a second unit. "In theory, the socially oriented reasons for establishing a second unit (i.e., providing affordable housing for the elderly) sound great. However, in the real world it is totally unenforceable. No one is going to throw out a single 55 year old woman from her home for the sole reason that she is not technically a senior citizen." Ann Draper Planning officer City of Sunnyvale Some jurisdictions believed that S9 1160 (Chapter 887 of 1981) restricts second units to seniors only, and cited this as a barrier. SB 1160 does not restrict local government's ability to allow second units. (Refer to Appendix.) As a point of information, very few jurisdictions which have adopted a second unit ordinance, have included a provision limiting occupancy of the unit to seniors only, nor does State law limit Occupancy in this regard. • 0 2, CHANGING THE NATURE OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS The second most commonly cited barrier to the second unit concept was a concern with preserving the character of the single family zone. These jurisdictions feared that allowing second units would negatively impact the character of single family neighborhoods. Accordingly, any change in zoning regulations provokes fear and any type of change is often viewed negatively. As a point of information, these fears appear to be unwarranted, based on the results of this survey. For example, the low level of implementation (averaging one application per year per locality) combined with other requirements typically imposed (setbacks, parking requirements, owner - occupancy) and usual size requirements of about 6n0- 700 square feet, appears to suggest that where second unit ordinances are applied, the actual number of units resulting will be low. Further, because of the typical size requirements, the units will be predominately occupied by single elderly, and or two person households. Therefore, any significant concentrations or increases in neighborhood densities are unlikely to occur in most jurisdictions in the forseeable future. • 3. PARKING AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS 9 Many jurisdictions mentioned parking and traffic as major barriers to the second unit concept. The concern with parking is also reflected in adopted second unit ordinances which require additional parking. Not a single jurisdiction with a second unit ordinance has waived the parking requirements for second units. Almost half of the proposed second unit ordinances stipulate that the parkinq requirements for the additional unit may be waived for second units. In a recent survey conducted by the Tri -State Regional Planning Commission (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut), a study was made on the objections to second unit conversions. When asked how they located conversions, only one out of 186 respondents replied that increased cars and traffic indicated the location of houses that had been converted. Yet, the second most frequent complaint reported against conversions was that they increased traffic. This apparent discrepancy indicates that homeowners wno are anxious about accessory apartments will sometimes find reasons to oppose them oven if they are not borne out by the facts. i Li C 6. OTHER BARRIERS Other barriers to the second unit concept mentioned by planners from local jurisdictions include: no need for additional housing units; environmental quality; undesirable renters; absentee ownership; and higher home prices. There are obviously several ways to discourage housing speculation and any potential for neighborhood decline. Provisions such as an owner- Occupancy requirement is one such strategy. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence available to indicate that home prices increase or decrease as a result of second units. Moreover, the creation of second units may be the only way that first -time homebuyers faced with high interest rates, adjustable rate mortgages and other "creative financing" will be able to afford the high monthly payment to qualify for a mortgage. • 7:� • 4. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS The inadequacy of the existing infrastructure to accommodate additional units in single family zones was the fourth most common barrier mentioned by local jurisdictions. The infrastructure issue is tied to density issues as well as general plan restrictions mentioned by many jurisdictions. A majority of existing second unit orainances require that second units meet setback, building code, and service requir =ments. Many jurisdictions explicitly state in their ordinance that the second unit must not strain existing water and sewer facilities. However, much of the housing stock and hence infrastructure, was designed for much more intense use by large households. National figures show that the size of the average U.S. household decreased during the 1970s from 2.6 to 2.3 persons, but the size of the average home and apartment increased, 5. GENERAL PLAN RESTRICTIONS Some ,jurisdictions listed restrictions in the General Plan as major barriers to second units in single family zones. �vprall, these barriers are related to density and ouclic opinion objections. Six existing ordinances which allow second units in single family zones stipulate that the addition of such units must meet the density • standards of the zone. 6. OTHER BARRIERS Other barriers to the second unit concept mentioned by planners from local jurisdictions include: no need for additional housing units; environmental quality; undesirable renters; absentee ownership; and higher home prices. There are obviously several ways to discourage housing speculation and any potential for neighborhood decline. Provisions such as an owner- Occupancy requirement is one such strategy. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence available to indicate that home prices increase or decrease as a result of second units. Moreover, the creation of second units may be the only way that first -time homebuyers faced with high interest rates, adjustable rate mortgages and other "creative financing" will be able to afford the high monthly payment to qualify for a mortgage. • 7:� 0 COMMUNITIES SURVEYED1 Chino ** Montclair * Claremont * ** Ontario ** Fontana *** Pomona Laverne * ** San Dimas * Upland ** * ** Allow Second Unit by Ordinance • ** Considering an Ordinance * Not Considering 19 1 Survey Conducted on March 14, 1983 Ik V 'NJ u Sl1 1160 —2_ CHAVI'l• :N _ - \u.zrt to add Section 6W2.1 to the Gm ernment Code, n 1.1tatg to laud use regulation. ast.Cneee ul \ll.l s ons"r Sll HIM \1,14) City .mdmuntvzoning:single- ramily Te'T l uder e'i.ttuc law a city or county mail', by ordinance, do +ienato s,uious zones within the city or couch and +per i lv the tot, ..high rnnY he pernntted on the Lual onhiu those zours. % %whin such cones the city or county n 1nion certain uses co require special use tsernuts o r o v m a nit e t [in certain u I'his bill uould permit a city. iorhrding a charter city. specmG. or city and m re county to i a tinning varinnm. ial use pcnnlq or conditional use permit for it duelling unit to he ci nso urbud, or att.,rh,d to, it primary +iolenrr on land tuned for is single- fendly residece, if the dsvolling is intendod for the sole oaupanry of an :uhdt nr adedts who havo reached age 60 and the area of Moor space of the do-elling does or emceed 640 square toot. !•he people o(the,Slite n((.'a!i(arnia do errartas lollmrr.- SI!CIIUS 1. The Legislature finds and declares that 11) Steps must he taken to encourage the creation of more residential units for persons user the age of fill. 12) There is a serious shortage of homing units for persons aver the age of 60. 171 "There is an important need to inanition senior ulivens it independent living situations and also m eneourag,' housing arrangements that prevent isolation of eldorly fnasons and reunites hamilies- SI-C 2 Section SW2.1 is added to the Government Code, to read: 1.;x,2.1. Snhrithstauding Section 99906, any city, including a charter city, county, or city and county sorry issue s tinning variance, special use Permit, or conditional 7— S11 Ilfit) use pernut for it d..rlling unit to be c narnrted, o attached to. a luiinany resleocc on .i p.vnd von-1 for a single hundy residence, if the dwelling sun n iutonlod fill the sole occupancy of one adult or too adult pon ss ho ar-W,vu ofage or os el and the arms of0oor spa of the dwellings unit daps not exceed 6111 snluare feet ee �j C Senate Rill So. 1534 CHAPTER 1440 An act to amend Section 6595 2.1 of, and to add Section 6758522 to. the Government Code, and to amend Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, relating to housice. Lypproved J) Governor Septcmber 275. lSS "_ Fil.d path Secretan' of State Jepbsnner r, 1552 I LEGISLr TINE COL'SSEL't OICEST SB 11534. Mello. Housing: single - family lots: second - family units. Under existing low, a city or county may, by ordinance, designate various zones within the city or couny and specify the uses which may be permitted on the land within those zones. R'ithin such zones the city or county may condition certain uses or require special use permits or zoning variances for certain uses. This bill would authorize any city, including a chartered city, coumy, or city and county to provide, by ordinance, for the creation of second units, as defined, in single - family and multifamily residential zones. In the event that any of those entities do not adopt an ordinance governing second units, the bill would, • notwithstanding specified provisions of existing law, require each city, including a charter city, county, and city and county to grant a Special use or a conditional use permit for the creation of a second attached residential unit, which is only intended for rental purposes, on a lot which is zoned for siu¢le -family or multifamily use and which contains an existing single - family detached unit, if the second unit complies with specified provisions. The bill would prohibit any city, including a chartered city, county, or city and county from adopting an ordinance which totally preclude second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains prescribed findings. This bill would exempt the creation of a second residential unit from the California Environmental Quality Act. This hill would require jurisdictions adopting ordinances for the creation of the second units to submit a copy of it to the Department of Housing and Comnuvrity Development for submission to the Legislature. This bill would make other changes necessary for the implementation of this bill. Article X11113 of the California Constitution and Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the state to rearmurse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state, Other prov sums require the Department of Finance to review statutes dlsclaumnc their costs and provide, in certain cases, for making clahns Lo the Sole Board of Control for reimbursement. ,1., !il 19 •I !I, IAN H „, r. Ila, tall would preside that no appropru,hon is aide .lot in, n nobar.u„oIit In :..used by than act for.,.,..third noana. I n.......1, allot 11a1, nremhvna de eir-1 a, fell ,.. , .P t.I I(A l j, '1 he 1,kne dare hnde.md declare, that there is .. ado,. I o-I re It for new hammy to ,halter C.ahb,rn.a, ad .1, a Ihl. inn,..: blue a...: reed, .,all be hullue a „ravaed by IL. 't I. m feu :bah, m federal hm,m, pmgoun, h. Ice l.egulat.ae Ands, lid dedkotts that ( Affe,r ,.i, r oun¢ L. .a¢ I. ... aul, nedernbhzed due,, lase part m :fie e aI path `fen, the ,m proved uubeat I of ms t.le -, .area¢ I.rvu..nI .. r n., offers a rename a I rot- olbanr . r o it, homu., r n . 1be I.p,la: .hn1,.md edare, that me stake ba, a I, it. u the ahh.ah..n of ('abfornia ; both )a n..aurce, and m 'a : houn, the I.arr,.,, w the volooan of affonlalde boost.,. ..I• Ilse 1.t e,.l,kha, find, and declare, hh.il mere a in..y h, Io 1.1, amoo.m•d dh he rreatmn of second . hourly are nit, on r.whn¢ skn'lefumy lot,,, loath include I . I', ot'I.nn a clol - eff -loor m of or Ina <III Itopmom mi..pb the. IIf r.6kn, mbenfuee, acs. n 1loula,ted to rrgainng .h: of n, , rent, infrastructure, ho se de de s clops lit m.1,, At,,,�d area, pro, Lim, rel.meely affordable houm.g for low- anJ .. 