HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/08/03 - Agenda PacketC%NCAAip,,.
e � r
a n o
F V Z
u S
1977
QTY OF
RANCUJ CUCANIO C A
CITY AGENDA
! GE FDA
Lions Park Community Center
9161 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California
August 3, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda moat be in writing. The deadline
for submitting ttosc ftems is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The
City Clerk'a Office roceives all such items.
• 1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag.
B. Roll Call: Buquet_, Dahl_, Frost
s
Schloser_, and Mikels�
C. Approval of Minutes: April 25, 1983, May 2, 1983,
May 17, 1983, June 14, 1983, and July 20, 1983.
2. ANNOUNCEMESTS
a. Thursday, A1+13ust 4, 7;00 p.m. - HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
COMMISSION - Lions Park Community Center.
CORgENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar Stems are expected to be
routine and nan- controversial. They will be acted upon by
the Council at one time without discussion.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83-7 -30 and Registee 1
No. 93 -8 -3, and Payroll ending 83 -07 -24 in the total
amount of $353,350.22.
City Council Agenda -2- August 3, 1983
b.
Forward Claim by Dorothy Busch Rackstraw to Carl Warren
Company for handling.
3
. c.
Forward Claim by Robert W. Rackstraw to Oarl warren
4
Company for handling.
d.
Forward Claim by Paul Joseph Bonello to Carl Warren
Company for handling.
10
e.
Foward Claim against the City by Chaffey Joint Union
High School District and Alta Loma High School to City
21
Attorney for handling. (Reference the Klock Claim).
f.
Foward Claim against the City by Chaffey Joint Union
High School District and Alta Loma High School to City
30
Attorney for handling. ( Reference the Ivie Claim).
g.
Forward Claim against the City by Debra 7nompsun
Sanchez, Daniel Sanchez, and Ruth Sanchez to City
40
Attorney for handling.
10!1-
Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off -Sale General
License for National Convenience Stores, Inc., (Stop and
42
Go Market).6760 Carnelian Avenue, Alta Loma.
i.
Alcoholic Beverage Off Sale General Application f�-
43
Pierce Plaza Liquor and Delicatessen, Inc., Duane Bernd,
President, 10277 Foothill Blvd.
J.
Alcoholic Beverage Off -Sale Beer and Wine Application
45
for Southland Corporation„ 7 -11 Store !2135 -new. 8011
Archibald Avenue.
k.
Recommend authorization to direct Assessment District
engineer to prepare the necessary documents to proceed
47
with the public hearing on :he Alta Loma channel
Assessment District. (Phase II).
I.
Request approval to solicit bids for the overlay of Base.
Line Road from Carnelian Avenue to Vineyard Avenue.
M.
Request approval to advertise for bids for Maintenance
Of' City -owned Traffic Signals.
n.
Request approval of Alta Loma Park Concrete Contract
60
Change Ordrr No. 1.
City Council Agenda -3- August 3, 1983
•
o. Approval of Extension Agreements for Tracts 11934, 63
1X44, 12045, and 12046 submitted by William Lyon
Company (Victoria Planned Community Phase I).
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -129 68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPHOVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 11934, 12044,
12045, AND 12046,
4. PUBLIC BEARINGS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT` AND ZONING ORDINANCE AKUMMENT
83_04. An ordinance amending Section 61.0219(b)(7),
Residential Parking Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga
Interim Zoning Ordinance. Staff report by Rick Gomez.
• ORDINANCE NO. 1238 (second reading) 69
AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.0219(8)(7) OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 123, RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMBRT AND ZORR CHANGE 83 -01
CHRISTESON. A change of zone from A -1 (limited
agriculture) to C -2 (general business commercial) for
13.1 acres of land located at the northwest rsr of
Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN 1077 - 401 -01,
03. Planning Commission recommends approval of zone
change and issuance of Negativt Declaration. Staff
report by Rick Gomev. City Planner.
ORDiN/iNO'e NG. 'Mb Zseoond r,.eu ing) 71
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBERS 1077- 401 -01 AND 03, LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD FROM A -1 TU C -2.
0
`a
City Council Agenda -4- August 3. 1993
C. ORDER TO VACATE A 20 FOOT ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 2 72
THROUGH 12 OF TRACT 2521. Gerald Edwards, developer of
D.R. 83-08, has requested that the alley located between
Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard be
vacated. Item originally set fcr July 20th. Staff
report by Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -130 i5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO
BE VACATED A 20 FOOT ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 2
THROUGH 12 OF TRACT NO. 2521 GENERALLY
LOCATED BET'iEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RED
HILL COUNTR) CLUB DRIVE.
D. VACATION OF PORTION OF FRONTAGE ROAD. Vacation 77
requested by William Campbell, developer of Parcel Map
6114, located cn the south side of Footh111 Boulevard,
. west of Ramona Avenue. Staff report by Lloyd Butts,
City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -80 79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, D&NYING THE
ORDER TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE FRONTAGE
ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, NEST OF RAMONA AVENUE (PARCEL MAP
6114).
E. ORDERING WORK IN CONNECTION RITE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE so
DISTRICT NO. 3 FOP rARC1U. MAP 7349. Located on the
north side of 4th Street, east of the Route 15
freeway. Item originally set for July 6, 1983• Staff
- _ - report by Lloyd Hubbs: City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -112 81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMATION OF
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3.
6
City Council Agenda -5- August 3, 1983
F. FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO. 1 83
AND 2. Formation of two Districts is recommended: one
for '.ights along the arterial streets, and another for
lights cn local residential streets within newly
recorded subdivisions of the City. Item originally set
for July 6, 1983. Staff report by Paul Rougeau,
Associate Civil Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -131 85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMATION OF
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -132 92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
• WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORMATION OF
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2.
G. LEVYING AND COLLECTING OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 98
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. Staff report by
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -111 99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND
COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL
NYEAR 1983 -84 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING ACT OF 197, IN CONNECTION WITH
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
PNnIBON -�SnA, - LSSSE&M5;TT - Ii: i'iAL -3MT--FEA -'°uOFOSt.C. - - - - - - - -'a u5 -
BERYL STREET /HELLMAN AVENUE STORM DRAIR ROVBlN;NTB. A
combined pipe and open channel story drain designed to
alleviate localized drainage problems between Beryl
Street, south of Highland Avenue, and Hellman Avenue,
north of Monte Vista Street. Staff report by Lloyd
Hubbs.
P]
0
V]
t
e
City Council Agenda -5- August 3, 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -133 175
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY
AND GRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSEf BERYL
STREET /HELLMAN AVENUE STORM DRAIN
IMPROVEMENTS.
5. RON- ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ADMISSIONS TAX ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. An amendment vhich
defines the meaning of "Operator ".
ORDINANCE NO. 198A (second reading) 176
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION F OF SECTION
3.36.010 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF "OPERATOR" FOR
PURPOSES OF THE ADMISSIONS TAX.
6. CITY MLINAGERIS STAFF REPORTS
A. LONG RANGE MAJOR STREET AND DRAINAGE PROGRAM. Approval _�7
of the program proposal is recommended ir, conformance
with the approvals of the Planning and Advisory
Commissions.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -134
A RESOLUTTin OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAM_ONGA, CVL1,FQ_RNZA,.. AP,P?OV_Mi1..
-'fHE— `LONE RFNOE MAJOR STREET AND DRAINAGE
PROGRAM PRIORITIES.
140
B. AWARD OF CONTRACT. Recommend awarding of contract for 144
Jellman Avenue Improvement Program to lowest
responslbile bidder. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs, City
Engineer.
City Council Agenda -8- August 3, 1983
•
B. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL 158
CONFERENCE.
C. CONSIDESATION OF FILLING VACANCY ON THE HISTORICAL 159
PRESERVATION CCOMMISSION.
9. ADJOURNMENT
E
City Council Agenda _7- August 3, 1983
y
7. CITY ATTORNES'S REPORTS
A. A RESOLUTION MAKING CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 145
1099.6. StafT report by Robert Dougherty, City
Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-135 146
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.6 APPLICABLE
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS THE CITY HAD PURSUANT TO CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.5.
B. PICTURE ARCADES. Proposed ordinance regulates the 149
interior design of picture arcades. This type of
ordinance has been upheld by appeals courts, both in
California and in the federal system.
ORnINANCE NO. 207 (first reading) 100
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER
9.12 THERETO TO REGULATE THE INTERIOR DBSIGN
OF PICTURE ARCADES.
C. AEENDMERT TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE. Ordinance 152
is for purpose of clarifying the meaning of gross
receipts of real estate brokers.
ORDINANCE NO. 208 (first reading) 155
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION A5 OF SECTION
5.04.290 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
rt :, -c CE:P'I'�
OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. COH3IDERATIDN OF THE H. D. COUSINS HOUSE (CHRISTMAS 156
HUUSB .
April 25, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
A adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was
held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base line Road on Monday, April
25, 1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Jon D.
Mikels.
Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip
D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Bill Holley, Community Services Director.
2. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. HELLO -BOOS COMMUNITT FACILITIES ACT OF 1982. Staff report by Bill Holley,
Community Services Director. The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act, of 1982
provides an alternative method of financing public capital facilities and
select public services. Among the facilities which can be addressed by the
"Act" are parks and recreation facilities, when approved by 2/3 of the
electorate.
Mr. Holley presented the staff report. He introduned:
Bill Fieldman, a specialist in municipal funding.
-C: 6i - r,DA .ega "vu lluii ena'a ^�yenaii t arT -,,ne- _
legalities of bonding.
Ron Paige, Recreation Systems, a park design firm with experience in
successful park bonding.
Mr. Holley presented the Park Advisory Committee's priority recommendations
which were:
® 1. Bring forth to the electorate a ballot measure to establish a
Community Facilities District for the acquisition and /or development
of parkland.
0
2. That the CFD be authorized to issue and sell bonds, reaenues from
which will be used for acquisition and /or development of parVland.
3. That two separate and distinct zones be establ'sted. Zone 1
encompassing the entire City to fund acquisition only of ., portion of
Central Park. Zone 2 encompassing that ^esidential portion of the
City west of Deer Creek to fund only the development of items 2
through 6 on the following priority list:
a. Central Park Ito include acquisition only of a portion of
the property, depending on dollar amount remaining after
development of other priority items).
b. Full development of Heritage Park.
c. Development of Red Hill Basin Park (part of this is now
known as Vineyard Park)
d. Arrow Pa -k •
e. Alta Loma Basin Park
f. Phase II of the Cucamonga Creek Trail System
4. That the total dollar amount for the bond payback for all items 0
through 6) on the priority list, stay within the range of $35-$45
annually per residential dwelling. And further, that approximately
2/3 of the annual dollar amoun.: be spent for projects within 'Lone 2.
Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were:
Joe DiIorio stated as a concerned citizen the object of providing parka is
what we should be doing. Victoria would certainly participate on an
equitable bas's, but it is basically already paying fori5 -1/2 acres of
park .p_ =r 1000 population. He felt some consideration should be given to
either that land or some exclusion: oC Victoria to the overaii matted
Mr. Dilorio stated another concern of his was in the area East of Haven.
The Mello -Roos Bill does tend to resolve a lot of problems, and it may
help in our resolution of fire and police district financial problems;
also possibly Route 30 and Day meek. He wanted to know how these would
all fit. together so there aren't conflicting priorities between the
various uses of the same law. Is it oest to include them into one massive
type facility or can they be issued sequentially without being lost in •
ranking of priority.
Mayor Mikels responded to the second point by stating that if we put a massive
district together including different issues, it might be overwhelming.
3
0
Mr. Wasserman said one of the reasons we need financial assistance is to
identify the alternatives that are available for various types of
assessment. These are policy questions that need to be decided by Council
after looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each. We are not
prepared to answer these things at this stage.
Mini Rahl, Lewis Homes, asked how much of the Deer Creek land would they
be able to acquire with the $35 -s45?
Mr. Holley responded that they were not able to answer this at this time.
They needed to find what the cost of Zone I would be, then what was left from
Zone I would go toward Zone 1I.
Sharon Romero expressed that industrial employees do get together for
company picnics, etc..; therefore, they too would be using City parks.
. John Brown responded to questions regarding the tax by stating this was a
special tax. Therefore, it is unlike the special assessment. Both are
collected on the tax bill. As a voter approved special tax, this is a special
tax simply collected on the tax bill in the same way other ad valorem taxes
that we all pay in connection with our annual property tax bill. with
question to sale, delinquency, and foreclosure, it's simply treated the same
way as .other ad valorem property tax which is different from a lien against
real property which we are familiar with in the special assessment area.
Pam Henry stated that there was a basic feeling that this should be kept
under $4.00 per month. The decision to separate Deer Creek from the rest
was because many of the people felt that the time wasn't right for a mayor
city park, and it would be harder to sell. They were looking for the
parks that would satisfy the overall needs of the community. Basically,
those that provide sport fields were considered. Arrow P -k was
considered because there wasn't any other park within that area. She also
stated that they wanted Council to look into the industrial and commercial
areas since there was some inclusion of that area,but not sure how much._
There being no fu•ther public input, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing.
Mayor Mikels asked Council if they felt this was a viable mechanis,.: with which
to address the shortage of parks in the City? Is there any opposition or
arawbacks in using the Mello -Roos for acquiring parks?
Mr. Schlosser wondered when would be the most appropriate time to have an
election. He felt that oue general district would be the best since It was a
benefit for all the citizens. He felt this appeared to be a good way to go to
acquire parks.
V
r
Mr. Frost .stated it was viable enough to proceed with finding out more about.
Mr. Buquet expressed some concern about possible conflict with Measure W which
would appear or the November ballot. Flood control is a public safety factor,
but parks might not mean enough to people to invest $35.00 per year. He did
feel this was the best way to go, but was uncomfortable with the different
?ones. One of the oroblans with Measure W was the confusion amongst the
voters a� to what the specifics of the program were and what the actual
benefits would be to them specifically. He wondered what the legal aspects of
this were since it appeared to be like a dual taxation where there was an
overlay of an overlay as far as the two zones.