11, .it- n rome boa, hold, wnhool pabl c ab Ldy iA fra—ding a mean, for purchased of new or ending homes. or h. af.. ro nn...t Kmnann nn hiyb naerert luau L I'rns idm¢,rruntr fur homeowners who fear both ohnn nr ,..n eelo a u dn so, .d academe whsle alone C SA 2 Section 538321 of the Government Codes amended to A sehixi3l ]nh.ihhoandma S•ctwn 53906. any city. inclndmg a t hartet rt,. mashy, or I,,, and county may .,sue a ¢along Ia ianre, 'ill .,.it u,<pcuan, or conditional use Writ for a dwe ling ,oat to he eamtruu !ed. or attached to.a prima,, r,adenre on a parcel zoned for .,.olele.Gmaly rrndence, if the dwellmR unit is intended for the eilr ocuuPane, of one adult or two adult person, who are GI years of tee or a, era and that area of Poor since of the dwelling unit doe, nob ..recd f.ff u.ru feet Ihis sechmn ,hall not he eounrueit to limit the r.gairemenb of in ction 5'vti22, or the power of boat govemmenh to permit second n SEC 2 Seeliarn 591!i22 is added to the C vemmen[ Code, to road r not bl Any env, meludmg a chartered city, county. or city and cookort, ma) by rudialliker, parts & for the creation of second anal, in anthe fordy and naulafesnlly residential zeta consistent ke so • —a— ( h 14 P with the follaxmg prallucal 11) Areas nov be designated in the jurisdiction ,hare «smut .nrta... pn <unmd .. h (2) The(]. nenaon, aLueas'Flat bat b.oed at onrn..'stu, b ill.,, mlude, bm a net houlyd to. the nde:rvary ell n,t,, .Ind w n., and the impact If -rand I is on bare, tlo„ w .3) 5(..n Lady k.,, be ina:onnl ou arroo.I unit, ahub mJad.. but not homed to, paek.t:g, rmbt, othark. lot .....,.v_ architectural review. anti n of the lint IP) A eiti, including a chartered to, connb no uh and ua.ah na'. ill Al dncreho.., fad that sesand nnih, ,u,uh,j for d,. a.n erd 11braHmsb4 it .for it.,. Ill upan„hu 11 .1 n lo. :,tr.l....d fed Ihr record .,,.is all ed, ntral uo, ,Inch. anent s, el. the evnm, ,ke ral Plan and a nip dos baron for Ihr lot (6) The ,e nun nml, coined ,hall nut he link ..Irked no Ilse alb dewihil of :um local ordimnca, pubry. ar ,guu. to bhml prow In re(6) A ran ..ncndmg a ehanerM city. county. or ivy and, om:ll r,tahloh a prnevs (a, the anin ce of a coadmonA ... e ...... t for lid I is (b) Is I dr) , HoLodnia a chartered al), c oh, of unry. whorl, has out ndolned on ordo,nw<9.. ernsre mr.md unns irk rordance with aabdn,slon f0 or (c). n c I it, fakir aPpl i�alion on or Air July 1, Void, for a amAmon..I mat imnnll p.nknnt to this snbd.....on, the lorrohm i ,hall act, t dm anpbe for a,,n, rampin, nP,. I: L,moeoulI ..Jess it n 122f cal n rata. ,deb mLJn it .11 () porst 1a, of ,after mmv. a the apple alu,n o, l,. tinhill Col. the ol,or. city of S, than 53901, each rhly..nrl'te' on a castle et.. m ok or city aid county shall punt n if chill me or a ,nad.oan..l wit thefforthe creation ofe,aranA re,identi.J unit lit ao.uphe. with the e ,all is The ..nil a.rotIntended for sale and ski be rim +d (2) The lot is ,eat for ;ogle of k t mif . nab u (]) The lot oamnn +on .hiring to b -frond. existing rendo ores N) The ced,nd unit is reached h, ,he n, due louden.. ..nA „ coed within ra lie ing a of the ra.amg Aw.lhng ca 10 WrerIo.helon'inbierarea i, .real.nl,n,1:.:1100, coveel10 µchiral mthe .airtinR ly inga e Any nslrtural dull canto. std w.fes „ors, I. Ire age, ng remorrir ,w•sireplan m,few. fees. chars, ofi-amt ,ors ing reap,. ems gee calla aliFilicalde Iii In ndrntdl (7) Local in she air which he ymprrh' h, is 11 d ea Ol local budding cone uk,, I,nenr,,blob ..PPM m.d.lnn,,,. k. ea(8)Asinkaval by dwellings,a, :officer ,h l& APProvnl by the Ioad hailm officer where a Pn,.nr se..aeo ds As w system hi bcu,g,scat, i. raoreA A, used in 'his mbJwuion. "'Lung area nu.un hbo lua,ii.r Pi ii.. na, j 0 'J 9 j or e persons. It shall i lude Permanent . _e...... .o, rm \me -and Mountain an he M ma wsea or pars!" m me p wn." mnr Is bill This .,I.. shall became operative on July 1. ID J."acauan, when amps ardmanre, pm,mrn IA err ho shall vnbmd a., of arch c rdinanM In h I IbInving a ul (,con ity Derelopmmt wnAln de....nne,. shall "ban, It report to she I.egulntm R IW —s— GL I49I by Jan err 1, 19M 1Le repna shill ex:du.ae the noplemml.dinn of thin T al, by Imvl gavemmenrs :mA rm¢ut +II .....r +lo le 6F.(L SV,C <. . Aahon 81060 of the Public newuran (Lele ns ancnded to soad soled in his dos n. tins 2'033!. a, Es gN olhcrwnr Pew ad n. Ire "In dws than apply to dicretionad P npx<. paolm Mal or approved by public agencies. including. bat net honed ter. the enactment and amendment of anning nod— s' he It' and the zoning va Mnecs, the iomntt of C.IWOMMlal u t annees e pros al of tcnmhve suM"In.. maps vu s" alIv .he , aemq from he prelumtion of an • nn entA )nlryct ,glen pmxast to Section 211661. Ib) This division shall not apply to the Fallowing- I) )nninerul prnjMSprppned to be m"ied nut or appms ed by Public mo (2) E tlem. s •epan 10 public se rvice f a b n ecrs hop to maintain xrvittppmvr 101 Projects isn e dnak o en, earned out. or d by a public agency to maintain. repair, mare. demolish. ur replace p?I)Wrly of facilities; dvmged or dearoYed as a result of a Bluster in a dsa b,inickm ue. in which • state aI cmrlgmcY Ism been ,,.hawed by the Governor P^nonnt m (TaPte• i (Commencing with Sectfic is gceetl)c�0ae)ta Division �rI aTi`le 2 of the 1oeaorrent e�e pre .o m r or sdesign purPoxs, as for the conditional wk or wrchme aluipmrai fuel, water (eacept groundwater), storm, m power o thermal rows plant. if the posawpbnnite and related farilaY — —Awe M m — hronmental impact report 'IT neg+l cu: V ......................... that en s1'mnmenlal impact if arty, ( ar he tact,. dewobed in this pmgr•ph. O) ,,divines or apW.vtl, neaeswrY to the bidding for. hmtinx ar singing of, and Running or Carrying out of. .n 01, Piv Runes under he authority of the Imemm)oml OlYnnplc QmnrNnce. caeept for the cowruction of Italian, nccessnrY for the 01YngFie games. (6) Theata abhmenbmud )nalion,amctm)ng•renrvcturing.w m(.dntalde are, of a ducllmF Into mdnding baseman.. and :tort and dull nw nt(ule It e.u.rae or ate acra...et enwdre. �n .t It, , —A ordnance., alto.. .,I shall be the bind., ford o..d nl aI Woo, ,,-runt or a um,acorn under in's mWnnoun I hu .nLdn o,on eaabLdw. dw nna.wms n.mdards HIM colic.. ,dndmc rlamr edws, cmnniel, and coel Ind rumvrcs de"I ow w ..ao. a ....0 ^oed a nd r .de.,od sons on ims ace ed for wdao.Aos whrh a:n(�n cxishnRSinBlrionnll Ict.chvdnnn se. ddm n A a,nd.nd,, o.hn,nh:m those provided m this section. shill to unlined o .ed. oaks, .here I a regmremem .tut an appLomt I" I'I" h[ U-ma 1. this sndlivn.n hAbe an n- nalt"In't o I his srehun shall not 1w ritniss ed to isin the nmhoritY of cores. and cows and c It ones wA.Ch -I-Pt lees ""Tien"'. q.sues, rots fn, the c".u0 t of xeond rende.., an)n a ,��m r N. cis... e_ to -mmnR nmmnro as .,he, n•di -oven n a 1, elwn;os m hall .1y. ccoounty- IAthe endlovwn y or nlr aMlewolY p[or.sm1 n[ e 1 it, zmd.nR o theca of .her nom nea,pplus t ,otherprmi sapPLC an. peLaos,pralrst'l consistent with to and residenhsl unm if there prw%bm are mmbtent with the Lmiuh of this "W" "W" own. we,mlan d rcs nut eonfarms a the man" of the i, on w s! he shall nnl be cg skull Ids mldicihe —' 6lueed enowabh shall be deemed for the l which n " and i1sal -upon a 1—..dY at tyRh, he general Plan I.consistentwiththee ana.econg �1 demeul:)!h and zoning for Thar xeontl woos not be nuu po in he aPplseotbn of any local ordinance, po(q, or cami on app! on f a _ J pa .pars .a hmIn mudng aal . ars 1 t d must to Not city. charter eow1Y. or city an Y including a charterlly . p ,hall adaptan tjoeso precludes Imoud units wince andinan twhich vas tutu the and uh)hmd^r nInordinance ........ nd that xualmaylima housing conmr•nnuesaieackegan and furtherm y.anfindingsthatspmif udvc,onluooflM•beianand advaz1sou soothe public heath, and welfare that wand soul. from allowing second- ti within inghedamnY and h an multihmlly zoned areas iadiy adopting such an mdinarntt. or e persons. It shall i lude Permanent . _e...... .o, rm \me -and Mountain an he M ma wsea or pars!" m me p wn." mnr Is bill This .,I.. shall became operative on July 1. ID J."acauan, when amps ardmanre, pm,mrn IA err ho shall vnbmd a., of arch c rdinanM In h I IbInving a ul (,con ity Derelopmmt wnAln de....nne,. shall "ban, It report to she I.egulntm R IW —s— GL I49I by Jan err 1, 19M 1Le repna shill ex:du.ae the noplemml.dinn of thin T al, by Imvl gavemmenrs :mA rm¢ut +II .....r +lo le 6F.(L SV,C <. . Aahon 81060 of the Public newuran (Lele ns ancnded to soad soled in his dos n. tins 2'033!. a, Es gN olhcrwnr Pew ad n. Ire "In dws than apply to dicretionad P npx<. paolm Mal or approved by public agencies. including. bat net honed ter. the enactment and amendment of anning nod— s' he It' and the zoning va Mnecs, the iomntt of C.IWOMMlal u t annees e pros al of tcnmhve suM"In.. maps vu s" alIv .he , aemq from he prelumtion of an • nn entA )nlryct ,glen pmxast to Section 211661. Ib) This division shall not apply to the Fallowing- I) )nninerul prnjMSprppned to be m"ied nut or appms ed by Public mo (2) E tlem. s •epan 10 public se rvice f a b n ecrs hop to maintain xrvittppmvr 101 Projects isn e dnak o en, earned out. or d by a public agency to maintain. repair, mare. demolish. ur replace p?I)Wrly of facilities; dvmged or dearoYed as a result of a Bluster in a dsa b,inickm ue. in which • state aI cmrlgmcY Ism been ,,.hawed by the Governor P^nonnt m (TaPte• i (Commencing with Sectfic is gceetl)c�0ae)ta Division �rI aTi`le 2 of the 1oeaorrent e�e pre .o m r or sdesign purPoxs, as for the conditional wk or wrchme aluipmrai fuel, water (eacept groundwater), storm, m power o thermal rows plant. if the posawpbnnite and related farilaY — —Awe M m — hronmental impact report 'IT neg+l cu: V ......................... that en s1'mnmenlal impact if arty, ( ar he tact,. dewobed in this pmgr•ph. O) ,,divines or apW.vtl, neaeswrY to the bidding for. hmtinx ar singing of, and Running or Carrying out of. .n 01, Piv Runes under he authority of the Imemm)oml OlYnnplc QmnrNnce. caeept for the cowruction of Italian, nccessnrY for the 01YngFie games. (6) Theata abhmenbmud )nalion,amctm)ng•renrvcturing.w '1II U Ch l4Al —6- -7— Ch Win +ppra•. sl .1 case. Ids._ F lees in uthe, h..Nes FY Lrbbe o,,,cirs .o6nis she I oble ..aenp firulr are for the Propose of (1) r "Ins, rfnnse InV22 of the Cnvmm�Jnn Cnribvsidarni +l unit Pnrsn.uV n, ticrhnn openrag egvnscs. m[hidmR en,A.,ce nape rate, as. brneld r.to_)a ... foot, orlv,o..I,'cash'. cgmprient or mate's N. agrno) dennnuue Ihn aproposrd pr,deo �sr in. a lost financial le—v needs aid re9nnemenls. Nl obtaining of herarar siol _ I x nrpl from tha Pan ivmn nl Urn 111, .io . do, m l:.uc has can till toads bat capital ploncor. Iecemale its nwtdam senate -thus 'rgnific"d,Hilt envnonmeoL the lead du,on, Sh'lll ad opt mCrtn'u dr(la v.lrnv ern mr are+•, or (31 nhenninR lends nerr+ury Ira Iwndaus 'l aoono In flat effect SECS Sr appropriation is tlm .ctd..mrl)......denasare.nnMmeed by, sly, haler he public , droll r s-lnnate written lithio r m the record f sty made nd ,a nvl�bnr.'� .rl n CnliivaA by Ihif in, prpruvn w Sell, n nl Art., 1, %III il'oi . prncwduv s is Inch an,''caldron under IL'pauNUph n dalmed We Ter orni+Cnn Motion or Silt 2^.11 nr 221' of Ibe Ilc.e r mil I nom forth is th sncahnry the basis for the slate of, ,n,lims s.nmh CoAe Air +use the Lau[ .r8ns le i A . +utn 'p m leer Inn the san.ir'nm Ge,mano+lo)aost l,@4l.hynpubpn l up : ch ,'air or +s 'rof .,.vi., his Vry for the proer+m or It'll 111,n c nc i,rnw t 1Le'an.dom from the erns pia oxahmr ayrb'n nr ,.r n info 1, 197h, to the o prespod for by dun . lcex, es,mm of sin µ'e m+ndalM L) this alt 121 to respond redncnon \Ill of II +r California Cnmhhrtmn (2) NII , have se stn nr fedcol Lade shall Ire limited to Vmlrcls defined ,. r (b) ofScrp b' ooceoce. er 'Peru 11ar n6cgiall, Program re -1c,. s-110-1l glars. r r charges charged for vnh a asbnRrdul a con ex, 'roar, 11-911 or abnnn.ne the of m dating Anted pliai • pm8um, ,n se eum t r or operated r elms ate, abi'a of an existing facilities; m n•Jran or le the adi ty o t...c. . or pnLlmly owned transit wale,, pmgnm, or suant to I Illl All do a( Projects designated pursuant to Section PIm1J. 111) A project For the IPabtalion or m of Passenger or nose, call lines .[read, a ndodbrR the _ medrr aabo of existing nations and Parking facilities. 1131 A Project for the institution or increase of panroger or nmeo service all Frghatt'rpacy vehicle I.., already in ndudm8 the moderniarlion of existing antwns amt III facilities t 13) Facility eatendmn not to eatted four miles in length wLab n am recoiled for transfer a paaengen form cr to eachnive Public m s transit KmairnaY m busw.Y pc umit servrex I IAI A Project W. the development of a regional transportation ` V oopmvnrsers O,oBrvn or the #ae I. ,vrhnun im oboe ord program. p31 Any project the i ex menu stag Impact revu- ponalnte to wdl he suht ro rnvrmnmenul Impact review its,'late m she Policy 1968 or sale lass of ie 19 Nat EAny emission star ar es ld have that state that Would have critic ' t1um ecremcoverordnchmgn affect on the envirrnment in tFaSSUtedUlJornb are mbtem mlhn dm rn ❑nl ono, nndermken bY. halal.Rene, to cm n a nde car ,eNt.ft,d imposed by smr agency, board, or commission a rofinJ ,egd.alvey Prhenm patron+,, to s 2 MI S A i 211,,,5. Airy , not on- Aeolic 11feet of the poem which w nut ambud vopuned Hfom or sM1e plan o other w lien dmumrnestion rem�ired by &•diun PIIW9g is nrbje[I to This drvown. W R nO • Is SUR "EY OF SECOND UNIT ORDINANCES BY COMMUNITY c ¢ z w G w c z � o a (J LL J iLWner occupancy of o specific geographic Mo.neroccupancy o rental only. rental rates. o specific age group familial relationship. 7. Restrict external alterations to the structure. a' hgsn continuity with existing one X X 9. Meets densit standards of zone. lU. Written consent from adjoining property owners. 11. Subject to growth control. 12. Limit number in a given area. 13. Waive parking requirements. 14. �S,ubActmentgarking /driveway eq X 15. Must meet building, fi Oe, set- back, and service requirements. X X X 16. Require second entrance. 17. Require separate entrance. la. Agn-cun, roiingu un�tsor legal 19, ppooliplol only to u its b ilt bBi ore a specl�ic dale. 2U. Require It main se ?nd unit be attached ire second unit be detached main unit. X X size of new unit. X mum lot size /coverage. X I X Mcorner usive to corner lot. icitly allow mobilehomes. icitly preclude mobilehomes• ibit division of property. X 28. Large lot only. Z9. Require rear lot /deep lot. X 30. Temporary use only. 31. Conditional Use permit Req'd 32. Temporary Use permit P.eq'd X X I X t r.� F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 83 -05 - WANDA • INVESTMENTS - The development of a 411,000 square fo warehouse istribution facility on 23.8 acres of land in ?the Heavy dustral zone (_ barea 15) located on the south side of 7th pproximately 1045 fee est of Etiwanda Avenue - Parcel 2 of Parce6658. Dan Coleman, ociate Planner reviewed the staf e William Ells, repXParcel he applican addressed the Commission stating that the applicanwith 0 indings in the staff report and the Resolution and offer th omm9ssioner's questions. There were no comma the publir hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by conded Juarez, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution acel Map 8 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration. AYES: C OMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Juarez, tout NOES: COMMISSION None APENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Rempel G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -03 - An • amendment to the residential use standards to allow for elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff Report. Vice- chairman Stout asked if staff's intention was to require Conditional Use Permits for second units and a Temporary Use Permits for elder cottages. Mr. Coleman replied that an elder cottage would be a removable structure and therefore temporary in nature with less impact on the immediate neighborhood; however, a second unit would be a permanent structure. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, added that the intention was to help with the senior citizen housing situation by simplifying the procedures. Vice- chairman Stout stated that on a use of this type in order to get a neighborhood to accept it, they should have some input. Temporary uses are more objectionable and upsetting to a neighborhood than what is proposed for the second unit regulations. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 13, 1983 Mr. Coleman stated that the notification of contiguous property owners could be a requirement of a temporary use similar to a minor deviation, or make it a CUP. He pointed out that a CUP is a costly and timely process, and a temporary use permit would make it simplier to provide housing for the elderly. Rick Gomez, City Planner, advised that it was not necessary for the Commission to make a decision on this item this evening. The purpose at this time was to take public comment and for the Commissioners to provide staff with direction in preparing an Ordinance for the Commission's review at the second meeting in April. Vice - chairman Stout opened the public hearing. Art Bridge, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commision voicing support for item, however, felt it should be restricted to 10,000 square foot or larger lots. Mr. Coleman stated that regulations for designated areas had not been included in the ordinance because it was felt that the income of the owners of smaller lots have the same need to provide housing for the elderly and would possibly benefit more from the income for a second unit. Also, that there is no income limit on the regulations for elder cottages. Vice - chairman Stout asked if site development criteria would have to be met which might preclude a smaller lot from qualifying. • Mr. Gomez replied that each Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis so that the smaller lots would conform to the requirements. There were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Vice - chairman Stout asked if the Senior Citizen's VIP Club had been contacted for their input. Mr. Gomez replied that they had not, however, staff could arrange for their input prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that he was concerned with a temporary structure and felt that it should have more restrictions on it so that it could not be placed in the front yard area. Mr. Vairin suggested that a structure that was to he placed in the front yard could be restricted to a permanent structure that would blend in with the present structure. Vice - chairman Stout stated that he felt that a Conditional Use Permit should be required to give the surrounding property owners a chance to voice their 19 Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 13, 1983 t. � opinions. Further, that the requirements for a second unit structure would make it blend in with the present structure, but this is impossible with a temporary unit. Commissioner McNiel stated that the temporary structure is more applicable to the need than the second unit. Vice- chairman Stout stated that he had no problem with that, however, felt that the neighborhood would accept it more if they had a chance to come before the Commission in a public forum. Commissioner McNiel asked if the temporary use permits could be brought before the Commission for a public hearing until the Commission can see if there will be problems with this type of use. Ted Hopson advised that the Commission could require a public hearing for a temporary use by Ordinance. Mr. Gomez advised that public notification of contiguous property owners could also be a requirement of a Temporary Use Permit. This would require a lower fee than a Conditional Use Permit. Vice - chairman Stout stated that he would like to at least have the uses monitored for a while and once the Commission sees what problems arise from them and what conditions to impose, there may no longer be a need for a public hearing. Mr. Gomez stated that staff could list some options for the Commission's • consideration at the next meeting before recommending them to the City Council. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Juarez, unanimously carried, to continue this item to April 27, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, Juarez, Stout NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Rempel 8:20 - Planning Commission Re ^essed 8:30 - Planning Commission Reconvened Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 13, 1983 r� I � �J EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1933 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -03 - An amendment to the residential use standards to allow for elder cottages and second units on single family zoned residential lots. Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and Ordinance which reflected the changes made by the Planning Commission at their April 13, 1983 meeting. Commissioner Stout referred to item "e" of the Ordinance and asked about the assurance of a removable structure at the end of the temporary period. Mr. Coleman replied that the Planning Commission normally conditions the permit to require removal of the structure at the end of a certain time period. He suggested that the structure could be required to be removed thirty days after vacancy, any thing else would probably require bonding or a cash deposit. Commissioner Stout suggested that the way item "c" of the Ordinance is worded states that a rent must be charged for the unit. Mr. Gomez stated that the intent is that the unit cannot be sold to further subdivide a lot. • Commissioner Stout requested that the wording be changed to state that the unit is not for sale, but for rent or use by a member of the immediate family. Mr. Coleman replied that this would be in conformance with state law. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mrs, Bridge, 6565 Madrone, Cucamonga, asked questions of the Commission regarding subdividing her property and repair of her home. Chairman Rempel advised Mrs. Bridge to contact Mr. Gomez at the City offices and he could advise her on this problem. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Juarez, seconded by Mc Niel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance to the City Council, The motion included amending the Ordinance on item "c" to include language that the unit not be for sale but for rental purposes only or by use of a member of the immediate family. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Juarez, Mc Niel, Barker, Stout, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- 7 , RESOLUTION NO. 83 -56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 83 -03, AMENDING SECTION 61.024A(b) OF THE „ RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly advertised public hearings to consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels that such amendment will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found it necessary to regulate second dwelling units. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project w—not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration on April 27, 1983. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends • approval on the 27th day of April, 1983, of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -03. 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 83 -03 as shown on the attached Ordinance. 3. That a 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 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION"OF -TRE CITVDF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: il_4 on • • �J Resolution No, 83 -5< Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JUAREZ, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • ORDINANCE NO. * AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.024A (b) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 61.024A (b) ,f the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding subsection 61.024A (b)(8), to read as follows: (8) Second dwelling units: A second dwelling unit may be constructed, or attached to, a primary residence on a legal lot of record, containing an existing single family detached residence, subject to the following criteria: (a) A Conditional Use Permit application shall be required pursuant to Section 61.0219(o). • (b) The use of temporary /removable structures shall be limited to the sole occupancy of one or two adult persons who are 60 years of age or over, related to the occupants of primary residence by blood, marriage, or adoption. Further, said structure shall be restricted to the area at the rear of the primary residence and adequately screened from public view from the street. (c) The unit is not for sale, but for rental purposes only, or use by a member of the immediate family. (d) The unit does not exceed 640 square feet. (e) The unit shall have a separate entrance from the main residence. (f) The unit shall provide parking and access pursuant to Section 61.0219 (b). (g) The unit construction shall conform to the setback and coverage requirements applicable to accessory buildings or additions to main residence in the zone designation in which the unit is located. Ordinance No. Page 2 (h) The unit may require architectural review, pursuant to Ordinance 89, as determined by the City Planner. (i) The applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety Division written certification from the affected water and sewer district that adequate water and sewer facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City, written certification of acceptability including all supportive information shall be submitted. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby finds that this Amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment and issues a Negative Declaration for this Amendment. 