Mr. Brown said the law does address this very thing. He felt the legislation
was drafted in such a way as to respond to the requirements of Article 13A and
138 which are the Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 requirements. Its a
special tax to be approved by 213 of the qualified electorate to be for a
special purpose. This falls within the Proposition 13 kind of tax. It was
claarly Lee intent of Proposition 13 that the voters could approve more than
one type of special tax. This was a benefit assessment act. That is to say .
clearly that fairness and equality is required in the apportionment v the
charges that is decided upon, but it is not an Act like a Special Assessment
Act or the police and fire benefit assessment acts that require direct
apport.:on in relation to direct benefit. Its more nearly like the old
fashioned obligation bonds which were an ad valorem tax based on assessed
value.
Mr. Dahl stated that the general funds were not in the best condition and
federal grants were not adequate which leaves only one mechanism, the Mello -
Roos. A 2/3 vote means we much have the support of the public, and we must
have it from the very beginning. He felt if we are interested in moving
ahead, then we should set up a committee to research this.
Mayor Mikels felt the Act was the best measure to bring additional park
development to the City since the general fund cannot support it. He
concurred wiih the concept or the two districts.
-'ram iienr•y explained the PAC came up with the priority list by taking into
consideration first the 'locations and what possible other parks that were
around. Uas was also taken into consideration. Heritage Park best
encompasses all types of park use. The need for sports fields was also
considered. Expansion of Fed Hill was given high priority because it
could satisfy needs of both youth and adult sports. Because it is owned
by a public entity and some of the facility and parking is already there.
the cost would be less. Harking of priority does not mean that Heritage •
Park was the most important. All the parks have a high prioity. In
scaling down the list to a predetermined bottom dollar figure would not
mean eliminating a park, but perhaps eliminating phases of all the
parks. Listing, in a priority does not represent that one park outranks
ibe others.
E
Mayor Mikels summarized that Council concurred in looking at the Mello -Roos
Act and to get some permanent cost figures. We need to know what it is going
to cost in staff time and election costs. Need to know what the process and
the timing should be. Need clarification of the two district concept. Need
the $35 assessment refined so we know what we are getting. The Issue will
require combined community effort.
Mr. Holley stated we should be getting preliminary design proposals on each
park in order to know what it would cost.
Mr. Buouet stated that he would like to see a "Citizens for Parks" group come
forward. He felt there should be a special election, but that timing was
important.
Mayor Mikels asked Council if they wanted to go further and look at other
sites?
• Mr. Frost responded that the Committee could lcok into that.
Mr. Dahl concurred that more of the questions could be answered by a
Committee.
Mayor Mikels appointed Councilmen Dahl and Frost to a Parks Advisory
Subcommittee. Council concurred.
Mr. Dahl stated he did not want this to go over "x" dollars. He wanted the
citizens to take the ball.
Mr. Frost stated that all who worked on the Zone I know that you can spend as
much tine as you want on this type of issue. Specific questions would be
better answered in a legal session following the meeting. Council has made a
commitment to proceed with the development of parks unless the citizens don't
wish to pay for them. However, even without the vote, Council will proceed
the best they can. Council should not set another date until the Subcommittee
has some information together.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to adjourn the meeting to a
closed session. Motion carrieii unanimously 5 -0. Meeting adjourned at 9:30
p.m.
19 Respectfully submitted,
• May 2, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Adjourned Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was
held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Monday, May
2; 1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip
D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Manager, Jim
Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; city Engineer, Lloyd
Hubbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Finance Director, Harry
Empey; and Building Official, Jerry Grant.
• 2. STAFF REPORT
Mayor Mikels stated that the purpose of the adjourned meeting was to discuss
the proposed City Goals Program outlined in the March 25, 1983 memo from
Lauren Wasserman, city manager, to the City Council. Mayor Mikels requested
that Mr. Wasserman present a report on the proposed Goals Program.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the purpose of the City Goals meeting was to bring
about a coneensus among city council members as to the direction the city
council wishes to proceed within six primary goals proposed by staff. Mr.
Wasserman stated that, the six primary goals included:
1. To Build a Sound Finanr.i.al Base for the Community.
2. To Provide Cost Effective Public Safety Services.
3, __To Actively Pursue _Park _Acquisition and Development.
4. To Improve the City's Road Maintenance Program and to Provide
Adequate Flood Protection.
5. To Encourage Proactive Rather than Reactive Planning.
6. To Plan for a Permanent City Facilities.
Mr. Wasserman also stated that in addition to the six primary goals, the
management had identified six secondary goals for support purposes. These
secondary goals included:
0
t. To Develop a Sound Financial 9ase for the Community.
2. To Evaluato Allocation of Resources and Levels of Service.
3. To Continue Employee Training and Management Development Programs.
4/ To Coordinate Disaster Planning Activities.
5. To Promote Citizen Awareness and Support of Community Goals.
6. To Provide Up -to -date Technological and Management Tools to Improve
the Qvality of Management Decisions.
Mr. Wasserman stated that loss of State Subventions and substantial reductions
in other revenue sources has necessitated the recemmeidation for a
considerable amount of effort being expended by the City in developing a sound
and continuous financial base.
Councilman Dahl recommended that the City Council give consideration to
developing an overall goal whereby each of the primary and secondary goals
could be measured. Re also recommended that City Council give consideration
to developing an overall goal that would include language stressing the
importance of preserving the unique character of Rancho Cucamonga while at the •
same time providing major services.
Councilman Schlosser stated that all goals and the methods developed to
ultimately achieve them should be cost effective in all areas.
Mayor Mikels recommended that through the budget process that the Council
review each department in terms of productivity and their ability to provide
cost effective services.
Joe DiIorio, representing R. C. Land, addressed the Council and recommended
that the goals reflect a greater cooperative effort between private and public
enterprise to develop financial mechanisms.
Art Bridge, resident, addressed the Council and recommended that consideration
of the Sphere of Influence become a portion cf the goals programs. Mr. Bridge
expressed concern that the County Plan in the unincorporated area catered to
-_. _thc rove
res and. were _not, _ner%'5 i v t«_the Deat long-term_ -
interest of the City.
Councilman Buquet stated that a public awareness campaign should be developed
to inform the public as to how bad the financial system really is within the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Councilman Dahl stated that the proposed Park Bond issue will help the public
become aware as to the current financial limitations of the City. •
The City Council directed staff to clarify some of their concerns regarding
the goals document and recommended that they be reviewed annually and that
page numbers be referenced in terms of the funds required for each project.
•
3. ADJOORNNW
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn to the City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of Yadnesday, May 4, 1983. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Robinson
Assistant City Manager
u
. 9
l �
• May 17, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamorga met
on Tuesday? May 77, 1983 in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line
Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Prf -:ent: Councilmembers Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D.
Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert
Dougherty; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Planner, Rick Gomez;
Senior Planner, Tim Beedle; Associate Planner, Otto Kroutil; and City
Engineer, L.lovd Hubbs.
0 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Staff presented a review of the actions taken at the previous meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of April 21, 1983: Mr. Frost made the following corrections to the
minutes of April 21, 1983.
Page 12 - the motion should be: "Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser, to
change (instead of reduce) the commercial designation at 24th Street to a
5 acre site......"
Page 3, last paragraph should read: "Councilman Frost stated that one of
the problems with the bypass that far to the east would be the "S" curves
that might _nunlike �l.roau<trrvk� aod�su�ge'sted`_ _ _
that It might bs unlikely that the railroad crossing could be located that
close to I -15 without a grade separation."
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve the amended minutes
of April 21, 7983. Motion carried un"nimously 5.0.
Page 2
4. ITEms FOR DISCUSSION •
A. CIRCULATION_
a. Bvoass Road:
Mr. Frost stated that under section .900 it should read, "to assist in
achieving policies .700 and .800 above...."
Mr. Dahl asked are we showing this as a specific route on the map? Mr.
Kroutil answered that we can do that if Council wishes. It was this
understanding that Council did not want a special alignment at this time.
Mr. Dahl wanted to show the concept on the map, but not in an exact location.
Mayor Mikels stated the greatest portion of that proposed facility will be on
public land. The problem will be where it extends south of the high school as
to how it will go through private property.
Mr. Dahl stated that when that area determines the building demand, then staff
can proceed to get the necessary dedications.
b. Freeway Study Zone:
Commercial development adjacent next to the existing freeway and the proposed
Route 30 freeway.
Mr. Kroutil stated that Council wanted some mechanism so that. the City would
have options for land uses to meet certain goals to protect Route 30 and to
allow the kind of development adjacent to freeways that works with the noise
and visual impacts of freeways, but not to increase basic densities. The text
under .400 reflects this oolicy: "Land within 660' of rroposed or existing
freeways."
Mr. Frost stated that the basic question is whether ;he freeway is depressed
or elevated.
Mayor Mikels felt that we have left the option open by creating Special
Freeway Study Zones.
Mr. Buquet felt it would have an impact because if it were below grade then it
would not affect the housi.}g. Right now, we don't know what is going to be
there.
Mr. Frost stated the point is there was a change made by the Planning
Commission, and it doesn't reflect what the Committee recommendation was.
L
Mr. Buquet felt this was well covered. If the freeway is below grade, then we •
do not have a -eat reason for increasing the density.
Mayor Mikels asked if Council wanted to designate Route 30 separate from the
other freeway. Council stated "no ".
•
Page j
B. COMMERCIAL LAND USES
a. Timing of Commercial DevelsDment:
Mayor Mikels asked if Council had any concern with the language on Section
401.
Action: Council concurred with the language in Section 401.
b. Commercial Land Uses - northwest corner of Etiwanda and Baseline.
Mr. Frost stated that under Section .501(c) it lists a Farmers Market. He
asked what was a Farmers Market?
Mr. Kroutil responded that a Farmers Market suggested a special type market.
Perhaps the term, "special market" might be a better term to use.
Mr. Buquet felt uncomfortable with the term, "special market," since he did
not want this confused with an AM /PM type market.
Andy Barmakiao stated they envisiorca this as a type of market that would be
• more fitting in a rural setting. It would be a small type market of
approximately 15,000 square feet which would get you out of the Stop and Co-
type market and out of the category of the large Vons type market. It would
be an inhetween type market.
Mr. Dahl suggested that the text be changed to reflect a market between
12,000 - 18,000 square feet.
Cecil Johnson stated that it would be a market of rustic architecture and
restrictive in size.
Mr. Frost stated as far as the location goes, he felt we should throw an
asterisk in the middle and let free enterprise compete for it, Mr. Frost
further stated that he would like to leave this item open until we talk about
Etiwanda Avenue.
L_ - WKSLDewTZtl 3_dVC DcEC - - ` - - - - _ - -- _.. - . _ - _ - _ - - - - - .
a. Other Land Use Modifications - Two acres ( +) of Office Professional added
at northwest corner of Base Line and I -15.
Mr. Frost stated the Office Professional on Base Line and East Avenue was
basically landlocked. He was not in favor of deleting this, but perhaps it
should be extended further north or west. He felt this should be tabled until
Council could concur on this. He felt changes could give us access from East
Avenue without having to drive through residential areas.
Mr. Buquet expressed that we should not be looking at changing another piece
} of property Just to make it fit.
1
Page 4
Mr. Hubbs concurred that this was an awkard piece of property. He felt the OP
designation would create less traffic problems than a residential design.
Mr. Buquet felt the OP designation was really conducive to good planning since
it would be kind of noisy. The OP designation was considered as a buffer for
the residential area. It would not solve anything to retu -n this to an "M"
designation.
Action: Council took no action.
b. Densities Along Route 30 Freeway
Mr. Dahl agreed with the statement of design under Section .900 in the new
text.. He felt this design should be referred back to the original designation
Of low.
Mr. Frost stated that the incentives on Route 30 were not in the text yet.
Mr. Dahl stated that Section .400 provides the incentives and was in favor of
changing this to a low designation.
Mr. Buquet stated that they spent an hour discussing this Stem before, and it
should not be changed again. •
Mr. Dahl asked if we should not make this a freeway study zone.
Mr. Kroutii stated this would be difficult unless we get more specific
direction as to the intent and purpose for incentives along I -15•
Mr. Dahl stated if it were the concensus of Council, then it would best if we
remove the words, "or the existing I -15 freeway," from Section .400.
Conclusion is that you already have a "LM" deslgnation, and a freeway study
zone is not needed to increase the buffer.
Mr. Buquet felt we should change all to low density or deal with this within a
special study area.
Mayor Mikels stated that if we are k,,:,.a leave this as low medium, then we
need to take I -15 out of Section .400 or put in a Section (c) showing low as a _
pare ot'tne treeBay sc'day"zonc witn -a ii5i-o: goals: -we ea`n eliminate-1-1`5 - and establish all densities the same, or study for a way to obtain the higher
density. Do we leave this in or develop specific criteria.
Mr. Buquet did not feel we should throw in all kinds of contingencies.
Mayor Mikels asked if they wanted to take I -15 out of the study zone or
establish a special zone along I -151
Action: Concensus of Council was to remove the words, "and the existing I -15 .
freeway" from the Study Zone.
Page 5
c. Council consideration of density along I -15
Mr. Frost stated the range within that density should be moved closer to the
freeway. What we are looking for is what Council did in the Marlborough
development on the Ramona Avenue site, and keep it away from single family
homes and East Avenue.
Mr. Dahl was in favor of requiring a master plan for that area to assure that
would happen and to work out circulation.
Mr. Buquet stated that if you are going to ask for master planning in one
place, then it should he done all along.
Mayor Mikels stated that this property is different because it is adjacent to
a low density designation and next to the 'nigh school. He stated he was in
favor of giving this a Master Plan Required designation."