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 Dail Re ort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of nt ario, a i ornia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk i Jon O. Mikels, Mayor • • • .IV DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 18, 1983 Members of the City Council and City Manager Rick Gomez, City Planner p G�7CA,1I0,i3O `C 9 �I' r w T. v. r Z Rick Marks, Associate Planner FEDERAL JOBS BILL PROPOSED PROJECT: RECONSTRUCTION OF HELLMAN AVENUE u> 197 ABSTRACT: This report contains information describing the proposed reconstruction of Hellman Avenue with funds obtained under Public Law 98 -8 (Emergency Jobs Appropriation Bill). BACKGROUND: On March 24, 1983, the President signed the Emergency Expenditures To Meet National Needs Appropriation Act (commonly known as the Federal Jobs Bill) designed to provide employment for jobless Americans, hasten or initiate federal projects and construction, and provide assistance to the indigent. Some of the funds provided by this Act are to be administered under the general regulations, guidelines and procedures governing the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program. Any money received by a city will be in addition to its basic Entitlement Award. The City has been notified that it will be receiving an additional $168,000 in entitlement funds. Specifically, the use of the Jobs Bill funds will be governed by one of the three (3) broad national CDBG objectives which are as follows: 1. Projects must be designed or located so that the majority of beneficiaries are low- and moderate - income people, or 2. Projects must aid in the elimination of slums and blight, or 3. Projects must be designed to alleviate a serious and immediate threat to public health or welfare. A final restriction on the use of these funds is that prior to expending them a city must have an approved Housing Assistance Plan. Generally, once qualified, what all of this will require of participating cities is fairly easy to meet. Cities are familiar with the administrative requirements of the CDBG Program and the general nature of eligible or ineligible programs. However, the timing of the ,� r Federal Jobs Bill Proposed Project Reconstruction of Hellman Avenue May 18, 1983 Page 2 Jobs Bill allocation is such that for some cities, including Rancho Cucamonga, much of the preparatory work required to prepare a submittal to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Block Grant funding must he repeated for Jobs Bill funding. Because the City held its required public hearing regarding its basic CDBG entitlement award last month (before the regulations regarding Jobs Bill funds were known) the City Council must hold a public hearing tonight on the proposed use of these funds. PROPOSED JOBS BILL PROJECT: There is an emergent need to completely redesign and reconstruct Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard to eliminate severe flooding, street and curb undermining, and other serious health and safety problems. The segment of Hellman Avenue extending northerly of San Bernardino Road to the Pacific Electric Railroad tracks is an extremely fragmented roadway varying in width from 26 feet to 44 feet. Where development has occurred along the street, the original 26 -foot concrete section has been widened to the master plan width and paved with asphalt. These bottleneck areas create traffic hazards, restrict water flow causing turbulence which results in debris deposition and pavement destruction. The City Engineering Division, responding to the recent and historical damage and threat to life and property along Hellman Avenue, has initiated the Hellman Avenue Improvement Program. As a part of this overall Improvement Program, the specific objective for the proposed Jobs Bill funded project is to widen Hellman Avenue to its ultimate width, remove faulty pavement sections and reconstruct the entire segment of road just north of San Bernardino Road to the Pacific Electric Railroad tracks into a uniformly improved street. PUBLIC HEARING: Under the regulations governing the Community Develop— menck Grant Program, cities are required to hold a public hearing in order to give citizens an opportunity to respond to staff recommendations for program funding. The public hearing you are holding tonight meets the federal requirements and will allow staff to continue processing our CDBG /Jobs Bill application. The City published legal notice of the public hearing on May 6, 1983 in The Dail Reoort newspaper. A statement of objectives was circulated at Rancho t e Raho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, Lions Park Community Center, and at City Hall along with a flyer announcing the public hearing. I !.i �ti • \J • Federal Jobs Bill Proposed Project Reconstruction of Hellman Avenue May 18, 1983 Page 3 n LJ NEXT STEPS: If the City Council adopts the Statement of Objectives as proposed, the following items must then be accomplished. ACTION DATE OF COMPLETION T-7-Trepare an application to the May 3U1983 Department of Housing and Urban Development 2. Prepare all environmental assessments June 30, 1983 required in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 3. Legally notice our environmental As soon as environmental findings and allow the public a documents are complete period of time to comment on our findings (approximately 30 days) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following action: A. That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the reconstruction of Hellman Avenue using funds received under Public Law 98 -8 (Emergency Jobs Appropriations Bill). . B. That staff be authorized to continue processing the City's Jobs Bill Project as outlined. Re sp�cifully submitted, Rick .Gomez City Planner RG:RM:jr Attachments: Statement of Objectives Public Hearing Flyer Resolution FEDERAL JOBS BILL PROPOSED PROJECT: RECONSTRUCTION OF HELLMAN AVENUE �o 0 U O 1977 r 0 z Statement of Objectives May 1983 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S '., \\ '7 11vYUrJa11 D. )111cd, ^V"- IDs ✓tlmrmMn • -f.✓` }� {! Z Charles J. 31. Dahl 11 iHip 1 . Fnla Richard \I. Uahl Phillip 11. 5chloser May 1, 1983 TO: RESIDENTS OF THE CITY SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES TO MEET NATIONAL NEEDS (JOBS BILL): ADMINISTRATION AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS on .March 24, 1983, the President signed the Emergency Expenditures To Meet National Needs Appropriation Act (commonly known as the federal Jobs Bill) designed to provide employment for jobless Americans, hasten or initiate federal projects and construction, and provide assistance to the indigent. The funds provided by this Act are to be administered under the general regulations, guidelines and procedures governing the federal Community Development Block Grant Program. Any money received by a city will be in addition to its basic Entitlement Award. Specifically the use of the Jobs Bill funds will be governed by one of the three (3) broad national CDBG objectives which are as follows: 1. Projects must be designed or located so that the majority of beneficiaries are low- and moderate - income people, or • 2. Projects must aid in the elimination of slums and blight, or 3. Projects must be designed to alleviate a serious and immediate threat to public health or welfare. Additionally, funds received from the Jobs Bill shall have as a goal the creation of permanent employment for jobless Americans. A final restriction on the use of these funds is that prior to expending them a city must have an approved Housing Assistance Plan. Preliminary Estimate of Jobs Bill Funding: $168,000 PUBLIC HEARING ON �IAY ON 083, AT 7:30 P.M. AT LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 9161 BASE LINE ROAD, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN ORDER TO HEAR THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS AND TO GIVE CITIZENS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROPOSE OTHER PROGRAMS FOR FUNDING. THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND AND MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BASED ON TESTIMORY RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE FINAL LIST OF PROJECTS '.TILL BE DRAFTED AND USED IN THE APPLICATION TO THE DEPART?IENT OF HOUSING AND 'URBAN DEVELOPMENT. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Jobs Bill or proposed • project, please call Rick Marks, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division, at 989 -1351. 9320 BASELINE ROAD. of 117F, C • POST Of FILE IRA MW R %N('1101'('( AMONGA. (', \hI FI )I(N 1,\ 91.10 • (7111 989.1851 0 Emergency Expenditures To Meet National Needs (Federal Jobs Bill): Statement of Objectives Needs Assessment finding: There is an emergent need to completely redesign and reconstruct Hellman Avenue between Base Line Road and Foothill Boulevard to eliminate severe flooding, street and curbs undermining, and other serious health and safety problems. The segment of Hellman Avenue extending northerly of San Bernardino Road to the Pacific Electric Railroad tracks is an extremely fragmented roadway varying in width from 26 feet to 44 feet (see attached Exhibit A). Where development has occurred along the street, the original 26 -foot concrete section has been widened to the master plan width, paved with asphalt. These bottleneck areas create traffic hazards, restrict water flow causing turbulence which results in debris deposition and pavement destruction. Objective: To widen Hellman Avenue to its ultimate width, remove faulty pavement sections • and reconstruct the entire segment of road just north of San Bernardino Road to the Pacific Electric Railroad tracks into a uniformly improved street. C tit BASE LINE"- ,vl I ou 41 I I � I 1 eta / Lit am9ngslzi'ri�: •Olist&ical [taniimarx �r �'•-• ;YJ _ / z zoo .. ... r = / Q • 4 4M •' I� -a 1700 C I1 flit L =�'.i :�. -•� "'^ � '�"'.'. �: —���i- 71'1 1� \: .7�' :� Lij om \, CITY OF RANCI 10 (J uir.T pace • Program Eligibility Regulations Under regulations issued by HIUD (Dated August 27, 1970), there are six (6) basic categories of eligible activities: 1) Basic eligible activities; 2) eligible rehabilita tion and preservation activities; 3) eligible economic development activities; 4) eligible activities by private non- profit entities, neighborhood -based non - profit organization, local development corporations, or small business investment comoanies; 5) eligible planning and urban environmental design costs, and; 6) eligible administrative costs. An explanation of each of the categories of eligible activities is given below. Two points, however, should be noted. First, the following list is condensed from the regulations and is simplified; the final decision as to whether a project is eligible or not shoul. be made by referring directly to the regulations. Second, any elinibie oroiect must meet the criteria of Did Basic Eligible Activities This section includes the majority of capital improvement projects which may be considered for funding within designated target areas. 1. Acouisition of Real Property which does not meet current building code standards, which may be preserved as a historic site or valuable community service, or used for an eligible • activity. 2. Disposition of Real Property acquired under the CDBG Program. 3. Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitation, or Installation of certain puolicaily owned facilities, such as a. Senior Centers b. Parks, Playgrounds c. Centers for the Handicapped d. Neighborhood Facilities e. Solid ''Waste Disposal Facilities f. Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment g. Parking Facilities h. Street Improvements i. Water and Sewer Systems j. Pedestrian Falls and Yalkways k. Flood Control and Drainage Improvements 1. Other arovements vital'to a community's development. 4. C1 ^ir mice and "e -io1 it icn of deteriorated buildings and lend wninn i7ay oe i iiialtn nazard to the community. 5. Intgri°. _s_is r „mr,- or tecnor.iry helo to alleviate hazard or dun,erous wnur: ions, ,ucn is the rennirinn of streets, pl,r/nro ands or private prnm;r ^y, or trash and mrha,�e removal. x 6. Relpca ti o. ^. Payents for any person displaced from their homes due to CGBG funeeo activity or for loss of rental income. 7. Removal of Architectural Barriers that restrict the mobility of ndnsicappeo persons. • B. Eligible Rehabilitation and Preservation Activities Under this section MG funds may be used for the rehabilitation of buildings and improvements.' both public and orivately owned. This section of the regulations authorizes the County's acquisition of, and rehabilitation financing for, private properties; it also provides for temporary relocation assistance, code enforcement, and historic preservation activities. C. Eligible Economic Development Activity Neighborhood based non - profit organizations, small business investment coc•.panies, or local development corporations are eligible for Block Grant funds to implement certain economic development and commercial revitalization activities. The financial assistance can be in the forn of grants, loans, loan guarantees, or technical assistance to existing small businesses, minority businesses, neighborhood non - profit business. The above groups can use the Block Grant funds for the following purposes: Working capital, operational funds, land purchase, purchase of eauiprent and fixtures, energy construction improvements, acquisitioe, construction, rehabilitation, or installation of commercial and industrial buildings. However, all economic development activities must reet the following criteria: 1) Combine private and public invest- ments toward alleviating physical deterioration or economic distress in • a co-,munity; 2) Benefit lower income and 'nandicapped persons by providing Joe,; 3) and fit into an overall economic development strategy, D. Plannino and Administration Expenses CDBG funds are authorized for the following activities: 1. Preparing comprehensive community development plans; 2. Preparing comunity -wide plans for land use historical preservation, economic development, and neighborhood preservation; 3. Administrative cost relating to the planning and implementation of community development activities. Ineligible Activities The rollowinq tyres of activities are generally ineligible: 1. Stndivas, convention ^.enters, concert halls, city calls, renioral her,: 3. Facilities for exclusive use by one group or organization. • 4. Maintenance and operation expenses, including deferred maintenance., S. New housing construction. 6. Public service except in a neighborhood stragegy area (NSA). 1. Hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities. 9. Airports, subways, trolly liges, bus or other transit terminals. 9. Purchase of movable equipment or construction equipment. ■ WHEN: May 18, 1983 ■ WHERE: Lions Paric Community Center Forum ■ TIME: 7:30 PM ■ For more information contact: Community Development Department: 989 -1851 RESOLUTION NO. * ! • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HELLMAN AVENUE WITH FUNDS RECEIVED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 918 -8 (EMERGENCY JOBS APPROPRIATIONS BILL) TO BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Congress of the Unitod States has determined that there is a need to fund public sector public works in order to stimulate permanent private sector employment; and WHEREAS, the Congress has provided funding to cities with public works projects capable of being quickly implemented; and WHEREAS, the funding provided by the Congress is subject to the regulations governing the federal Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is an Entitlement City under the regulations governing the Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City has released for public comment a statement of • objectives indicating its intent to use the funds received to reconstruct Hellman Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a legally noticed public hearing in order to give the public an opportunity to respond to staff recommendations for program funding and to put forth for Council consideration recommendations of their own; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard public testimony and received all public input regarding the City's Community Development Block Grant Job's Bill project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby authorize the funding of the following project to be funded out of the City's Community Development Block Grant /Jobs Bill award. Community Development Block Grant /Jobs Bill Project: Proposed Budget Project Amount % Reconstruction of Hellman Avenue $168,000 100 elution No. Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1983, • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mi a s, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 0 49 7j r 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C�3CAafob STAFF REPORTS } a r ci _ 0 OI A fl 9 1977 DATE: May 18, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Equestrian Advisory Comm'ttee BY: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: KEEPING OF ANIMIALS IN EIUESTRIAN /RURAL AREA - The estab ishment of a City Counci policy that subdivision CC &R's shall not prohibit the keeping of animals in the equestrian /rural areas. SUMMARY: The Equestrian Advisory Committee is recommending that the City Council ensure protection of the equestrian /rural area lifestyle by adopting a policy prohibiting new subdivision CC &R's from restricting the keeping of animals permitted -6y the Zoning Ordinance. The attached Planning Commission staff report outlines supporting policies from the General Plan and the authority for implementing such a policy. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend that the ,ty Counci a opt the attached Resolution establishing a policy for the keeping of animals in the equestrian /rural area. Resp4tfully s iittted, Rick G e Ci%ty P anner RI DC:jr 4ttachments: April 27, 1983 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution • L I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 27, 1983 TO: Members of the Planning Commission cl: o 1977 FROM: Equestrian Advisory Committee BY: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: KEEPING OF ANIMALS IN E UESTRIAN /RURAL AREA - The establish ment of a City ounn po icy tat subdivision CC &R's shall not prohibit the keeping of animals in the equestrian /rural areas. SUMMARY: The Equestrian Advisory Committee is recommending that the ity Council ensure protection of the equestrian /rural area lifestyle by adopting a policy prohibiting new subdivision CC &R's from restricting the keeping of animals permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. At the request of the Equestrian Advisory Committee, staff is bringing a draft City Council policy resolution to the Commission for their review and consideration. GENERAL PLAN SUPPORTING POLICIES: The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan recognizes the "country and rural atmosphere" of Alta Loma north of Banyan and that within this area opportunities exist for the provision of trails and recreation. The following General Plan policies provide for protection of the equestrian /rural lifestyle: 0 That the area as shown in the equestrian /rural designated area provides for the keeping and protection of animals on private property, including equine, bovine, cleft- hoofed animals, and poultry (p. 112). 0 Horseback riding is a special recreational opportunity that should be fostered (p. 121). o Requires that all development within the area relate to existing and future areas occupied by equine, bovine, cleft- hoofed animals, and poultry by providing trail connections through easements in order to connect or disconnected trails and for needed access to recreation activities (p. 112). o Whenever possible and feasible, the City shall require that all residential lots in the equestrian rural area have Local Feeder Trails on the rear of the lot (p. 114). Keeping of Animals in Equestrian /Rural Areas Planning Commission Agenda April 27, 1983 Page 2 The latter two policies imply that all residential development provide for the keeping of animals by requiring provision for trail easements. ANALYSIS: The Subdivision Map Act enables cities to regulate the design ancTimprovement of land when it is divided for development. A broad interpretation of "design and improvement" has been adopted through court cases and includes the physical layout of a subdivision, dedications of public improvements and easements, and other measures "as shall not approve -a proposed subdivision map unless it finds that said subdivision, including its design and proposed improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. It is reasonable to require CUR's from prohibiting the keeping of animals explicitly provided for by the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, RECOMMENDATION: The Equestrian Advisory Committee recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the attached Resolution. Res cif Ily bmitted, R Yck mez City lanner (G:jr Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" - Figure III -5A Equestrian /Rural Area • • • 0 Figure 111 -5a EQUESTRIAN /RURAL AREA DESIGNATION -NORTI I CITY OI' ITIi�I: AIM {4i - 1%Uety- 4l RANCID TITLF o PLANNING DIVISION EXInI11T 4_SCAI.r • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS WITHIN EQUESTRIAN /RURAL AREA OF THE CITY WHEREAS, it is the City Council's desire to provide for protection of the ability to keep animals; and WHEREAS, the Trails Element of the General Plan designates the area generally north of Banyan as an "Equestrian /Rural" area; and WHEREAS, members of the public have participated in the public hearing review of the Trails Element; and WHEREAS, the General Plan provides that the "Equestrian /Rural" area shall provide for the keeping and protection of animals on private property, including equinef and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the benefit derived from the keeping or use of animals as an educational and recreational resource; and WHEREAS,. the Equestriao Advisory Committee of the City of Rancho Cucan�onga has ,relewed �t�h�eme�"Cit !s regal ons �concernin% .the'\keeping . animals and pdcommends -additional measures be adop'LEdso�p "rotect the_Abi -YTty to keep-an4n(als. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby declare its policy to be: SECTION 1: That subdivision CC &R's shall not prohibit the keeping of equine, bav�e,,a4060reefed animals, ap6yeriYry, where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowner's associations for amendments to CC &R's. Tentative subdivision maps for single family residential development shall be conditioned to require a copy of the CC &R's to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to map recordation. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this * day of *, 19 *. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 49 Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 is F1 ntmv nV U AATPUn rTTr a MnNrA STAFF REPORT' � 9 F O DATE: May 18, 1983 _'> TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager 4l"' BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engin+ r SUBJECT: Recommend Approval for Proposed Joint Use of Arrow Park by City and Central School District With the the pending development of a new elementary school near the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route and the existence of an adjacent parcel of land slated for a city park, the City and Central School District have been exploring the possibility of joint use of their facilities, in conformance with General Plan policy. After considerable effort by the agencies and an adjacent property owner, a plan for joint use has been developed which also rearranges the circulation in the area to better serve the intended land uses. The school and park properties are shown on the attached sketch, along with the streets in the area and a dedicated right -of -way called "county highway ", which is unconstructed. This right -of -way gives access to the school property and would still allow single - family type subdivision on the surrounding land. Since then, the designation of the area has changed to multi - family and the park site has been obtained. It appears now that the best way to facilitate the joint park - school use and the ultimate development of the area is to relocate the street right -of -way as indicated and provide for the construction of partial street improvements as a preliminary part of the park development. The contributions to the overall plan by the various parties would be as follows: School District: 1. Revise site plan for school site. 2. Provide parking lot for joint school - park use. 3. Arrange for transfer of property between school district and southerly owner. 4. Provide offer of dedication from roadway to west property line. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Recommend Approval for Proposed Joint Use of Arrow Park by City and Central School District May 18, 1983 Page 2 . City: 1. Approve vacation of right -of -way. 2. Construct east two- thirds (261) of this roadway from Arrow to the school site. Property Owner: 1. Transfer northerly portion of property to school district to square off school site. 2. Dedicate a 45' right -of -way at east edge of property. 3. Construct remaining street improvements at the time of development of his property. These changes are shown on the sketch. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a proposed relocation of a north -south street to serve both the City park and the new elementary school. It is further recommended that the funds for the construction of the street required for park access be financed from Park Development Fees. Respectfully submitted, LMW:PAR:jaa Attachment • i I I 207 W 2 Q O 2 W z J �c '.7 446 AC N/L OFFER OF ,OED/CAT/61V 440 34- - -- TO BE VACATED B.66 AC M/L ARRO'N- • 24 --------- - - - - -- - DEVON �T m SGHOO L ', F 2 K01/OCTI �T _ i � NEW EPICA ` r35 eCCALLE '? ,'6' 4464C 64L VEJAR 'r U6AC M/L •U M/.l I PARK ; I I - - ( loth -� May 10, 1983 • The following represents the understandings and agreements of the parties as discussed between agents for the parties regarding the development of a Joint use school -Dark site, pending approval of the Central School District Board of Trustees and the Rancho Cuca- monga City Council. A. The Central School District agrees to: 1. Change the location of the school to be constructed on the Vineyard site to the western portion of that site to allow contiguous development of the school's playgrounds and the city park on the eastern portion of the school and park sites. 