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to designate the area as shown
below Victoria along I -15 as Low - Medium and to put an asterisk indicating a
Master Plan is required. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels
• NOES: Buquet
ABSENT: None
d. Land Use on West Side of Etiwanda. North of Railroad
Mr. Buquet stated he had concerns sinne the junior high school was adjacent to
the area. He was trying to find a way to get the traffic around so it would
not have to go up and down Etiwand- Avenue and to eliminate the Victoria
intersection in order to get the people out the other way.
Mr. Dahl stated we could designate this Very Low in order to keep the traffic
down.
Mr. Frost stated that the EIR shows that Etiwanda Avenue will be impacted.
__- - Action: Council concurred- to_leave the land -use designation as_VerV Lgy__
•n#•
Mayor Mikels called a recess at 8:4o p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m,
with all members of the Council present.
r'i
Page 6
D. UNFINISHED TOPICS.
a. Land Use Adjacent to Freeways.
Mr. Kroutil asked if we should go into this item again since they have been
directed to cover these areas in the Freeway Study Zone. Council concurred it
was not necessary.
E. SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUESTS
a. North side of Route 30 - requssted by Zenz, Blanton, Vanderhoof.
Mayor Mikels asked the requestors if they would like to make a statement on
this item.
Tony Zenz requested a ^eview of this block. He felt the Low should be
increased north Lo protect the 1/2 acre lots.
Mr. Blanton concurred with Mr. Zenz and felt he expressed it very well.
Mr. Vanderhoof also concurred.
s
Mr. Manton stated that if there was going to be another study area •
created then he felt a time limit should be put on it so it won't go on
and on. The people are getting tired of studies.
Mayor Mikels asked if Council believed that the Freeway Study Zone which has
been ape^oved along the freeway was sufficient to address these special
requests or did Council want to consider moving the boundaries further north?
Action: Consensus of Council was that the Freeway Study Zone was adequate as
approved.
b. Estate Residential Deaignation. Requec:ed by Mr. A Mrs. Catania.
Mr. Kroutil stated the request by the Catania's was: (1) to consider the
validity or the ER designation which is a land use designation calling far one
acre lots and larger, and (2) to consider their property which is presently
and a VL designation on the westerly half.
Mr, Kroutil further stated it was the feeling of the Advisory Committee that
the ER desi;nation was needed in F.tiwanda in order to preserve something
unique which the community has, and the area north of Summit was felt to be
the most appropriate area for that type of rural land use
Mr. Cuquet suggested eliminating the quadrant on the west of Etiwanda Avenue, •
north of Summit, or extending it all the way across.
Page 7
Mr. Dahl suggested removing the ER designation all to the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue and extend it on the east side from Etiwanda Avenue and East
Avenue all the way to 24th Street.
Mayor Mikels asked for public comments on the ER Zone.
Mr. Catania said this is not a hilly area, it is flat land. He was not sure
this type of designation would work in that area. He felt the split zone
would be very difficult to develop. He stated that he would appreciate the
elimination of the FR designatioi.
Mrs. Catania stated it is difficult for them to develop land that is split in
zoning. The area has a lot of very small houses. She could not imaein-
anyone wanting to build a large home across the street from an elementary
school and park. She didn't bel_eve large size lots would be marketable.
Ralph Lewis did not have any land in the ER section, but thev do have some
in Claremont in a similar situation. They have run an ad in the paper for
property and have not had any response.
Mr. Biantoc stated that all the activity from the County up to 27th Street
would be 112 acre lots.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mikels closed the public portion of the
• meeting.
Mr. Dahl fe ".t tha '..R designation should go all the way to 24th Street as shown
on the map to make the area compatible.
Mr. Dahl stated he had concerns in revamping over 1 -1/2 years of work.
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to leave this alone. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Schloser, Frost, Mikels
NOES: Buquet
.ABSENT: None
o. Core Area - Requested by David Flocker.
Dnvid Flocker felt one major problem area which remains is the Very Low
cr u.„�,i c•;q _ ?m ,e.t ea;. ar' —i':a '' _
designation since it dcesn't conform to the development occurring in the
area. There are considerable small lots there, and Council would be
making a mi =take since this would become an undeveloped area in the "core"
of the specific plan. He didn't feel the developers would choose to
' develop 112 acre lots.
Mr. Banks expressed he had three parcels of property in the area, each
with a different zone designation. Ne did not feel it was accurate to say
it was not practical to have VL. The question was at what price was it
impractical. It depends on the price you expect to receive for the land.
Page 8
Dill Steel stated the problem is the access through the Very Low area to •
keep the traffic off Etiwanda Avenue. It is almost impessiole to enter
off Rcute 30 right now. Its impractical to ouild 1/2 acre-parcels with
that access.
There being no further comments from the public, the public portion of the
meeting was closed.
Mr. Schlosser felt we should change the designation since we do have the
impact of Route 30. The Low designation would be more appropriate in the core
area.
Mr. Dahl stated he has heard the statement, "Preservation of the Core." He
would not want to change the core area designation.
Action: Council left the item unchanged.
d. Southside of Route 30, west of East Etiwanda Creek - Requested by
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson requested the area be changed to Low- Medium since there is a
freeway to the north, a flood channel to the east, a flood channel and
open spac. to the south.
Mr. Frost felt this would be best since the property was landlocked with •
freeway off ramps.
Mr. Buquet stated he was not comfortable with the property to the east.
Action: Council left the item unchanged.
e. Northside of Railroad, west of 3ast Avenue. - Requested by Lawrence.
Mr. Lawrence requested the designation be changed to medium since he felt
a railroad needed more buffering than a freeway.
Action: Council left the item unchanged.
- -r. -yicini y of hash and-miiie= - 'Requested oy`SChan KleA -
g. Vicinity of Miller and Etiwanda - Requested by Pign(tti
Council handled items f and g at the same time. Neither Mr. Schacklett nor
Mr. Pignotti were presant.
Mr. Ferguson, representing LANDCO, stated he had made a request several
weeks ago. They felt the entire area would be more in line with the •
industrial area to the south if it were zoned Medium. They would prefer
it all be zoned Medium, but if that could not be done, then they would
like at lea ?t the back portion be expanded into the Medium zone.
Page 9
• Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to increase the density from
medium and to widen Miller Street to accommodate the traffic. Motion failed
by the following vote:
AYES: Frost, Schlosser
NOES: Dahl, Buquet, Mikels
ASSENT: None
Mr. Dahl expressed concern for the homes already there.
Mr. Mikels felt we were adding to the problem.
Motion: Moved by Buquet to increase the medium designation on the southodde
of Miller and east of Etiwanda. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to retain the Low- Medium
designation on the north side of Miller and on 20 acres on the sout'1 side
including and surrounding existing houses, and to redesignate remainder to
Medium density. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Buquec, Schlosser
NOES: Frost, Mikels
ABSENT: None
• F. DISCUSSION OF OTUEH LAND USE IT@6 BY THE COUNCIL.
Mr. Buquet wanted clarification for the Master Plan requirement in the portion
in the upper right hand quadrant of the Specific Plan.
Mr. Kroutil stated the Planning Commission requested the Master Plan
designation as a condition of increasing the density from 2 du/ac to 4du /ac.
It was felt that with 4du /ac the two property owners would be encouraged to
work together for a master planned project, to resolve the circulation because
its part of the "umbrella loop," to work with some of the existing floodways
that cut the site into three sections.
Cecil Johnson requested the following considerations: (1) the loop road
that comes off Cherry Avenue is going to take some .. neiderable amount. of
property and will involve a great deal of expense. A higher designation
was originally - considered there. (2) -In rgggrd to thp... ?gpns,5_ to fheCrv_.
Fvenue off ramp, it would not cause any traffic flow problems, therefore
any additional density would not impact the area at all. (3) There were
some flood control easements in this property which would provide the open
space development and the cluster arrangement is the only practical
approach in developing this property.
Larry Arsinage concurred with Mr. Johnson for higher density on this
property.
Action: Council left the item unchanged.
Page 10
R #RR •
Mayor Mikels called a recess at 11:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:28
p.m. with all members of Council present.
R4RRR
G. EQUESTRIAN AREAS AND TRAILS.
Mayor opened the meeting for those desiring to address this issue.
a. Objections to placement of equestrian trails along a road with existing
homes which are not horse properties. Requested by Silva
Marge Silva stated she got signatures from those on east side of Etiwanda
Avenue all have property on south side of Summit. Their objections were
that on these two areas the horse trails would be in the property fronting
along Etiwanda Avenue.
Mr. Kroutil clarified the intent of the Advisory Committee policy statement
that the equestrian areas be served by trails. In addition to those that
there be adequate connections between the equestrian trails in the equestrian
areas and other locations in the City such as the regional trails and activity
centers. Therefore, the result was a map which served the equestrian area
north of Highland. Provision was also made for a connection to the east at
Etiwanda Creek, down to the railroad, connection with the Victoria Plan, and •
to allow for the Fontana system to connect the system.
Mr. Buquet felt we should look at alternative ways and that Summit Avenue
along the north side would be more appropriate for the trail than Etiwanda
Avenue. 1
Motion: Mov$l by Dahl to move the trails to the west side of Etiwanda Avenue
above Route 110, thus eliminating the east side of Etiwanda Avenue above
Victoria. For lack of a second, the motion failed.
Mr. Buquet questioned how we could take property already developed for right -
of -ways. Perhaps it would be better to eliminate that section now. He felt
it would be better to go to an area that does not have development now rather
than to retrofit au area.
Mayor Mikels stated that Etiwanda Avenue on 'coth sides is going to have a
..- Graf L`
Mr. Buquet asked why we needed to provide a trail down Etiwanda Avenue.
Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to revert to the Etiwanda
Advisory Committee's trails plan on the equestrian designations on Etiwanda
Avenue from Victoria to just north of Route 30 and along the east -west
alignment connecting Victoria Planned Community with East Etiwanda Creek.
Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Buquet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels
NOES: Dahl
ABSENT: None
Page 11
• Mr. Frost pointed out a way to provide access to the Victoria Trail by going
through the Victoria Planned Community. Another option would be to come up
from the railroad tracks. He requested this be referred back to the
Equestrian Committee for consideration. Council concurred.
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM LOST RGPNDS_
a. Concern by the Temple Myohoji and the GP designation south of then.
Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Frost to provide the Temple a 35 foot
side yard set back on the north and south (a variance for the Myohoji Temple
only, not a policy for all churches). Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Buquet, Frost, Mikels
NOES: Dahl, Schlosser
ABSENT: None
Mr. Schlosser expressed that someone else should not have to pay for another
person's buffer.
. f•SS•
Councilman Frost expressed concerns with some issues relating to design and
wished to address the items.
Mayor Mikels juated there are many more items in both the Plan and the EIR
which have not been dealt with, and Council could give equally lengthy
consideration to each one. However, Council was not in a position to consider
new input this evening because of the lateness of the hour. If Mr. Frost had
questions with the EIR, those could be handled with the Resolution. If it
were with the Plan itself, then Council could come back.
Mr. Frost stated that he felt the things he wished to discuss were important
and was concerned because one of the major mistakes the City made in the
General Plan process and with the Planned Communites, was not looking at the
Urban Design aspect of them and some of those items will have a sore lasting
significance than some of the land use decisions. we are talking about visual
impact of the community, and it is important enough to spend some time
Mayor Mikels stated he, would appreciate It if Mr. Frost would come back to
Council with a proposal and some recommendations for discussion.
Mr. Frost stated it would be a waste of time unless Council concurred that
issues of design and community character were important enough to consider.
Council concurred these issues were important enough to discuss at a later
time.
140#4
Page 12
Mr. Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 2203- •
ORDINANCE NO. 203 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REGULATORY PROVISION
SECTION OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC FLAN AND AMENDING
THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FOR THE ETIWANDA AREA ACCORDING
TO THESE PROVISIONS.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 203. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Mikels set June 1, 1983 for second reading.
5. ADJOURNMIT.
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously 5 -0. Meeting adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, •
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
El
June 14; 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned _ Meeting,
An adjourned meetinf of the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga was he'd in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on
Tuesday, June 14, 1983. The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mayor
Jon D. Mikels.
Present were councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet, Phillip D.
Soh'osser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikels.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren Wasserman; Assistant City Manager,
Jim Robinson; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Building Official,
.Jerry Grant; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; City Planner, Rick Gomez; Finance
Director, Harry Empey; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; and Captain
Wickum, Sheriff's Department.
City Manager Lauren Wasserman made a presentation to the City Council
outlining the total proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1983 -84 of $13,725,776.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the proposed budget was balanced, included no new
taxes, and did not recommend use of any of the City's existing reserve
funds. Mr. Wasserman expressed that in light of the continuing reduction of
State subventions, that, it was becoming more and more necessary for the city
to become self- sufficient in line with the council established city goals.
The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1983 -84 included no new employees, with
the exception of two new Sheriff's Deputies to be included in the Sheriff's
contract for FY 81 -84 To addition, although the city in previous years had
budgeted funds for development of future city facilities, this year in light
of revenue constraints, the city would not be in a position to budget
additional funds for the Civic Center reserve.
Coancilman Buquet requested that a study be conducted tracking maintenance and
operation costs of pool cars as it relates to cost on a straight mileage
basis. This study would include total costs to operate these city vehicles.
The City Council directed staff to develop a simplified draft agreement
between the City and the Chamber of Commerce. The draft- agreement would _ - -
incliio' .TP'ecirt6 pro,7eots to be conducted 6y the Chamber of Commerce for a
specific contract amount to be paid by the City.
Mr. Wasserman recommended within that draft agreement, that a more simplified
format be developed for payment to the Chamber of Commerce.
Each department made a presentation on the proposed expendit�r<s and programs
for Fiscal Year 83-84. In addition, Lloyd Butts, City Engineer, outlined the
proposed Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 83 -84, which includes in
excess of $5.2 million in capital expenditures.
AWOURNMNT
A motion was made by Schlosser, seconded by Frost, and unanimously carried to
adjourn to the regularly scheduled city council meeting of June 15, 1383.
Respectfully submitted,
James H. Robinson
3�
0
P
L
E
July 20, 1983
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Regular Meetin
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held
in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, July 20,
1983• The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tom Charles
J. Buquet II.
Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Phillip D. Schlosser, and Mayor
Pro Tem Charles J. Buquet II.
Also present were: Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Assistant City
Attorney, Tod Hopson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Planner,
Rick Gomez; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Barry Empey; and
• Community Services Director, Bill Holley.
Absent were: Councilmember James C. Frost, Mayor Jon D. Mikels, and City
Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman. All were attending the League of Cities
Executive Forum in Monterey.
Approval of Minutes: Mr. Buquet request '.d that the minutes of June 15 be
changed as follows: On page 7, item E, 4 +n paragraph - Councilman Frost
requested (instead of "stating "), that the northwest corner of Etiwanda and
Base Line be. a floating designation.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve the minutes of June
15, 190; ani dnly 6, 1983 as amended. Motion carried 3 -0 -2.
2. ANNOUNCEPIENTS
a. Wednesday, July 27, 1983, - PLANNING COMMISSION,_ 710_n ..0, _! !.c.;- Pat'
-
b. Thursday, July 21, 1983, PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 7:00 p.m., Lions Park
Community Center.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
1p a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 83-07 -20 and Payroll ending 83-07 -10 in
the amount of $1650209.66.
Page 2
b. Forward Claim against the City by County of San Bernardino to the City •
Attorney and Carl Warren C,. for handling.
c. Forward Claim against the City by Kaiser Steel Corporation to the City
Attorney and Carl Warren Co. for handling.
d. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for on sale beer and wine eating
place license to Marco Chao, China Garden Restaurant, 9770 19th St.
e. Request transfer of funds from Reserves to the General Fund for the
purpose of maeting cash flow demand.
f. Release of bonds.
Tract 9306 - located on the West side of Archibald and north of Wilson.
Owner: Charter Development.
Labor and Material Bond (Road) $57,600
Landscape Bond $ 1,050
Tract 9437 - located at Victoria and Haven Avenues. Owner: Chevron
Construction Co., Inc.
Labor and Material Bond $124,000
Maintenance Guarantee Bond $ 6,200 •
g. Approval of a resolution to allow a lien for sidewalk to be subordinated
to a second trust deed for 8406 Orchard submitted by Roland Taylor.
RESOLUTION N0. 83 -119
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SUBORDINATION
AGREEMENT FROM ROLAND TAYLOR AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAME
h. Approval of Parcel Map 7847 submitted by Ameron, Inc. and located on the
south side of Arrow Route, west of Etiwanda Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-120
Pi% TRS- CXT- J1F aanLr -G- _ - . . - . __ . _ .
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7847.
i. Approval of Improvement Extension Agreement for Tract 10045 -1 submitted by
Watt and located west of Haven Avenue and north of Hidden Farm Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-121
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO •
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT E %TENSION
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 10045 -1.
Page 3
•
J. Reimbursement Agreement for Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue.
Reimbursement to City by Lewis Homes of California and Robert and Karen
Packer for fair share portion of Hellman Avenue and Foothill Blvd.
reconstruction and widening project.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOPNIA, APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AVENUE
k. Contract for Engineering Services for lisp and Plan Checking for 1983 -84.
Approval is recommended for contracts this year with three firms for plan
check services. All the firms will be working under the same agreement
and their charges will be covered by fees collected from developers.
1. Acceptance of Map, Bonds and Agreement for Parcel Map 6395 submitted by
Rancho Center Associates located on the southwest corner of Base Line and
Hellman Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -122
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
. CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 6395,
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY.
M. Acceptance of Hillside Road Improvements. It is recommended that Council
accept as complete the Hillside Road improvements and pass t0 resolution
authorizing the City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion and release
performance bonds and retention and authorize final payment.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -123
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR HILLSIDE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING
OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
n. Approval of Bonds and Agreement for D. R. 82 -15 submitted by Michael J's
and located at the southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Turner Avenue.
_ - - - • - - - - - • - - _ - - RESOLUTION NO. 83 -124
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 82 -15.
o. Completion or Contract Emergency Restoraticn and Repairs, Various
Locations, Stnrm of 1983. It is recommended that City Council accept
repairs as complete and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion and authorize the Finance Director to pay to Contractor
retention and final payment and release performance bond.
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -125
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR EMERGENCY RESTORATION AND REPAIRS AND AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF A COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
p. Approval of a resolution establishing a fee for the engineering and legal
work required to re- apportion assessments on property within the
Industrial Assessment District whenever subdivision occurs. The fee
covers both work done by the consultant and City staff.
RESOLUTION NO.83-126
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR PROCESSING
LAND AND ASSESSMENT DIVISION APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE 'IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915' BEING
DIVISION 10 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
q. Set Public Hearing date of August 3, 1983 for Annual Assessments for
Landscape Maintenance District No. I.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -68A •
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.
r. Set Public Hearing for August 3, 1983 to declare intention to vacate a 20
foot alley located between Foothill Boulevard and fled 13111 Country Club
Drive.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -97A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DFG'.A P TNf TTC . LNTPNT.1014- `0 VACXTR -. .ti �2C . CM2 4eLLrEt -
ACJACENT TO LOTS 2 THROUGH 1, OF TRACT NO. 2521 GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RED HILL COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVE.
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve the Consent Calendar
as presented. Motion carried 3 -0 -2. (Frost and Mikels absent).
•
•
Page 5
4. PUBLIC BEARINGS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSFSSMENr AND ZONE GRANGE 83-01 - CHRISTESON. A change of
zone from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to C -2 (General Business Commercial) for
13.1 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Haven Avenue (known as Virginia Dare Winery) - APN 1077 - 401 -01 and 03•
Planning Commission recommends approval of zone change and issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Rick Gomez, City Planner presented staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing
Council was:
Glen Glockley, architect, representing the Christeson Company, stated he
was present to answer any questions of Council.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Dahl asked if this would retain the historical designation. Mr. Gomez
answered that it would.
Mr. Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 206.
ORDINANCE NO. 206 (first reading)
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 1077- 401 -01 A 03,
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD FROM A -1 TO C -2.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading. Motion
carried unanimously 3-0 -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
Mayor Pro Tom Buquet set the second reading for August 3, 1983.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83 -04. An
ordinance amending Section 61.0219(b)(7), Residential Parking Standards, of
the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance. Staff report by Rick Gomez.
_ _Mr. RobinsoD read_fhe_title -oC Ordinance No._123-B.
ORDINANCE NO. 123-8 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.0219(b)(7) OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 123,
RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading. Motion
carried unanimously 3-d -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem. Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing •
Council was:
Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, spoke in support of the Ordinance as drafted.
There being no further comments frcw the publi.:, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Dahl stated that he would like to see the reference to carports deleted in
Section 7A. He did not feel carports were compatible with single family
dwellings.
Discussion followed by Council.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve Ordinance No. 123 -B
with the deletion of the words,: "or carport. The use of carports requires
approval from the Design Review Committee." from Section 7A.
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing again. Addressing
Council was:
Herman Hempel, Planning Commissioner, felt requiring everyone to obtain a
variance in order to be able to add a carport when they already have a
two -car garage was unfair.
Jorge Garcia, architect, felt the presentation of the ordinance of not .
allowing carports needed further evaluation.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Dahl stated there were quite a number of houses in eastern Los Angeles
with carports. He had been talking with a member of the Planning Commission,
and it was his opinion that the use of carport.3 was getting out of hand and
creating quite an eye sore. Also, from the Sheriff's Department's point of
view, carports with outdoor storage created problems with vandalism and
burgulary.
Mr. Hopson stated the way our variance procedures are now written, it would be
difficult to make the findings to give a variance because one of the findings
is that it has to create an undue burden or harship. If you could build a
` cn� - ti' Lt ah ,.
�.tR -_, n
may at some ~point in the future wish to make a special deviation procedure`
into an ordinance to modify the variance procedure.
Mr. Robinson read the title of modified Ordinance No. 123 -B again for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 123 -B (new first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, •
AMENDING SECTION 61.0219(b)(7) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 123, RESIDENTIAL PARKING
STANDARDS.
•
Page 7
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading. Motion
carried unanimously 3-0 -2. (Frost and Mikels absent).
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet set August 3rd for second reading.
C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 83-03. An amendment to the residential use
standards to allow for second dwelling units on single family zoned
residential lots. Staff report by Rick Gomez.
Mr. Robinson read the title of Ordinance No. 204 -A.
ORDINANCE NO. 204 -A (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 204, REGARDING PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to waive full reading of
Ordinance No. 204 -A. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0 -2 (Frost and Mikelc
absent).
. Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no
response, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to approve Ordinance No. 204 -
A. Motion carried by the following vote:
D.
AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Buquet
NOES: None
ABSENT: Frost, Mikels
continuance to August 3,
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing
Council was:
Francis Musser, 5229 Country` Club Drive. - Ms. Musser asked several
questions. Mayor Pro Tem requested that she see Mr. Hobbs for the answers
to her questions.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to continue the item to August
3, 1983. Motion carried 3 -0 -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
Page 8
5. NON- ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS •
A. ADMISSIONS TAX ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. An ordinance amending subsection F of
Section 3.36.01n the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Staff report by Jim
Robinson, Assistant City Manager.
Mr. Robinson read the title of Ordinance_ No. 198 -A.
ORDINANCE NO. 198 -A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SUBSECTION F OF SECTION 3.16.010 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF
"OPERATOR" FOR PURPOSES OF THE ADMISSIONS TAX.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to waive full reading of
Ordinance No. 198 -A. Motion carried unanimously 3-0 -2. (Frost and Mikels
absent).
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no
comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Buquet set second reading for Ordinance No. 19B -A for August 3, 1983.
6. CITY NANAGRR'S STAFF REPORTS •
A
Mr. Pope presented his request to Council stating that nothing had been done
since the last time he had been at Council on July Sth. He requested that a
citation be given for the violation of corduc!ing a business in the
residential zone.
Mr. Buquet stated that there has to be an actual observation of a violation
occurring when staff is on the premises in order to issue a citation. He
stated that they will continue to monitor the situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Buq,iet called a r=ess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
8:50 p.m. with all members of the Council present.
RR •AR
B. AWARD OF DESIGN CONTRACT FOR ADDITION TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA NEIGNBURNOOD
CENTER (CDBG /HUD FUNDED). This is a selection by Council of Design and
Engineering service firm to facilitate the Expansion Project for RCNC. This •
addition will increase program capabilities of the Center with a particular
focus given to Senior Citizen activities. Staff report by Bill Holley.
Page 9
• Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to award the contract to
Barmakian, Wolff, Lang, and Christenson for the total amount of $26,520.
Motion carried unanimously 3 -0 -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
I#
CHEEK AND DEMENS CHANNEL. This is a Cost sharing agreement between the Army
Corps of Engineers and the City to provide hiking, ,Jogging, bicycling and
equestrian paths, alorg with underpass at 19th, bridges in Heritage Park, and
rest areas along the Cioamonga Creek and Demens Channel. Staff report by Bill
Holley.
Motion: Moved by Car.', seconded by Schlosser to approve the agreement and
authorize the requested expenditure from the Parks Development Fund. Motion
carried 3 -0 -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
D. STATUS REPORT ON DISASTER PLANNING FOR GITI OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Since
the Stem had been requested by Mayor Mikels, who was out of town, Council
concurred in deferring this to the August 3rd meeting when Mr. Mikels would be
present.
E. INLAND MEDIATION BOARD: CONTRACT FOR SERVICES. Renewal of existing
• contract for fair housing services. Staff report by Rick Marks, Associate
Planner.
Mayor Pro Tem Buquet opened the meeting for public comment. There being none,
the public portion of the meeting was closed.
Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -127
and to waive full reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Buquet
NOES: None
ABSENT- Frost, Mikels
Title of Resolution No. 83-127 was read by Mr. Robinson.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -127
-A BF!9,01 UTLON -OF TOE .,.ITY- -^_6HtC_ _ y~F _m!X;_ ln, XkRCHG
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND INLANr MEDIATION BOARD, A
NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING
A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING FOR A FAIR HOUSING
PROGRAM TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
19 F. FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM UPDATE. Review of Flood Insurance Program and
proposed changes to the flood hazard maps. Oral report by Lloyd Mutts.
Council recetvcd and filed the report.
Page 10
G. MAINTENANCE AGREBMEMf AND ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE FOR FLOOD PROTECTION
DEVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRACTS 11934, 12044. 12045, and 12046. The City
is requested to execute agreements with The William Lyon Co. and to make
ass,.rances to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that flood
protection measures will be adequately maintained. Staff report by Lloyd
Hubbs.
Mayor Pro Tem opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing Council was:
Gary Mechlin, William Lyon Company, stated this was the last requirement
under Title 10. Commitment has been issued Ly HUD.
There being no further comments, the public portion of the meeting was closed.
Motior.: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to approve Resolution No. 83 -128
and to wa=ve full reading. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Buquet
NOES: None
ABSENT: Frost, Mikels •
Mr. Robinson read title of Resolution No. 83 -128.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -128
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, GUARANTEEING MAINTENANCE OF wLOJD
PROTECTION MEASURES IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRACTS 11934,
12044, 12045, AND 12046.
H. ARTICLE 8 CLAIM TRANSPC7TATION FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983 -84. Staff
report by Jim Robinson.
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to authorize the cit manager to
sign the agreement and to approve the distribution of TDA funds:
- a. Omnitrans $348,074
b. Rancho Cucamonga $341,527
Total Allocation $689,601
Motion approved 3 -0 -2 (Frost and Mikels absent).