2. Pay the additional costs incurred in the change of owner- ship of land owned by Mr. Stan Flinkman to the District. Such costs include resurveying, change in title to the land. 3. Pay the additional costs of engineering and site develop- , ment incurred as a result of changing the location of the school buildings to the western portion of the school site. 4. Pay for the design and construction of a parking lot on the southern portion of the school site with such parking • lot to be available for joint use by school and park patrons. B. The City of Rancho Cucamonga agrees to; Change the location of the road to be built from Arrow High- way to the Vineyard school site from its presently planned location to the eastern forty -eight feet (481) of the land owned by Mr. Flinkman. Construct a roadway twenty -six feet (26') wide with accompany- ing curbs, gutters, and sidewalk on the eastern side of this roadway from Arrow Highway to the parking lot to be built on the Vineyard school site. Such roadway will be constructed as soon as possible but no later than September 1, 1984. C. Mr. Stan Flinkman agrees to: Deed over to the Central School District land presently owned by him to the north of a line extended to the west from the District's southern property line (see accompanying property map.) Central School District tP City of Rancho Cucamonga — Stan Flinkman 2� r m • CJ C] I STAFF REPORT May 12, 1983II ~ �Ic TO: City Council FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman City Manager ,j- SUBJECT: SAEDCOM A county -wide local development company called the Inland Empire Subarea Economic Development Commission ( SAEDCOM) is a non - profit corporation formed to assist in the economic and industrial development of San Bernardino County by furnishing business facilities to specific small business concerns operating or proposing to operate within our County. The organization has invited all of the cities within San Bernardino County to become part of the group. The organization has requested that a representative of the City be designated by the City Council to serve as the primary contact from Rancho Cucamonga. While it is difficult to determine whether or not the new program will be successful, it appears as though it may be in the city's best interest to participate. The activities of SAEDCOM appear to be primarily focused at assisting small businesses to locate in our County. It is recommended that the Council consider appointing a representative to serve in this Agency. LMW: baa attach. CJ � U !� A NEi;:�iJOEROOD DEVELOPUMPT PROGIAIM A G ? V ISI ON OF OPERATION SECOND CHANCE, 04C. Mdy 6, 1983 The flonorable Jon Mikels Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga City Nall P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor Mikels: SAEDCOM Countywide Local Development Company, Incorporated Board of Directors has authorized local government representation within their organizational structure. We are currently inviting all seventeen (17) cities throughout San Bernardino County to become a part of our organization. •The past two (2) years we have been functioning as a Local Development Company certified by the U.S. Small Business Administration under their 502 program. We are currently in the final stages of being certified under SBA's 503 program which will allow more flexible utilization of funds in larger develop- ment projects. We shortly will start a campaign to gather $50 million dollars to be ear - marked for our development projects throughout San Bernardino County. The Board of Directors feel that your participation in helping coordinate and identify projects is vital toward the success of our efforts. Therefore, if you would designate a representative and send their name and address to me I will see that they receive all notices and information of our meetings. 1NI.ANOfA1P1RESL1IJAR[A rCOM}d IICI)EVI.I.C)PAfklVTCO4/AIIS.31ON ULICENI'CIVH1ISLCLNILH • 1905\VC$T HIOHLANII AVLNUE • SAN IILHNAHDINO CALIFORNIA 92911 F May 6, 1983 Page A . T have enclosed an information question and answer sheet about our 502 program. Also enclosed is a letter from the County of San Bernardino Economic Development Department with which we work very close in coordinating our development efforts. S1 cerely, >� Arthur P. Townsend President TT /pg Enclosures........ As stated S3 0 • OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Main Office — 175 West Fifth Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415 (714) 3832913 0 n Office — 320 North Euclid Avenue • Ontario, CA 91762 (714) 9888611 p March 8, 1983 The Honorable Jon Mikels Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Mikels: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRANK COONY Daecmr BAXTER J. WILLIAMS AssrsfanFDirector Finance /Promonnns ART ROMANDY Induzrnal Sae Consulranr CHARLES MORTON ReSear[h and Oe,rlc,Tem PATTY PHIPPENY Indus reel Personnel OlbcN The Small Business Administration is in the final stages of granting official certification to SAEDCOM Countywide Local Development Company. This organization will now make the SBA "503" program available locally in addition to the "502" and the "8 -A" programs for contractors. Our own Economic Development Commission has been assisting with this county- wide project for the past year and I have been named to the Board of Directors. I recommend this new effort as a welcome addition to our grow- ing list of effective incentives for the creation of new jobs in our County. Very sincerely, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FRANK COONY Director FC:as �-- cc: Lauren Wasserman, City Mgr r7;7 I 2� 0 r.7 v INFORMATTON ABOUT STI :1?C0D! CoUnTyx IBC LOf.P.b ill \rLOpmlirT CoMpAIIY 1. Q. What is SACDCOFI Countywide Local Develupaent Company? A. It is a group of individuals from San Bernardino County is Community who has formed a non - profit corporation to assist in the economic and industrial develop m ant of San Bernardino County community by furnishing business facilities to specific small business concerns operating or proposing to operate within the San Bernardino county community. y 2. Q. What are the objectives of SAEDCOM LDC? A. To assist in the growth of the community through new jobs (additional enpl- "Ont), new industry (higher tax base for the community), growth through redevelocmant or ex- pansion of present facilities (up erading of the Comm- unity) and to assist neighborhoods or communities inter- ested in revitalization. 3. Q, What funds are required for injection by the small business concern? A. The Small Business Concern being assisted, its principals and /or affiliates to put up 106 of the total cost of project. 4. Q. Will SAEDCOM assist a Small Business Concern which is a non - profit corporation? A. Not if the small Business Concern is a charitable in- stitution or other non - profit enterprise, however, this does not apply to a cooperative that carries on a business activity for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary benefits for its members in the operation of otherwise eligible • small business. Consumer cooperatives are not eligible. S. Q. I am a Real Estate Salesman. Can my commission from rale of the property to StiDCOM LOC be part of the Small ads - iness Concern's 10% injection? A. No. Only those with a direct Pecuniary interest in the pro - jectr such as the vendors, contractors, the Small Business Concern, etc. can provide the 104 injection of the total cost Of project in cash or kind. 6. Q. What type of projects will SAEDCOM consider as eligible projects. A. Industrial plants, build new retail stores, restaurants and recreational facilities, conversions of existing Luildings and tumuli. +ling existing cui.ldings SAEDCOM can purchase land for new buildinq(s), for expansion of pre- sent conversion of old building and can purchase machinery and equipment that is built into the project. No working capital funds. 7. Q. 1 have a multi -story building. Can I get the building revitalized? A. In a rovitalized project, the Small Dusiness Concern must OCCUPY 509, or more of the building. Funds may be for re- novating the facade and the Space to be used by the Small ➢urines Cuncern only. All other proieets, such as new buildings, must be for the Small Business Concern occupy in total. • i 49 .* 8. 0. Who own. the land and building? SAEDCOM LOC or the Small Business Concern? A. This would depend uses the type of arrangement SAEDCOM makes with the Small Business Concern. five SALDCOM has (5) types of arrangements. They are: 1) SAEDCOM Relonde the 90t Cost of the project to the Small Business Concern; 2) SAEDCOM leases the property /building to the Small Business Concern with an option to buy; 3) SAEDCOM losses the property /building to the Small Business Concern :.ith lease - purchase option to acquire title for $1.00 at the end of the term; ' 4) SAEDCOM leases the property /building to the small Business Concern or a straight lease; and 5) SAEDCOM sells the property /building to the Small Business Concern, subject to the loan by SAEDCOM. 9. 0. Does SAEDCOM have any restrictions on the facilitos? A. The main restriction on all projects is that they must be available to anyone to their services (private. clubs are not eligible). • 30. Q. How does SAEOCOM figure the cost of a project? A. Here are the guidelines. The figures arc samples only. Cost of land $ 30,000. Cost of improvements 21000. Building 60,000. Machinery a equipment 8,000. Architectural fees 3,..00. Appraisal fees 5DO. TOTAL 104,00 -6. 102 contingency 10,400. Total Project cost $ 1T,4`00. 11. Q. What is the maximum term of the loan? A. The maximum term is 25 ,years (plus construction time), AS the term is predicated on the profitability of the Small Dusiness Concern, most 5AEDCOM LDC loans are for 20 years or less. 12. Q. What is the interest rates? A. Whatever interest rate that SAEDCOM and /or the Small Bus- iness Concern can arrange with the financial institutions with the maximum being control by the Small Business Administration and /or other govcrnnent guaranteeing agencies that may be involved. 13. Q. ]low do We start processing an SArCCOM LDC loan? A. Contact the following person: Wesley B. .lefforson Operation Second ChnncC, ino. 341 West 2nd Street - Suite pl San Pcrnar,iium, CA 92401 (714) 804 -8764 49 .* 0 • CUGA10 STAFF REPORT° C C i! F W JJ 19^ DATE: May 13, 1983 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Robert Rizzo Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Proposed County Solid waste Refuse Adjustment The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors at its June 13, 1983 meeting will be considering adjustment of the solid waste landfill (dump) fees. The current rate is $3.50 per ton which does not provide funds for site replacement, landfill closure, equipment replacement, or other operating costs that have been financed in the past by the County General Fund. The County consultant on the waste to Engergy Project has submitted a report which indicates the solid waste (dump) fees should be adjusted to cover all costs involved in the landfill operation (establish an "enterprise" fund). As indicated in County reports; if enacted this would reflect approximately a $5.10 per ton increase to $8.50 a ton.4 4z. At this time there are basically three points of contention on the part of private disposal services In other west valley cities, which are: 1. A 145% increase in dump fees at one time. Could this adjustment be phased in over the next few years? In the case of our local disposal services, they have preliminarily Projected the landfill fees would increase their residential rates approximately $1.00 per month, and any additional operating costs would raise the rates accordingly. 2. Short period of time to implement a program of this sort which reflects a radical change in County philosophy toward the operation of landfill sites. If adopted at the June 13 meeting, the "enterprise" method would take effect only 18 days later (July 1, 1983)• City Council & City Manager Be: Solid Waste Adjustment Page 2 0 3. Is the County identifying all funds that would be recovered in operation of landfill sites starting (i.e., in present form the County "enterprise" system does not take into account landfill sites once closed have resale value). Information on the rate adjustment and establishing an "enterprise" fund to operate the landfill sites is not complete. A clearer picture should be developed prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 13, 1983. Staff is keeping abreast of the situation, and the City Council will be notified as information becomes available. RAR:baa attachments: Rancho Disposal letter Yukon Disposal letter • 41 Racm DISPOSAL I P.O. Box 956 IN SERVICE, rice PtWm (714) 873717 City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Lauren Wasserman -City Manager 9320 3aseline Rancho Cucamonga, Ca, 91730 Dear Mr. Wasserman, The license refuse collectors in the City of Rancho Cucamonga were granted a residential rate increase on October 1, 1982. City policy was also changed to allow future rate reviews to coincide with the San 3ernardino cost computation index due prior to July of each year. The council expressed much concern about assuring early documentation of the cost, and therefore, a decision would not be made in haste, and adequate time would remain to notify the customers. Please be advised, the county is considering a landfill fee increase of 85.00 per ton to be effective July 1, 1983. The impact on prices will be substantial should the county prevail. Our rates would have to be raised an estimated S1.00 per month per residence. Also, a belated conclusion may not allow • us much time to present it to the council and notify the people. Your help in voicing our concerns to the county of both the huge amount of the proposed increase and the possible short time period would be greatly appreciated. Li Sincerely, Cole 3urr General Manager Rancho Disposal Service, Inc. A N CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTR TION MAY 10 1983 AN po 7A91p1llp21112A418 6 C".4 cc- YUKON tZ& DISPOS41 SERvrcF - P.O. Box 1 • Alta Loma, Cali(omia 91701 • Tel.phane (714) 987 -2410 May 9, 1983 Lauren Wasserman City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Wasserman, Subject: Refuse Rate Adjustment I want to inform you, and the City Council, of the possibility that the County of San Bernardino will be increasing solid waste landfill fees. • The current fee is now $3.50 per ton. The County has developed a fee structure calling for $8.60 per ton to take effect July 1, 1983. If this large of an increase does in fact go into effect, Yukon Disposal Service would need to increase collection rates on July 1, instead of the traditional October 1. This means we would need Council approval sometime in June. Sincerely 4u, rs, 'l� Joe Avakian JA /bjh CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTn TION MAY 10 1983 AN �' ..... i n r. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UPON THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located within the South Coast Air Basin; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin stands to lose federal funds for transportation improvements, sewage treatment facilities, air quality planning and highway repair and construction if monetary sanctions are imposed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin, already hard hit by unemployment, stands to lose more jobs if a construction ban on new or modified major stationary sources is imposed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the imposition of such santions would be couterproduetive and could lead to worsened air quality and water quality; and WHEREAS, the imposition of such sanctions is not warranted because of the efforts of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments who submitted a jointly prepared air quality management plan revision which met all Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency policy requirements and which has been praised as one of the best in the country. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opposes the imposition of sanctions by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency upon the South Coast Air Basin and urges the Administrator to approve the air quality management plan revision submitted in 1982 so that progress toward cleaning up the air in the South Coast Air Basin can continue forthwith. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of "arch 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor a Y �l Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 1�✓' � � " Z3 South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (213)572-6200 March R, 1983 Honorable Jon D. Nikels Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga City Nall 9320 Baseline Rd. Cucamonga, CA 91720 Dear Mayor Nikels & Members of the Council: Your representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board recently reported to you by letter regarding the imposition of the Environmental Protection Agency sanctions on our area. We have just been advised by an EPA representative that your comments on proposed rulemaking concerning sanctions should be sent to: and copy sent to: Anne McGill Burford, Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room W 1200, West Waterside Building 401 "M" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. David Calkins U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Further, I am enclosing a draft resolution that your city might consider adopting. Such resolution should also be sent to the above addresses. Sincerely , 4RA. Stuar� Executive Officer JAS:pmj Enclosure M E M O R A N D U M To: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: March 16. 1983 RE: Proposed Agreement for Consultina_ Services Between City of Rancho Cucamonga and L. D. Kina, Inc. It would be preferable if a not to exceed figure could be stated. However, as I understand from vou, because of the emer- gency nature of the work this would not be possible. In any event the following modifications to the proposed contract are recommended: 1. The lead -in portion of section 7 should read as follows: Section 7. METHOD OF PAYMEPiT. The estimated total fees for the services to be. performed by Consultant are as follows:" 2. Paragraph E of Section 7 should be revised to read as follows: "E. Consultant shall be paid for services rendered on an hourly fee basis. The hourly rates, mileage charges and other miscelleanous costs items, shall be as set forth in Consultant's Rate Schedule dated August, 1982, attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'." 3. Subsection G of Section 7 should be revised to read as follows: G. Consultant may submit to Cit;:, no :sore fre- yuentl.y than semimonthly, invoices itemizing all services Performed by Consultant since date on which the last invoice was submitted. The amount shown on each invoice shall be paid within four- teen (14) days after submissi.ce thereof, without prejudice to the City's ri,:ht to thereafter con- test the accuracy of any such invoice, unless the City within said fourteen (14) day period notifies Consultant that such invoice is not acceptable. In such event City shall notify Consultant of the reasons for the unaccepta- bility of such invoice in order to allow Consultant to promptly respond and make any corrections, or supply any additional infor- mation, which the City may reasonably require under the circumstances." 4. Section 14 should be revised to read as follows: "Section 14. Termination of agreement and Suspension of Performance. City shall have the right, but Consultant shall not, to terminate this Agreement or suspend Consultant's performance hereunder after the completion of the preliminary study for locations 2, 4, and 7, or at any other time after giving Consultant fifteen (15) days notice in writing of City's intention to either terminate this Agreement or suspend Consultant's performance hereunder." NOTE: It is unnecessary to provide in Section 14 for Consultant to be paid the reasonable value of work accomplished inasmuch as Consultant's payment is on a time and material basis. RED:sjo -2- -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM March 16, 1983 To: City Council FROM.: Richard M. Dahl, Councilman PE: Road Designation -- Industrial Specific Flan REQUEST: I have been requested to look into the road designation in the Industrial Specific Plan, east side of Haven Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets (designated as "Street A" on the attached map). FOLLOW UP: In looking at the sites, I found the site at the northern Portion was a "brickyard" and was told that the owner was not in favor of the rear street designation. Other Property owners along this strip feel that they would like to fully develop their parcelsto gain the highest and best use. I asked if they would have any problems with a "shared" driveway access to limit the number of accesses on Haven, and there was a general feeling that shared access would be more desirable instead of the "forced middle access." CONCLUSION: I would like to request that the Council refer the matter to the Planning commission fnr recommendations at their next meeting. RND:mk Attachment 39 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 r I Par. Cucamonga Fruit Lands M B. 419 Par Tract Na 2244. MB.35/5o6s 0 27 IT- I Rancho Cucamonga Cily Tom Cod. AMC �-.Y. Aln —1 O i flcRF w4 1 STREET -"-I+ Aawaao/f Mop Noto- Afflfwri Ba.S let Book 210 P090 09 NumMri shun in CIMIN San Bernardino Comfy M1.aY � a � O E- 0 � ej ro d „off o r 0 6 ° 3 Y Y a� KVar IO all ii' ;n fw O l]f<YM1 Q O j ..San" N1 AG. "tc. P.W. V/L v.90M..VL f.lr 4.YA fir K. YM1 ' I I 1 .YACN ij 340' fl,Yn Y/L 22 IIfb M Q Q I.af Ac 91`C f.17IL Y/L • f + G -I.r AC Y/t .n K. O \ I I�ay .ICI Had K [a © Yf K I/L i 'on Ic all AC a,1 L ' 6 LIN t erg 1 30 ® }y Block 13 t IT.M ►Ik. out. {I F IM< L f W on AC U �-.Y. Aln —1 O i flcRF w4 1 STREET -"-I+ Aawaao/f Mop Noto- Afflfwri Ba.S let Book 210 P090 09 NumMri shun in CIMIN San Bernardino Comfy M1.aY � a � O E- 0 � ej ro d „off o r 0 6 ° 3 Y Y a� KVar IO all ii' ;n fw vu a yr „� ........................... v„_.... MEMORANDUM° " r T l C S March 16, 1983 F Z 9*h TO: City Council FROM: Richard M. Dahl, Councilman RE: Landscaped Medians -- Arrow, Archibald, and Base Line Road REQUEST: I have had numerous requests that we study the need and impact of land- scaped medians designated for Arrow, Archibald, and Base Line Road. FOLLOW UP: In discussions with City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs, it was pointed out to me that the cost of just maintaining these medians would be in excess of one million dollars per year. In light of our city's financial crisis and the need to increase our park systems and the maintenance costs for parks and existing parkways, it would appear that we will need to reor;anine our priorities (I have problems with landscape maintenance districts that cost the homeowner or landowner for unnecessary require- ments such as medians). CONCLUSION: I would respectfully request that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission. I do feel, however, that a median is necessary in front of tha high school to discourage "jay walkinU" once our traffic signal at Vineyard is installed. RMD ;nk .� ly 4114L /111 LJ Q'vL,.c e ' �4K -+u,.!/ � eA c wa c,f 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM March 16, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: Richard M. Dahl, Councilman RE: Road Designation -- Industrial Specific Plan C'�o GUCAMO,�'!1 t , F U IUD 1977 REyUEET: I have been requested to look into the road designation in the Industrial Specific Plan„ east side of Haven Avenue, between 4th and 6th Streets (cesignated as "Street A" on the attached map) . FOLLOW UP: In looking at the sites, I found the site at the northern portion was a "brickyard" and was told that the owner was not in favor of the rear street designation. other property owners along this strip feel that they would like to fully develop their parcelsto gain the highest and best use. I asked if they would have any problems with a "shared" driveway access to limit the number of accesses on Haven, and there was a general feeling that shared access would be more desirable instead of the "forced middle access." 111111r I TM!. I would like to request that the Council relcr the matter to the Planning Commission for recommendations at their next meeting. MD : mk Attachment J Jil 1 5 Ta J ' j. I� 39 Fbr Cucamonga Fruit Lands M. B. 4/9 Fbr Tract Na 2244. M& 35/5655 O 27 arc Rancho Cucamonga Cily Tu. Code Area l =_lI STREET ., rT- CL:uJ r..m �o a, m CLLCa n... a 1 O' < u °LL3 `No nVro rar Awswes Map We•Atwswri MO.M tat Boo.Y 210 PoCe 08 ,-Y -ro ce. Number! Sh"- In Oc'a San Bernardino County Q ` r.,,KYn I lane u,e ,.IKrA a.!lu..A salnYA eu.w.A 1 ,YCYM1 1 1 iio O i t r r.11te YA r)lI YA Aam t ra r all l¢ oI , o vI m f O O =y Oav KI 26 es LLY K ©I [il OO ItIK 1/1. � IaMK Il! �' a Q Q Z h6 ( Rl Bloc.'r�t3 t U =_lI STREET ., rT- CL:uJ r..m �o a, m CLLCa n... a 1 O' < u °LL3 `No nVro rar Awswes Map We•Atwswri MO.M tat Boo.Y 210 PoCe 08 ,-Y -ro ce. Number! Sh"- In Oc'a San Bernardino County �ECyI(ES% ,' 1" /"rt�L�- ��n ✓2�e«a -�r,i� �.C, - ��*e -,G- _c.:.� �2Ya.<� tz--.� �/ c.E(`' Si-u,�.� . (•c�ta.uL- ,- <.�e¢O e.-e aG. Li.e.�' A " pyc, (X-w rf�L�l� c.X tE• -�. , st<�LE.�i.1.� � E'�rtu•,..� c.,t�e a. ..L.�,...i. -r.. �,,pa.�Q ,�• :C)1 «.i.w aGr�.�..,q �( 4-�` c'..�C `..rte -�-IJ - �(`' -d-L (.Q�p..nC.1,�lrc1' _ U /� '�.t^ ✓T� L..�.� -th I ✓G�<c� ,q� �F9''-<up:L1 U- `c..C.tti. 2. ,�tY' �1 L+L L.c S"L E.<"L�c/ CIGC/f.a.;1. ..CJ /�w�LG.t ,PLC C.+... fit♦ R� Ct -�C_i. ✓i<A ✓c'y� !` /4c`C�S��- �G*�.E -cL ll.'rW� Ct c�.c <c.E S- C�.��ct� -< L.i..t�.f' �- �`-u -U-e� p_t.. c.<- i.e.. G,�n- .. -.�c� ,-u-.t ,•Sa,C'iC ck.. aC :C a.Cc C <_ /G�e �CNCi{<i!CU i L\ / 1- -Olkc( ✓t--L ft, A.(. XtCL Y� tic Al2 yt N�.1 ,1./�../ c) � Z.<GC Cues- n- ..r -.-.k et�-1'�' � , t/ ✓ !