Y. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS •
No items submitted.
Page 11
• 8. COUNCIL BUSIMM
No items submitted.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn to Monday, July 25
for a budget meeting at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Robinson stated that if we find that
the meeting isn't necessary, then the city clerk can meet and adjourn for lack
of a quorum. Motion carried unanimously 3.0.2 (Frost and Mikels absent). The
meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
•
1 RRe7 CITY OF RAM ENO CJCASUWGA •
PARR 0 4f-0 V f N D L R N A. M E
Vp n FOPj All N-rNT
V•1 0 FOP4, All NMfNT
V ^.10 FCFVS Atf'NNFNT
V110 F139•S •`LIGNVENT
W.
TOMMA
FF;T : STS
CR JJ
SASINL
1AEF PACING ASSf'C
S -TF�3 F[CO TFUOs
1
I
♦
F
WARRANT RFC1OOpNN0CILLLIAw
DATE ROMENCE
FINAL TOTALS
7/29/0.3
DISCOUNT MET
960.00
793.80
200.00
200.00
200.00
130, BOO.GG
10.011.11
8.098.79
4.48100
2.62100
52.00
83.25
SI.00
sn.QG
28.00
69.11
3..19.54
8.212z8. C
21.50
1.500.00
to 1000.00
7.103.48
P 32.79
80.00
2 89.49
100.00 -
7.JI-
224.04-
I90.762.55
J
PAGE. I
I J
J
�I
I J
!O
J
I
J
l
I
I J
I
L .4
J
� J
J I
J I
J
0
I
! J
14667
CETY
C
1(fMl C"CAPCHGA r
YAARAPT
TEC,I1COIN,,CIt
8/03/63
MAEIP /
YEN E N 0 C R 4 A � E
onTE
``I
DISCOUNT NET
PEFENENCE
1 ^155
VC19
FPP.S ALIGNIFIT r
e /01/el
1A 156
VOID
60PtlS ALIG%4F5T 1
,/0'/93
I'll
FDPPS A1ICN4_IT
P /01 /91
N151
154
VCI9
FCFvS AL IC`.MF NT r
F /C3 /93
1P 759
CCC2
A -40PLE LCCK 4 Pit
4103/93
14
1476:
1050
RPSACLL PEATINC 6 A C,
E/9e1_3
68
t"fit
1051
GALIKY FOCL It SPA
Pf5 ^fa3
17
IF767
1276
BANA OF AvEPICA IT 6 SA
Pfr, ?/03
441
IP11.1!
1300
RASFLIHE 1'A np AfC I
P /7191
47
IP164
1310
9HA ,LLCM TP° S'SVILE
F /'ll /NI
1`.6
18755
14-1n
9FS1 C.FFICE P:LfUCT.
2/431°3
34
15166
1725
4S ^7C°EAi EI HP I
P /O1 /8]
247
197A7
1155
rfpr
' /C1 /P3
64a
18769
I9Cl
C G ENGINFEAVIG I
n :03 /Nl
9.602
IF769
1IC9
riN AL CITIFS 5ILN '(°P
-/03/91
3r 351
1 ^110
l,)It
7256
29'
CNAFFIY LN IC'J H C14L
C-TEKS '✓ rl vo ' ;u P,
P /C' /P3
P/'1 /IL3
3.733
III
18)73
2144
fnrz l`Tf P'11P CHV1 °RR
a1C31R3
54P
IF773
I3t5
UT) Pant i
, /03183
F6
IP774
2 IP-1
CL AP'vt: ;l PL1J'Prs14T C1 J
E /dl_ /83
17
18775
733,
CCCA C.CL. KIT TI is:
P/03/83
360
I�.1776
2)lh
C_":CA C'LPCrIt Mr, Cpl
P /0V83
52
1877,
?1-,
L-' -11 ;TI IY ',R SVCC
elu3AI
.Lei
1'114
501
CLV IN I'. C, C.P C4E 1
9/03 F3
i.10P
19771
117
.U(J v' "ACA I, HATE, riFT
1/33/el
51
I92P1
1513
'.Hr PYjCCA rl J'PICT LI!N
A /0D /P3
50
2741
1.11-1, 4ALC,N 1
EIC3183
1,350
107111
!F v 14 79.1;SPCRTA7 ICN
1
E:d ?/93
180
45
la100
11194
7750
795
CF ICP
IIICaSYV P
eiiii"
103 /P3
2,150
IA1R5
11C7
01F 3I 118 IV TL TPfICK
1R7P6
IFI)
0IET41Cv -POST CC
9/13/81
1.3 7
13107
b'.5
rKF(UT ICE NL-N INTL I
a/03/P3
110
1 ^703
4002
PAC COP.
e/03/83
1.82C
_
19189
4020
FANTASY T-SHIRTS •
a /01/83
6
_ 18790
4E00
TLLFP CC CG
8/0 /83
0`12
It,,
_GFN_EPAL
T-
..' ;I- G CAI: n(I.K I ",
a /:l /9l
I76
IF793
4eC.
V4APEi F .IPV(NT -F 1
3 I
E 103 /13.'
IS'
12794
iPtl
HAACV °EN.FP
0101/9)
P. /03 /al
10C
1v71',
4 ^34
IIAY(S KLCIh G, GA=•Y ,
81G
At
111.16
5501
HyIFT VM - PrTTY C.A�iH
?/S3
9101133
124
19197
4415
HILLIOSY vr.CM CC INC
'
9191/03
75
14.99
198'94
4975
•IIO
5 WV7 LUNar. CC
IPY
8103/63
64,
7.881
19.CC
6149
JER`E"C 77,IPNBAIICNAL ;R
E/03I93
fl
I1P01
654 -0
KAPIeye NrPC01iH
8/01/93
l.9 °O2
IP9.13
IIIII
64 C.9
K 44:11X6 Iuc 1
'IhC E7'CIPF1 11S, L S
e/03/33
4203181
621
lP °C4
FFCI
PINP^ r
1(01 /83
1,111
19105
14dr6
6(44
6617
fL.FN l3VF CCCPCP>1IC.Y
xr <TILr CT TC I
°/05/01
e /0 ' /P3
91
1':807
1N90P
AE IN
6P12
K0.11_Fr Jn A6 1
LCS AHGt1:S TIM'S
B/FVU3
9/11183
9%
104119
6151
tO, A' / „Fl `S TIMES I
1/03193
2'
I5T
19310
65`0
NC CAI L. JrFF 1
8/C3/81
201
11112
MET
A4 °4
7145
YC KAl2HfS PF, PC)-AT,
"IF, 'I'M
'
F/`/F3
F.)03153
L61
LIT
Ii911
15:8
NAIL P CPEAl ICN
a /tl/P3
F
71
IAn I
3PA1S
1165
7112
PAr IFIC POIMICTS r
PIA Pro
/C? /0J
e/113/83
lPa ”
1790
PITNFV POTS
8/01143
251
II
IRA17
1;418
2800
7AI5
PPE!5 -TIGE INST ^TG
Fit I(F Cr LC° PNFSS r
El C3 /33
P /Cl /S3
22
1x.919
M6
. ;TINT C6105 _
/.3 /d)
351
1979
1,321
191,
5 ^4S
PP1N71M14 SFP V /REC MCn
PAIC10 OISPr56l I
a /O3 /El
6/C3/al
Ir,
IAA22
PCAO
RINCHD MCCICAL CLINIC,
6/ ^.3/93
30i
IR-323
PC 75
PIPIO DATA INC
8/03/23
54'.
19924
8071
PAULO TIRE REPAIR
E /•,311.;
11.591
Ida2s
aC79
Chi GF RECYm1C CflY
8/03/01
Or331
I °�5,.6
BOSS
PCI 7FR L'FYI_LL` 1FAT1 -1 H
E/03 /a3
PAGE I
I
I
R867
CITY Cf
RANCHO CUCIMON LA
VAR9ANT
PEC CNCILI ATILM 8103/03 PAGE 2
VARR
P YEN
A V E N 0 C R N A) E
NARR
..110pRFAs DISCOUNT NET
DATE
AEFE RENE
18A2q
E150
RITI CA.FgA CINTER )
8/0V03
151.16
Id d 30
A151
RIVeR51CF CFx S1R0f TIfiN
E /01/83
251!35.30
19831
81fn
LLILI( Pl'nE'-
P /M/93
19.10
IE932
li113
R4'0
6415
SAY 1..F AC CC NCCfpDFR
SAN POND CC SUaVr_YLRI
P, /0i /p9
01031.3
E.GO
35.14
18.34
AOPD
SAY cjfwl FOTA -Y 9¢CON
f 101/63
72.00
I0d15
8560
SPVFN CAY AUTO PARTS
P /111/23
142.11
1-A16
PSPS
SI'DAL PA P. TFXA%fF
P /03 /PI
36A.OR
18811
8606
55YCF- pUP1L5H IS, C01
2 /n 1 /A1
13. T]
19.18
VC19
Vr2FFR NP. 3M1lo 1
R /cwfll
Ida 19
Ld P40
11
MAID
.
V 1-11'3 6C. 9' 1 i
SO CALIF FC ISCY C9 r
k1113 /P3
,193/83
4.614.18
' 19941
P611
Sn CA; IF EC1S0N C.03
93/81
10.00
1EA42
2615
SO CALIF CAS CC
-/01/03
155.40
IRN43
E645
SPACNCLe SAY
£ /^1 /81
6,.00
L-F144
0155
5PAFALFTIS
P /)1123
41.50
19945
@fee
STA ?OAPO PN dY. pS PA INI
610,183
19.15
10,46
0680
STAIIINERS COPP
P. /Ai /P3
519.45
1.847
8611
STFV1S 11,111
/13/83
555.961
19-45
A700
SOLLIVVI6 CE RO -CRT
E /Ol /e)
)OO,.00
18849
0169
T,-RC AClfl1 OISTRIO'
P/0 "1/83
21.)0
180"
5439
VPIINFY. RAAY 1
2/01/63
55.00
19051
955,
VCLF[ C SCSI SALFS Cn
188. µ
lq.5;
g165
NOI FINE A¢Lf^ 111[ D /
P191/83
6.5 6.46
1'453
1-954
19855
9]15
^7K
9766
IR_ OICAL SERVICE
:C �+'1TY f.eF nl 1
'OIfCY. IQLFFV
F /03/0]
8/01/91
P113/81
112. t5
15.0C
18.00
18356
S7A7
Sq(1M. .ARC 1
E/03/83
3150
1@851
5769
LIV, YpS
E/031 F3
36..00
IA85P
9769
Cn¢M1MALLI CCHORAH
@/03/03
10.00
1 -159
9770
II A I ART. A I NE
2/01/03
17.50
IR9M1!'
9111
HAidP T. Yd4fID
° /fa /9)
17.50
IR96I
5)17
PA', CALL, RAP'S 1
0/03103
5.00
109&2
5713
G., A I A (M.,
'EP
1 J03/91
a7. 50
18.00
1 9F6
19864
9774
VOID
4AT1. -CR 91E
FINAL f'11ALS
8103123
2 /C3/83
1
FINAL TOTALS 1131394.31
I
I
ec, Orup ecaAt,
CLAIM FOR D.yMAGE OR INJURY
I. Claims for dea!h , injury to person, or :o personal property must be filed not later rt��C3 1
1U0 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911 .21. 6740
Claims for domoges to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence r
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ROBERT W. RACKSTRAW, 9315 Devon, Rancho_ Cucamonga, CA 91730 39
Nore of Cln imam Address Zip (hone Nce
GEORGE HUGH SAVORD, A Professional Law Corporation
1695 West Crescent, Suite 282, Anaheim, California 92801
rtddres tc which Claimant wishes ,.,ices sent --
WHEN did demcae of injury occur? April 20, 1983 at approximately 5:30 P.M.
WHERE did Jamaae or injury occur? On Archibald Avenue at the intersection with Palo
Alto Stree —
HO'N anc under what cirrumstonces did damage or injury occur? See attached
_,_IB E 6 A 9 ILL.—
WHAT articul i6e or;ni,r ?A
p ar nr.!i oa by tFe City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(Ir•.clude names at employees, if known)
attached
WHAT sum do you claim? Inrlude the estimated omounl of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known
of the timr of t" pre•sen!otian of rhis claim, togelher will) the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimat -, o: hills, if Possible)
Hospital, m,c ^_cial, and
related expenses
$
30,000.00
ld)BS 4f D3Cn inqc
_201000.00
General damages
950,OOC 00
(Subject to Amor,lmont by
Procf Thereof)
- --
Total A•inow Claimed:
$
1,000,000.00
NAMES and add, ^.v of wibreses, Dor L.)rs 0r1d Hoe Vitals:
San Antonio Community Hospital, 999 San Bernardino Rd., Upland, CA 91786
Karim A. Sli. ii7c 'liY-, M.D.;BTI'- "E:- 17t�Strc�
Joann Hill, 9717 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonca, CA 91730 (witness)
DATE In 3 --- T —_.lL"�,_".0 �.f.�`:^Y/Yr ii
CLAIM FOR D.yMAGE OR INJURY
1. Claims to, death , injury to person, or tc personal property must be filed not later than
100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911 .2).
Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence
;Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF N 110 CUr;AMONGA _
DOROTHY BUSCH RACKSTRAW, 9315 _Devon, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Name of Claimant Address Zip Phone Pge
GEORGE HUGH SAVORD, A Professional Law Corporation
1695 iiest Crescent, Suite 281, Anaheim, California 92801
to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
WHEN did dcmcge or injury occur? Aoril 20. 1983 and eor.tinuir, thereafter
WHERE did damage or injury occur? to Husband, ROBERT W. RACKSTRAW, at Archibald
Avenue and Pal— Arto Street
HO'N and under what circc,mstances did damage or injury occur? Severe iniuries to husband
in vehicular accident (see attached) resulting in loss of consortium,
society, comfort, and protection
FEGrcdEa
CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA _
r �II�R1S1 ,�71`iF ON
WHAT particulcr action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage a I
j �(y �3 �
(Include M U e names of employees, it known) r+i
6
Sec attached
41819)lOfllfl2l2)213f4f5f
WHAT sum do you clolm? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as it may be known
of the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates or bills, if possible)
Loss of consortium, society, comfort and protection S
subject to the proof thereof
5
Total Amount Claimed: S 1,000,000.00
NAMES and addrnsse• of witnesses, Dorms and Ilospitnls:
an an�oniQ So+rRm rnity_liLlupit3_1J,_ 999.5 sL_Bernardino Rd., Ualand� CA 91786
Karim A, Shaikley, M.D. 811 E. llth Street, #104, Upland, CA 91786
Joann Hill, 9717 alo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga p
Z /,t
•
HCW and under
what circumstances did
damage or
injury occur?
Claimant
was lawfully traveling
southbound
in the 42 lane of
Archibald Avenue at the intersection of Palo Alto. Another
vehicle was stopped in the 41 lane southbound on Archibald Avenue -
at Palo Alto, signalling for a left turn and yielding the right of
way to northbound traffic on Archibald Avenue. A vehicle
northbound in the 41 lane on Archibald Avenue at the intersection
of Palo Alto turned left to go westbound on Palo Alto, crossed in
front of the vehicle stopped in the 41 lane and turned directly in
front of Claimant's vehicle which was southbound in the 42 lane in
the intersection; this resulted in a traffic collision and
extensive injuries to Claimant.
WHAT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the
alleged damage or injury?
The City of Rancho Cucamonga took over the responsibility for
street planning from the County of San Bernardino in 1977. The
City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the standards of the State of
California, as published by the State of California Department of
Transportation Traffic Manual for the signing, marking, and
designation of vehicular turning movements. The City of Rancho
Cucamonga has adopted a Street Plan for various and other areas of
Archibald Avenue h.iving�si^I_i ld C S tnae %ud eitR and -emu 6cra '-
vehicular movements, and has signed, marked, and designated
vehicular turning movements thereby in accordance with the State
of California Department of Transportation guidelines as published
in the Traffic Manual. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has failed
tq and continues to fail to adopt a Street Plan of signing, marking,
-1-
• and designation of turning movements of vehicles at the
intersection of Archibald Avenue and Palo Alto Street, and has
failed and continues to fail to sign, mark, and designate
vehicular turning movements at that intersection.
A Street Plan for the intersection of Archibald Avenue and
Palo Alto Street would include signing, marking, and designation
of vehicular turning movements with appropriate turn lanes on
Archibald Avenue.
Said failure of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its
employees to adopt a Street Plan at the intersection of Archibald
Avenue and Palo Alto Street in accordance with its established
practice of adopting a Street Plan and signing, marking, and
designating vehicular turning movements with appropriate turn
• lanes elsewhere on Archibald Avenue, has proximately caused the
accident in which Claimant was involved and seriously injured.
Exhibit "A" attached hereto is a sketch of pre - accident
vehicular positions on the roadway, with arrows depicting the
direction of travel of each vehicle with only a center lane
marking on Archibald Avenue at its intersection with Palo Alto
Street. It is apparent that the vehicle southbound on Archibald
Avenue in the southbound lane stopped and signalling for a left
-turn "!t -Pr' ?) b1u.,iAeli Cue`vlew of- the
vehicle (V -1) northbound on Archibald Avenue in the Al -ane
preparatory to turning left to westbound on Palo Alto, and that
the driver of the vehicle (V-1) could not have seen the Claimant's
vehicle (V -2), which was southbound on Archibald Avenue in the $2
lane, until vehicle (V -1) was committed to the turning movement.
-2-
k
• The inability of the driver of the turning vehicle (V -1) to
see opposing traffic in the R2 lane because of the failure of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga to adopt a Street Plan and provide a left
turn lane, allowed for a period of time and space after the
turning driver was committed to the intersection so as to create a
dangerous condition at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and
Palo Alto Street which proximately caused the accident and
injuries of Claimant, and which created a reasonably foreseeable
risk of such injuries.
The Claimant and driver of a vehicle upon the established
roadway of Archibald Avenue, approaching the intersection of Palo
Alto Street at a reasonable and lawful speed has a right to assume
• that a driver of a vehicle turning onto the intersecting Palo Alto
.Street will yield the right of way. Failure of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga to adopt a Street Plan at that intersection and provide
lanes for turning movements on Archibald Avenue, as it has done on
the otF�r intersections of Archibald Avenue of similar width and
vehicular traffic movements, allows for an unanticipated turning
movement on the roadway, and constituted a trap for the Claimant.
Claimant was placed in jeopardy by the negligence of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and its employees by reason of the driver of the
turrinf_yeltl C.].F .(_� 1.1 y._af_si lit_ Jq -'."1. a - .. C.
committed to the turning movement, thereby driving directly in
front of Claimant's vehicle.
Exhibit "I3" is a sketch that readily illustrates the improved
line of view provided by appropriate turn lanes on Archibald
Avenue, particularly when, as in this case, opposing traffic is
lawfully stopped preparatory to making a similar turning movement.
-3 17
•
V
PALO ALTO
1 !
I �
I
f
I\
1
,c-Ytf[S/7- A 15,
V I - "I- uRMIMy klA A160,40UNd ON
ARCA16ALd '& W&St6oaNe cN
PALO AL:o. VIEW OF V•2 (ice "
6y V -3; No t ✓R)i LAHL,
UAINAUT VEIAICLL S6VIN6e044
oN AA.CAt6ACA.
Vs- LOfucst ✓LHICLL Sf`Oppcd
oN Ptct%(bALc: pALPAftRy
pO tuRU I Nq fti rast6au /Jd
ON PgLa L+v.
S
Rf.LAtIV£ pcSf'-JoNS OF
�f[kictes 9, P4- Acc,drNI.
NOT TO SCALE
i
PALo ALTO
11
Z
l-,
icc —so'
S
1
1
�1
.rr X FE 113 1-►— 13
S
*RLLA+Ivt posr-trc s of Vtktctts
I twfW LnNt S hAd .00S'tfd
PA. t- Arc, dtMT.
No-r To Sr.FlL6
• CLAIM FOR D.yMaGE OK INJURY C�yu�g. -Q )C.�LC�4"`'
1. Claims for death , injury to person, or to personal property must be filed at late4 than
100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911 .2).
�. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than I year after the occurrence
(Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: 'ITY OF RANC110 CUCAMONGA, CA
PAUL JOSEPH EONELLO 8 159 FIR DR. APT.C, CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 714 -980 -7902 (21)
Name of Caima d Address Zip Phone age
8459 EIR C, CUCAdONGA, CA (91730)
address to wisia r Claimant wishes notices sent.
WHEN did dcmnge or injury occur ?JULY 2. 1983
WHER`_ did damoge or injury occur?ARrHTAA -D A�$F W aT3Si HST. 1tI GHLLAI4$.
H 07.' and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? DROVE OVER A POT-HOLE. I WAS
TRAVELING HOME (NORTH) ON ARCHIBALD AND I DROVE OVER A POTHOLE. I DID NOT SEE IT
ORvTnncr V, THERE WERP NO WARNING SIGNS AT ALL. THE LIGHTING WAS POOR TOO. I WAS
VELING APPROXI MATE LLY 30 -35 MPH. THE POT -HDLE CAUSED EXTF.NCTVF, DAMAGE TO M C.
if o'- utx
15 Rr,•"at a, aF:. s� Y ATx7 r /N( •.
WHAT perticular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury?
(lnrk,se names of employees, if known)
T}IE C_I'iY DID NOT MARE SIGNS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC,WARNING OF THE SAID DANGER.
TRP CITY HAD NOT INSTALLED EFFICIENT LIGHTING (STREET LIGHTS)TO ALIVIATE DANGER
THE CITY DID NOT OVER -SEE THAT THE HOLE WAS PROPEPLY FILLED IN.
WHAT sum do at claim?
Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss,
insofar as it may be known
at the tine of the prese.nt�tian
of this claim, together with the i,asis of computation
of the amount claimed:
(Attach estimates of bills,
,f possible)
SEE
ATTACHED
$196.10
ONE - WHEEL_
__ _
0'9__
one IDLER ARM
G 39.98
_N
1O
LAE017__-
25.00
TOWING FEE
S G_ nn
AEf- If6NF-
'f �
1PW:ClJCAM0NCA
Total 41r
$351.57
ADMINtSTRt%TION
NAMES and addrnsse• of witnesses, Doctors nrd Hospilal AL 18
AM
_ A
07 -/Y
DATE
0. 11�
TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT I
CRP
A t RATIVE /SUPPLEMENTAL o.
?�.,,<..
...,• [:, <. •,
...�� •cam_
035
-�
a-�
-� � � c,
•
7D WrJf^ 1-` Pr \P ;' :GI.;CFF.IJ,:,n1y
&COL - DAv
-5y� Isl(_ J� L a V�PIK fOl( iJi.IKLV �1
£IG±tr YEA ", SVl FACT ALL OX MY t P- tulub- EYJ pIEK, _ "AL L Z/) _: i Ij- ZN
T owo Lc(- oz SKr— EXCEPT L/N7TL Sus7
lANDfO a. -Cg uJ TW, CJTV ok CC/AMS,CC£. TI /VS., . _Z _ /rtior � of AGE
Z __CO / /_ <T uG j'GN PND Rti CaNST2VQioN . TfftFT .11,fS &�£N GO /rvG O.v in_ i
rh! /S T ✓^`/C/AC1Y CONCr, IN IUD '7Nt' S�KESIS .. Z Tf ` //vk [ E /�i4G
(— F. tiiOUVC D OUR S//,49C 4F rlF /S 7 Pelt of iNCGvJv /�vE ''cF , fibG✓frf/1
Z gFVfUE T/` /S T / /wC Z &MML A OF (jRCU. fS--,m '
-.. %NF , )s / - 77f / /J� 7i/C &7-POL£ Wo✓U. NAUC Cf u_'C Sa+rE
)4+ A i HN��l �Y 1-1116 AfA%� A TO AL IN TWF Rl (,ti'T &A. c. AT
[✓Fa��6- Tiiv £ QS LT /� /A /N MY CA S£. Z /fUS T.LP, 7 L
A M A SAM / - SAN AND Z TI//Ti f 771� UAe✓G/ - Ltd ✓Gs
Zr ill CAN £XP(-f✓ry To Xf GifFY you
D /SA6- i't.t.. 1. WiCC SURFCj' CONE /OkR S�Ou/Q 7t/- oU�h'TS. .%li RE,7%cD-
Sf cr = li ns luiNG /!O/yl� Porn"-/ .Wi9,fk ARoL)IuD .4$o i;l, oN
Z /,,/AS 7x4oez1N(r / O i/ % 3U - 3S �-C I fJ
-Z NAG
'fiS C .'s jif j _„' f'Dif� . !+)iL(_ , T(✓iT QF�OR '� SZ _ i //7 A
7Y-W i4lfra 70 (iiFC t %CJe ANy ht IV7- OA )o46 F ? C.ovL M)7, ,
Of7FCT fir, j s HGG✓[vLf U lrjV z fCOOfDEO Hof yo s„ /�i. C.9/�
Dkf�out .4. T f ,1�,
4KLD Jrr/£ CAR, Z NaTic�o.
446i A"ve 2 WA
', G✓fi�- !{r' r�o�F A�vD A �f/O�vf ��cc ?u 77/x. S�ie/FFS
•
I L/6' rdv' �u�� lrr F %LIPJ /;'i fIL� //JEW !£pprtr :' Tfi�
S/�ffvl' % :�C /rif i r�i 'fi;- ..r � i ✓�_.jl�t�/` / / /Y�2 �/%� /%/✓
-J� .7N / / Fw lfod/rs -r
, E/v R!!.' ✓..�Ti�' '7O 4 SH�F /��' S£A/% %Ci �fi j f%Gri,YL ..7 .
ji[� Fn ✓' ACC�r,« ✓Y afPcf< : /✓IUC %! 7v MY �iS��Y G✓iifW T
Zr
M*I/tL//u,c /CAS 7111 440s£
�%i0 .Tf/i .Sf!¢R/l --Fs �Z��£!✓rfNT -L✓AS zN u/aL0 /n� oTyf2 /�DiNTS.,
<ucf! AS; L /�f /; ✓� 7N.
TH'rs� f i //; S fll £/✓ Ti; , u!, r Fig. �G/n F!/ 7^
/{oGf f�rG ?f/£ NU+tZES7 S,77Y.7" L/ // /�/�f/ /C�' f%f��`C/ ✓:: jG F5_
7S /
Go /Rl�
7--D R1 ... z f1�£ /f Smo, 00 G9OucrfBC&. —7-
ryutY .5,�u /7/.r- /rY ro rm RfiF/,e7-10's Gvorifin - ~,�
z HGN� YDU CHANT rL/Y CC.� ^ /// duct' c MC.
-CALL / ✓f Aa SO-04J /;
zN Cl; z' /; ✓� /UJT /iLr7l�. PLEASE Canl�Of� Ali£ ........_
C /�CU� :7F:1_'„ .Z .OcNy . WGF✓C% Do T5/ /�' ZF... /T 11 4s Ai4ve.
Z T''uL` BfUfGt . QE Lglr,411Z Foe Tf1f C/ �' TD ✓1JE6fKi
ihi+ i ter " /riti� Niar�4✓ Trit �t+wiE,� Z SAV& wirf/'
F04 YCw,< 7144£,/ ..._.. _
�3oNiL v
£xr.) �� ..