/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 16, 1983 TO: Members of City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, Community Development Director BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BOND BACKGROUND: The County of San Bernardino is preparing to issue Revenue Bonds or cons ruction finance to multiple family housing. They have offered the City of Rancho Cucamonga the ability to enter into a Cooperation Agreement to use the Revenue Mortgage Bond financing to assist in the construction financing of projects within Rancho Cucamonga. The County has asked the City to consider action on this matter within the last few days. In order to react quickly to a worsening bond market, it has requested the City take action on the Cooperation Agreement by March 28, 1983. Language has been inserted into the resolution assuring that the City is not obligating approval for any specific project, and language is incorporated within the Cooperation Agreement which specifies that the City will have full authority over its review of planning matters, land use matters, and building permit issuance on projects which would qualify for the use of this Mortgage Bond Issue. These conditions are intended to maintain the City's full authority over the review and approval process of any particular project even though the City has acted on adoption of the Cooperation Agreement. The County has agreed to the incorporation of this language into both the Resolution and the Cooperation Agreement. AGREEMENT FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BOND City Council Agenda March 16, 1983 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Should the City Council consider entering into a Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Bernardino, it is recommended that the attached Resolution authorizing execution of the Cooperation Agreement. Re pectful bmitted, I i JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director 3L /TB /'cep Attachments: Draft Resolution Draft Cooperation Agreement RESOLUTION NO.33—,3 7 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRA OF SAN BERNARDINO AND CLERK TO EXECUTE FOR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BERNARDINO AND THE CITY A MULTI - FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING M IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY AND 0 "1 OEHALF OF THE CITY A BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the county of San Bernardino (the and in the city of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City ") of decent "County") , safe and sanitary rental housing, particularly of housing affordable by persons in the lower end of the income spectrum and a consequent need to encourage the construction of rental housing affordable by such persons and otherwise to increase the rental housing supply in the county and in the City for such persons; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County has declared its intent to adopt a multi - family rental housing mortgage_ finance program (the "Program ") pursuant to Chapter 1 of Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act ") and to issue bonds pursuant to the Act to provide funds for the Program; and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Program and to consent to the operation of the Program by the County within the geographic boundaries of the City pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is providing the opportunity for other forms of other housing finance revenue bond programs in this City; and WHEREAS, the approval of this Resolution or the execution of the accompanying Cooperation Agreement does not obligate the City in any way with the approval of any specific multi - family projects which may qualify under terms of the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as follows: 1. This City Council does hereby find and declare that the above recitals are true and correct. Resolution No. Page 2 2. The City hereby adopts the Program for the purpose of increasing the rental housing supply in the County and in the City and consents to the operation of the Program by the County with respect to suitable project site located within the geographical boundaries of the City, provided however, that the City can execute agreements with any developers of projects participating in Housing Finance Bond Programs of both the City and the County to limit problems which may in the opinion of the City cause harm to its own Housing Finance Bond Program. 3. The Cooperative Agreement, dated as of April 1, 1983, between the County and the City (the "Agreement "), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A:, is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver said Agreement, for and in the name and on behlf of the City. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to approve any additions to or changes in the form of said Agreement which they deem necessary or advisable, their approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution by the Mayor of, said Agreement as so added to or changed. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Attorney, is further authorized to enter into such additional agreements with the County, execute such other documents and take such other actions as they may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of the Agreement or to cooperate in the implementation of the Program. 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. PASSEO, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1983. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon 0. likels, Mayor Resolution No. Page 3 ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (this "Cooperative Agreement ") is hereby made and entered into as of April 1, 1983 by and between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a legal subdivision and body corporate and politic of the State of California (the "County "), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation located in the County (the "City "). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the County has determined to engage in a multifamily rental housing mortgage finance program (the "Program") pursuant to Chapter 7 of Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act "), to finance construction loans or mortgage loans for the development of multifamily rental housing in the County, all as provided for in the Act; and WHEREAS, the County has determined to borrow money to finance the Program by the issuance of revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") as authorized by the Act; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to cooperate with the County pursuant to its implementation of the Program within the corporate boundaries of the City, provided that (1) such cooperation and implementation shall in no way limit the City's ability to exercise its own powers and develop its own similar program on other sites, and (2) the City shall retain all normal planning and building approval processes and authority over the County Program within the City's corporate limits including the Program Site(s). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1: The words and phrases of this Cooperative Agreement shall, for all purposes hereof unless otherwise defined herein, have the meanings assigned to such words and phrases in the Act. SECTION 2: The County agrees to use its best efforts to undertake the Program alto issue the Bonds therefore as soon as the County determines the same to be necessary and advisable. SECTION 3: The City represents that (i) the City has heretofore adopted a genera plan for the City which it believes to be in conformance with the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law of the State of California (Government Code Section 65000 et seq.), (ii) said general plan includes a land use element and a housing element as required by Government Code Section 55301, and (iii) Program and Program Site(s) will comply with said land use element and housing element. SECTION 4: The City agrees that the County may make multifamily rental housing mortgages under the Program, all as more specifically set forth in the Act, on and with respect to that certain property /properties located within the geographic boundaries of the City. The County may exercise any and all of the City's powers for the purpose of financing multifamily rental housing mortgages pursuant to the Act with respect to such property which may be approved for financing within this Program. SECTION 5: The County agrees that no multifamily rental housing mortgages secured by real property located within the City shall be made or purchased with proceeds of the Bonds before April 15, 1983. The City shall not participate in any other multifamily rental housing mortgage finance program which provides financing for multifamily rental housing projects at Program Site, which may be approved for financing within this Program, and the Program relating to the Bonds shall be the sole such finance program for such Program Site(s). SECTION 6: The City agrees to undertake such further proceedings or actions as may necessary in order to carry out the terms and the intent of this Cooperative Agreement; and the City further agrees to refrain from taking any action which would to its knowledge tend to adversely affect the rating on the Bonds to be issued by the County pursuant hereto; provided that nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall in any way or manner be construed to restrain or in any way limit the exercise by the City of its planning, land use, building permit or other authority over any aspect of the Program herein proposed. SECTION 7: Nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall prevent the County or t e Mty from entering into one or more agreements with other political subdivisions within their respective boundaries, if deemed necessary and advisable to do so by the County or the City, nor shall anything in this Cooperative Agreement be construed as limiting the exercise by the County or the City of any of their respective applicable powers or authorities at any place other than the Program Site(s) herein. SECTION 8: This Cooperative Agreement may be amended by one or more supplements agreements executed by the County and the City at any time, except that no such amendment or supplement shall be made which shall adversely affect the rights of the holders of the Bonds issued by the County in connection with the Program. SECTION 9: The term of this Cooperative Agreement shall commence on the date Mr—sTabove written and terminate at the end of the origination period for mortgage loans under the loan agreement for the Program, provided that any mortgage loan made under the Program with respect to the Program Site(s) shall not be affected by the term or termination of this Cooperative Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Cooperative Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, all as of the date first above written. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO By Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel CITY OF By City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 83 -36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UPON THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located within the South Coast Air Basin; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin stands to lose federal funds for transportation improvements, sewage treatment facilities, air quality planning and highway repair and construction if monetary sanctions are imposed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the South Coast Air Basin, already hard hit by unemployment, stands to lose more jobs if a construction ban on new or modified major stationary sources is imposed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and WHEREAS, the imposition of such santions would be couterproductive and could lead to worsened air quality and water quality; and WHEREAS, the imposition of such sanctions is not warranted because of the efforts of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments who submitted a jointly prepared air quality management plan revision which met all Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency policy requirements and which has been praised as one of the best in the country. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opposes the imposition of sanctions by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency upon the South Coast Air Basin and urges the Administrator to approve the air quality management plan revision submitted in 1982 so that progress toward cleaning up the air in the South Coast Air Basin can continue forthwith. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of March 1983• AYES: i NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. Mikels, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk ?-/ i ?-d3 South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (213) 5726200 March A, 19A3 Honorable Jon D. Nikels Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 9320 Baseline Rd. Cucamonga, CA 91720 Dear Mayor Nikels R Members of the Council: Your representative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board recently reported to you by letter regarding the imposition of the Environmental Protection Agency sanctions on our area. We have just been advised by an EPA representative that your comments on proposed rulemaking concerning sanctions should be sent to: and copy sent to: Anne Mcnill Burford, Administrator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 4l 1200, West Waterside Building 401 "M" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr. David Calkins U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Further, I am enclosing a draft resolution that your city might consider adopting. Such resolution should also be sent to the above addresses. Sii nnnccl�erellyy, % 4 A. Stuart Executive Officer JAS:pmj Enclosure