Extis� 07-
�i T EKA I ZAT/DKi'
D OBITS `rNwzi-b As R� s U LT
0-.-LT Fr" WHN (-
44U 17--T- rT.. -TbLLk Arcri, - - - --
�?� - _FRorrr �NockS
_�S�AC.Z ZOL�R A��n
_ _... F�2cN7 SNOC -kS
Mou ,u i QRL�4NC� CvFI-
�>+f,�(, RLl6 -lUM ENS �(.a��R�O) �l9 9q
IS, 0.0
TOU0 IN 6-
' Cc�n�NT (lii#'o2 T, Pic_ CR, <:l !/1 mm
FU ooNT
.,qc D�¢i7s
TV
A CL
., -x 4, ,,� � --- --
H
Tt
REPAIR ES TIP ATE 'r
L
(ttq
y
r
ATTENI-C I
. 74
CUSTOM R COPY
SEWC1 my Ex"NTS
n T"7,.,
C Toms wn
..o Iftlloll C] ov. -
%
� Y2
:yu �1—
i**VMS W.O.
• A
I.sl-c Im I., lmlo�. no".
Tt
(ttq
x
. 74
CUSTOM R COPY
SEWC1 my Ex"NTS
Aooens / w��.•.
e.. •••••. n... n.
�• ` I
(- !'� +•Y fd / •rte rear .Noun C I
v
/ /O
t.
01 o i
C
Y
., ,•ti ,. r...e.ra.o.�rn�;a.� "r, ,,.a n.m..m ,,,r.n �e`
A .am•.. n
��' � So► T...1
• T..
S Q THANK
NO RE►ONO MITNOUT TNIS INVOICE TOTAL ^ You
4010 0003 4009 1200 _� --
�Kr:ys.: i 05 -82 - .. ... .. _
>•,� 05- 84.YISA cal y t`i ", carry .b amnrcuw q[R- ac. /urt. r..Erl
PAUL BONELLO .N
o[xmr,oN xro ..
VrIO H
INAPK CHRISTOPHER
ON TAR 10 CA 9 CHEY
i 00700276 046PO72 _ _ r
Tan AnoTAai n046�077 n�1yy "^ •....._'__;^.r-- •.._" -"w sve rark �
I nN { �0.
_._ L TAX
552 TOTM I5b IQ
LIMPORTANT: RETAIN THIS COPY FOR STATEMENT VERIFICATION k -yJ
� VASR•
e � ,
i �•
R • R
L PART.
4 '
q PRIC£
HRU\.
. I
�J
TIRES
QTY. TYPE
-0FBNIf
TOTAIFARJ!4`
TIRE OUTPOST
2451 S. EUCLID AVE., ONTARIO, CA. 91762
(714) 986 -5262
BAR#
n.' 01 ,p. .�„ a�Poee(. /{per /' /�`pN)A•�R'Po
eeSIGNED'�I'•Xf
INVOICE NO. 3148
A.f
1 D7 / / L// fl
oRG I —
DATE I TIME IINIT.
-- L:: ;:n;, ".7:<,.,"'` ❑ �: ;" ❑ BRAKE SPEC.
AFTER
R/F
REPAIR ORDER - LABOR INSTRUCTION
I
WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING REPAIRS - --
I. TOTAL LAWN
2 TOTAL PART!
3. mts
4. TAI
S- �- O$LAWR -- - - -_ -- --
OFFICE PAYABLE BY INVOICE TOTAL ,yr�ry�:
HRU\.
xR,y.
TIRETOAAL
TIRE OUTPOST
2451 S. EUCLID AVE., ONTARIO, CA. 91762
(714) 986 -5262
BAR#
n.' 01 ,p. .�„ a�Poee(. /{per /' /�`pN)A•�R'Po
eeSIGNED'�I'•Xf
INVOICE NO. 3148
A.f
1 D7 / / L// fl
oRG I —
DATE I TIME IINIT.
-- L:: ;:n;, ".7:<,.,"'` ❑ �: ;" ❑ BRAKE SPEC.
AFTER
R/F
REPAIR ORDER - LABOR INSTRUCTION
I
WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING REPAIRS - --
I. TOTAL LAWN
2 TOTAL PART!
3. mts
4. TAI
S- �- O$LAWR -- - - -_ -- --
OFFICE PAYABLE BY INVOICE TOTAL ,yr�ry�:
L��-
.,SKI
MAI
rr
41� A
CL
AV-
L��-
.,SKI
MAI
rr
41� A
CLAIM FOR AA.MAGE OR INJURY
.1. Claims for death, injury to person, or to personal property must be filed no later
than 100 days after the occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed no later than 1 year the
occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL 211 W. 5th St.
12122= 'Ird -.LTA tm1A HTRH s1w)nr 'o,_rA 17fi7
Name of b' imant n t
Address Zip Phone Age
KINKL F., RODIGEit AND SPRIGGS
3103
Add :•s teenth Strcet Riverside. CA.- 92501,
ress to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
WHEN did damage or injury occur? October 15, 19+2 at apnroxi.�atcly ;13 n -m.
HHERR did damage or injury occur? Baseline Avencz, appzoximat•uly 210 feet east r•f
Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
HOY and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur?C:laimants u :ere Served with
a Summons and Complaint in the cac:e of Klock v. Ci-�v n�
I— ,._ .. _'_._. _ _ _
Summons and p U '-V ?31-1-
1 Complaint attached hereto). The Sum,l,ons and Compl�int ware
omissto:a of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its agents and ompioyees. T:.::•
WHT injur p�. rt icular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or
•Y• (Include names of employees, if known).
Impropor design, construction, maintenance, inspection, repair and /or super -
ronuwaw : nc1 orh� public ar nra� th _ens of th; .accident r7r:u
_ cri_
WHAT runs do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar ad
it ray be known at the time of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of
computation of the amount claimzd. (Attach estimates or bills, if possible).
Iade^mit" in h- amount in excess of $]�C 22,828.60
- e
Total Amount Claimed:
NAN`.; and addreases of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals:
Fciq ,7., •'nn Y,loc_, 7831, LouciteiRnncho Cucj,_. , CA.; _Julia Marie, _Strand.
6048 R- rntwooa A%'c CA.; Susan Di:u;, SackeLL, 5358 Pumalo ;
Ra m:ho Cuc- '. ^onyn, CA; tray Roystrr, Scan Gears;n, Brian - addre,ies unknown.
J- "O':'Sfi�;: t'S�i�'Lijiu -f y, T'. T7:- k1uTC7T3�'l7uv F6TS�ITQ -T�
.rt' -tYfC
present time.
Signature of Claim nt
EVERETT L. SPRIGGS, Attorney
S03(478) -RC(H) for CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT and ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL
a�
0
claimant in no way committed any acts of affirmative negligence or misconduct
any if liability is shown to claimant in the above- referred to action, the
claimant will be vicariously negligent and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is
therefore liable to indemnify and hold claimants harmless from the claims
rode by the plaintiff.
r-1
L J
•
'� /6
,1 :'FICBS OF 11 i:R11F.RT ILNFIF (714) 624 -1671
VhiGE. Bonita Avenue -
prr.:;uu;t, CA 91711
JIbn6:Y Ill r I':a ^'M
� .re <. v1' Lre•um en'rt''.. man<n cuml .I ..., an,n•ap O:'.,r J.i sn. -I +uan++ —�
we BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPLRIOR COURT
1540 N. Mountain AVenuc
Ontario, CA 91762
hsNNn=i
ERIC 0" };LOCH, by and through his Guardiin ad T,item, LARRY KLOCE and
LARRY KCIOCR, in(lividually
Ct"x r:o rG
CITY 0.' R- t+ :�CFtJ
AMA LOYA }IIFI:
DIANE SAC)KETTT,
C:UCANONGi,; COUNTY OP SAN BE-RNT,RDINO; STATE, OF CALIFO:iNIA;
SCHOOL; CFIAFFEY JOINT UNION 1. " 11 SCVQOL DISTRICT; SUSAN
and DOES 1 through 100, inclu -ive.
SUhMal �.�S (Svy
NOTICE! 1'0 ;1 hm1 Laxn sued. TIJa court may Ceclde iAVISO: U1ta1 ba sido dunr,'nd.'do. El hmunal puede
v gal^:! you withoulyour being heard unl ^ss you respond decidrt contra. Ud. in authe�lua a mrnos pee Lid. re-
- within ',to days. Read lire information below. spanda Centro de 30 this. Lea la intormaGoo que sigue.
11 yu(I ':.,,h to see\ the advl[C of an attorney in this S'I Li dese;r solicitor et consem de un atoo•:r+,10 en
all ", you should Co " promptly %0 that your wntlinn eme asunt0, d'.2reri, hacerlo moo, lalaoT :v. CC et.,
rpsp.. I •c, d any, mr'y be filed on time manela, su W.P.Jest., escola. sl hal a!gvna plece Set
reglstra,'.a a uempo
I TO T 11 [).'j ENDANT A civil c0n:pbunt his t.e"n f lyd by the pld:nbll a�mnyt yet, 11 you rrrsrl h' de!^ntl th ;% :nv'smt.
ynG r lasl w0h,n 30 dlys altar thr summons Is s °rved on )ou, tae vlah it Ts court a vntti'n 1110' n5e to the :om :,l; •:;
Un'r :.s yov do ,o. yell Cetaull wit! he vr,tn_red on apph6ai.on of Ina pta'ntdl. and Inrs co'.ut may Chet a +. :'en•.'•II
a31'''I ;i you for the ra:Af demanind m the eomp'nml, wp.ch could ro,,II In gaoushmeot of +vap"5 L: +:o;; of money
or property or oil, it r lra; Ietiue::;ed In the complaml
1483 ,�; jj�
DA IM .. Mirky . Cler'r.. Ry ,- "La >. :.[_�...,_ _ .bepWy
ROSAMAFtIE CHAVZ.
I. NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVEO. You arc served
a ry M. an mdrndnaf Oth,nd,nt
b. r_] Ili^ person stud antler the bctlr vs name of
as
•:;. L.:
Under L ICCPf,IClotCntporaCw
!Ir•/ '• \,•
_iec^.
[.�C(T 11510 (DpIJ'Kl Cmpula'IOr) ['J CCn AIiJII II ^,ce ^.dch'n0
lk(Jr ;ac :>
• I`Iq
.,rail
r.�CCP AM4 b(A:,o.rahon or Pa:h'elshlpi r :i C(.0 fill, i;j t In •.,i:,tmr1
\ „P�2J,
�
rn. alnel' Poh13c } ?ntity 415,30 and 41.6.58
d [] It, pulsnne: o °live, ry on (Ottel
Ili,' .l,. 'L11 r'I'i .. Il.r .. :' rr rr .. Irrr 1'•� ;.
rl r
nlnr
rte'•..• nn„
�M ri<r.011 11.. nirl I
..i .r...i r.n •r. nil 'I lr:'. �. \....
nn'.'r ♦n .nr.•In nl ..r r'' .. l ♦ n.. •
.ly r: nIn. T1'•r...•”
f'�Ir i 't'' :I \Ir \rr,rrr!Jrl :r!. r'llny....,1 l�ar. I••,.ril..r• ")
l..�,. t..... .'. lr n
ItP
I AC1 "
u' E"nt h : r l'( nil A(IJ
Yra�0161
r ri. n:,�.l. o r.;•
0
n i �
Co1,33:11t .U•1° ,._,A__
•;
_.
',,�,,�T,:.. . :.;r.v,r,
.......a. gi
sue, r, ml
� ;
as
r_7l
4
5
6,
7
81
9
10
11
121
lu
1.4
is
76
17
18
19
20
21
22
2)u
24
25
20
2'I
28
vw ornco or
IIcP,iil'.lil' I1e11'I�
n r.o, :ono ro `
CUx[MOry T. C.�llr0"NI,� YI)11
( >I�) Lxig4Y1
At4.zney for_Pl 11_nt i fl.c•_ ._
($rACB b"Ow FOR MU%G STN 7 GeLT;
i
OY1Cmul FILED i
biAY.1Gtl
Vlesl O�slricl i
County Clerk i
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN_ AND FOR 711E COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDI140
.ERIC J. KLOCK, by and through his ) CASE NO.: U� SS
Guardian ad Liten, LARRY KLOCK and ) Qv .iii (3J
LARRY KLOCK, individually, ) "
)
Plaintiffs, ) C O M P L A I N T
V. ) PERSONAL INJURIES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA; COUNTY OF)
SAN BERNARDINO ;STATE OF CA1,IFORIIIA ;) •
ALTA LAMA HIGH SCHOOL; CHAFFEY )
JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL D1,1.' 7- )
SUSAN DIANE SACKETT, and DOES 1 ).
through 100 inclusive, )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF, ERIC J. KLACE, BY AND THOUGH IIIS GUARDI:JI AD
LITEM, LARRY KLOCK, ALLEGES AGAINST DEFENDANT SUSAN DIANE SACKETT
A14D DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, FOR NEGLIGENCE:
1 .
That. the true names or capacities, wnether inaividuni., j
1
corporate, associate or otherwise of defendants DO'S 1 through i
100 inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who' therefore sues said
defendants by such fictitiuut; names. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and therefore allrges that each of the defendants desi6
i
CZ7
nated herein as a Doe is legally responsible in some manner for
the events and Ivtppenings herein referred to, and legally caused
injury and damages proximately therohy to plaintiff as herein al-
leged.
2.
That at all times herein mentioned, defendants, SUSAN
DIANE SACKETT, and Does 1, 2, 3, and 4, and each of them, were
owners of the motor vehicle, hereinafter referred to and
generally described as a 1979 Ford Stationwagon, California
License Dumber 710 YIJ.
3.
Th; t Does 1 through 100 were the agents and employees
of defendants, and were at all tines herein mentioned, acting
within the scope of their agency and employment.
4.
That at all times herein mentioned Baseline Road, East
of Vi6eyard, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a public street
and highway within the judicial district of the above - entitled
Court.
5.
That at all times herein mentioned, defendants, SUSAN
DIAt:E SACNETT, or Doe 1, was driving the aforedescribed motor ve-
hicle with the consent and permission and knowledge of each of
the. rer :wining def ^ndants.
6.
That on or about October 15, 1902; al. approximately
2:13 pti, the plaintiff was legally crunning Gasoline Road, in
Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California.
7
That at said time and place, the defendants, an each of
then, so negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove and
operated their said motor vehicle so as to pro;:i;aately cause saio
motor vehicle to collide with plaintiff's body, and so as to
proximately thereby cause the hereinafter described injuries and
damages to plaintiff.
8.
That as a proximate result of-the aforesaid acts of the
defendants, and each of then, plaintiff was hurt and injured in
plaintiff's health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to
plaintiff's body and shock and injury to plaintiff's ne'rvous sys-
tem and person, and all the injuries have caused and continue to
cause plaintiff great mental and physical pain and suffering and
nervousness. Plaintiff is informed and believes" and therefore
alleges, that the injuries will result in some permanent disabio
lity to the plaintiff, all to plaintiff's general damage in -ex-
cess of the sum required for jurisdiction in the Superior Court
in the State of California.
9.
That as a further proximate result of the aforesaid
acts of the defendants, and each of thorn, plaintiff. was required
to and did and continues to employ physicians and surgeons to ex-
anine, treat and care for plaintiff, and did and continues to in-
cur medical and incidental expense which will he shown according
to Proof.
30. i
That as a further proximate result of the aforesaid'
r�
acts oC the de(cr,dants, and each of their,, plaintiff was prevented
frog attending to plaintiff's usual occupation for a periud of
time sustaining a loss of earnings and earning capacity in an
amount to be shown according to proof.
11.
Larry Klock has been duly appointed an Guardian ad Li-
ter by a judge of the above- entitled Superior Court.
MH EREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against the de-
fendants, and each of Item, for:
I. General Ee ❑ages in excess of the sun required for
Jurisdiction in the Supsrioc Court in the State of California;
2. All loss cf earnings and earning capacity, nedical
expenses, and all incidental expenses according to prop[;.
3. 1511 costs of suit incurred herein; and,
4. For such ether and Curther relief as the Court
deems proper.
PLAI11TIFP, ERIC J. KLOCK, INVAIJD THROUGU HIS GUARDIAN
AD L'CTEa, LARRY K(,OCY, A :6EGE'S AGAINST DHFrI:DANTS CITY OF RANCH0
CI;CT.! :OI :GA, COUNTY OF SA'.: HERNARDII +O, STATE OF CALI.QRt11A, ALTA
ID14A HIGH SCHOOL, CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGII 5010011 DISTRICT, AND
1T�ES 26 TIIROUGII 100, INCLUSIVE: '
12.
plaintiff inccrporates by reference as though set forth
t❑ fUii the I'aracrapho 1, 2, 3, 4, Sr 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
13.
The defendants„ and each of then,'ownc'd' controlled
suporvised, de: :igw!d, re; :airu d, maintained and inspected the
above *eferenccd roadway.
N/
14 .
That on or about October IS, 1982, at approximately
2:13 Pri, a minor plaintiff was riding his bicycle at or near the •
above location. A 1979 Ford station'aag0r., California license
nunber 720 YIJ was being operated by SUSAU DIANE SACKETT of 8358
Pumalo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, at or near the above
location. While said vehicle was being operated on the roadway
at or near the stated location, a raised portion of the roadway,
in combination with overgrown shrubbery, partially or totally ob-
structed and /or restricted the visibility of the existing poor
and inadequate warnings and the plaintiff ERIC J. KLOCK alleges
that the above facts independently caused or did cause, in combi-
nation with the negligence of SACKETT, the Sackett vehicle to
collide with and injure ERIC J. KLOCK.
15.
The plaintiff's injuries wore brought about as a resulo
of the negligent driving by defendant Sacke Lt, and /or the impro-
per design, construction, maintenance, inspection, repair and /or
supervision of said roadway, as well as other factors of negli-
gence still under investigation.
16.
Prior to the accident, the minor plaintiff was exiting
the parking lot of l,lta Loma liigh School, a member of Chaffey
.loini.. Union School District. Along with the, aforementioned rea-
sons, the plaintiff's injuries were brought about as a result of
improprz!r maintenance, inspection and supervision of the means by
Which individual;; enter and leave the school grounds, as well as
other factors of negligence still under investigation. 0
h7
17.
plaintiffs have filed the government claim required by
the Government Code of the State of California and said claims
have either been expressly rejected or rejected by operation of
1 ati:.
t•ME:2EpoRL7, plaintiff' prays for judgment a9ainsC the de-
'fen.dants, and each of them, for:
1. General danages in excess of the sun required for
jurij;,liction in the Superior Court in the State of California;
2. All loss of earnings and earning capacity, medical
'expenses, aria all incidental expen=e_s according to proof;
3.. All costs Of suit incurred herein; and,
A. For such other and further relief as the Co;:rt
deem,; proper.
PLAINTIFF, LARRY KLOCE, FOR A Ti1IRO CAUSE OF f1CTION AL-
LEGES AGAINST ALL DEFEUDANTS.
• 1C. •
P]aintiff incorporates as though set forth in fall
herein the entire First and Second Causes of Action.
19.
The plaintiff, Larry Klocr.., alleges that as a result of
the injuries to the minor, Eric J. Klock, said Larry Elock has
Eacen forced to incur medical and hospital expenses in excel, of
the :f +h� juri•:dictionnl regciror L•: of the State of
California awl continuing which Will n^ according to proof
aC Linn of trial.
47N E;HI;tn I'. F., plaintiff prays for judgncnt against the de-
fendants, and rach or them, for:
1<
I . General damages in exce�n 61c ^.m required for
jurisdiction in the superior Cour': in the State of California;
2. All loss of earnincs and earning capacity, medical .
expenses, and all incidental expenses according to proof;
3. All costs of suit incurred herein; and,
4. For such other ar] further relief as the Court
deems proper.
DATED: HAY 9, 1963
LAW OFFICES OF HEEPERT HAFIF
•
1�9
CLAIM PH DAMAGE OR INJURY
1. Claims for death, injury to person, or to personal property must be filed no later
than 100 days after the occurrence (Cov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed no later than 1 year the
occurrence (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2).
TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CHAFFE'i JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL 211 W. 5th St.
DISTRICT and ALTA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL Ontario, CA. 91762_ N/A
Same of Clatcant Address Zip Phone Age
'KINKLE, ROD) :GER AND SPRIGGS
3393 Fourteenth Street, Riverside, CA- 92501
Address to which Claimant wishes notices sent.
FILCH did damage or injury occur? October 19, 1982 at approximately 12:A2 p.m_
WERE did damage or injury occur? Baseli.nn Avenue, approximately 257 feet west of
Vineyard Avenue, Ranc o Cucamonga, CA.
BON and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? Claimants were served with
a Summons and Complaint in the case of Ivie vs. City o? RancTi <: Cu�+amonna, et al
of Summons anc Complaint attached hereto) . The Summons and Complaint were sery
tow an•.V'.-ro`errotl Rn r I -Ity o
Pencin CLcamcxxga and its agents and employees. The claimant in no way committed _
WFUT particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or
OFmjury? (Include names of employees, if known).
prop�r_de-
1( n. construrtion, maintenance, inspection, repair and/or supervisi
of t_�a_ roa�l a anil othor__pu i(_ �r ,,ts near the scene, of the accident described
above.
FHAT son do you claim? Include the estimated amount of any prospective loss, insofar as
it may be known at the tire of the presentation of this claim, together with the basis of
co::putation of the• amount claimed. (Attach estimates or bills, if possible).
Imdemnity in the amount in excess of =1,022,E28.60
Total Amount Claimed:
NAMES and add,^ecssea of witne:;nen, doctors, and hospitals:
Glenn David_MCCorkol, 1920 Ha_cie_nda_H_eights, CA.; Jill Marie
Ivic, 8488 Pumalo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.; Jack Page, 10066 Lavine St.,
Ranpl:_ Cucamnn(L, CA.: _Alma Ancrc lie n_Delapicdra, 5955 Da r. tmoth Sty - R_tncho
Cucamonga, CA.; F.ilipe Delopiedra, 5955 Dartmoth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT and ALTA LOMA HIGH
• Ua tt Signature of Cla[7'ant00I
303070 -RC(H)
.VERETT L. SPRIG
_ Attorney for Claimant
any acts of affirmative negligence or misconduct and if liability is shown to
claimant in the above - referred to action, the claimant will be vicariously
negligent and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is therefore liable tO indemnify
and hold claimant harmless from the claims made by the plaintiff.
•
Kim Uanisc Fishar, 10240 Stafford Streot, Rancho Cucamonga, CA.; C. I1, Urbaue
California Ifighway Patrol, T.0. MUOOSB
Doctors and Ilor.pitals; unknown at the present time.
„eb xDDnFSS (..%/anoln YEiEnnpbt NO
rD•coon Wr O ^'r —_-
IAW OFFICES OF 11F.RBURT RAFIF (714) 62: -1671
269 1•:CSt Bonita Avenue
P.O. Hox 910 .
Cl a.emon C, Ca. 91711
x1 r•.r orm.n wYOac•.1r..IOr a.•mn,n .. ,1,avY,r nnrr n: snnl •Yrnm
SUPERIOR COURT, STATr. OF CALII'ORNIA
IN AND MR THE CO(A:7'Y OF SAN R(JRNA1101NO
JILL MARIE IVIE and RICHARD P. IVIL
-
-- i�
uErrrAUa
CITY OF' RANCHO CUCAMONGA, et al.
NO TICF. AND SCK(IOIYLECG(l.ENT OF RECEIP'i
d " °N °'” "'
31037
TO. ClfZkf;FLY, JOINT,UNION )RIG {I SCHOOL, DISTPICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•, (1.1111 nsmr ol.ny.q,ral a :nl I!rrrEl
This Summons and Other docornonl(s) indic a led belcx are being served pur uant to Ser, lion 415 3g o: Ine CaWornia
COO of C1v11 Prr: Cell lire. Your failure to complete Ihrs form and return d Io me within :,J days may subject you (or
Inc party on vrhose behoit you no being served) to babAdy for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a
summons on you in any other manner permitted by la::
11 yam are being sawed on behalf of a corporation, unir,:WporAted asoclatron (Including a partnership), or other
enl ;y. this torrn must be a3 ^ed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of
process on behalf or such entity In a!l other Cases, this'orm must be signed by you personally or by a person a,Ihanzed
by you to acknoraN Ipv rvi:vipt of summons Section 415.30 pfoyij LS that this summons and other dPcumenl(s) are
deemed serrsd on the date you s,;n the Acknaxledomup: of Recelpi below, if you return this form to me.
D:• +.d Dane 10, .19(1.3. . . . . . . N-11 `11 �T`'� -tee.
(swll -la V1 : :•r14y)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
Tm•, aek•lowl -d5;es rec npl of (io be comp Ietrtl by sender before malling) '
1. ER-1 A copy of the summons ar. I of the complaint
2. C 1 A copy of he summors and of the Petition (M1arnage) and;
Ota nk Cnnhdenual Commsebng Statement (t•larnage)
(_7 Ordw to Shax Cause (Mernage)
[_j plank Fm.pnnslve Derlarntun
(_ MU-i4 r Innncl :d Derta >d.'nl .
(Y.iopWr (:)pnnly) NOTACF OF' STATEPI'ENT CONCERNING NATURE TND AMOUNT OP DMAGE
tee n. eo Mal.44 rr uela•nO
Di: P' oI recrvpl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. D,•lc this form 1s s.,
��• Is "; 111 D•'r ryn.ny rr •. 1•fr4
/:.mr Mr OyMfnl r51T )rl•rM Dr�al1 YI rnYlnlr [ "'r r: �)
l Y1 ^l a, 1 A.n, b, nxt41111 -11 .M n""
ye.+.pore mDrn _ - - -_ -- •••�� 11'.uil \nlr0.
,.v.; c. •,..• NOTICE. AIIDACKN07yLEDOAlE11TOFRECEIi'T 7rrri79R c.•....•;r.a .'
J OOrhyy OF AT TO AEY .o
OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF (714) 6::4 -1671
,9 Wn-st Bonita Avenue
,lare;nont, CA 91711
.11(i l reel K,J.nvl (714) 624 -1671
I,Mi.." r, Fowl NaK.A a \1•I :I p CrJnCIr [OUn, A a, • -j P.11 o[I.Ce ... !r ira r: A!0•kfa
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1540 N. Mountain Avenue
Ontario, CA 91762
np1YlIFF
JILL :LAi2IE IVIE and RICHARD P. IVIE
TO. moor us[ oNtr
.ESFNDANT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA^SOIQGA; COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; STATE OF CP.Y.IFOIC'iIA;
ALTA LO.HA HIGH SCHOOL; CI'IAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLENN
DAVID N.C.CORREL, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.
surikWO `s
NOTICE! You have been sued. Tha court may decide
against you without your being heard un!ess you respood
within 30 days. Read the information below.
It you A+ sh to seek inu advice of an attorney in this
matter, you should do so promptly so the! your wntten
respnns It any, may be filed on bme,
,A,:
iAV130! Usled ha sido demand•Jo. EI tribunal pu de
decidir contra Ud, sin audo.eW.i4,6 s qoe I re.
sponda Centro de 30 ditty. Lea Ia information but, sigue.
S: listed desea soficdar cl eons^io de in .bosado en
cs:e asun(o de.:eria hacerte mmedla;amvc te, do esa
roahera, su respuesta osvl!a. sl hay a;gur.a owed, set
reglsirada a bempo,
1. 70 Tfir DEff Nit , :T. A civil cornDlmnl hag been filed by the pl2midf agaws; you If you 11sh to defeni ;nls
you must within 30 days alter this summons Is served on you, Iris {vllh Mrs court if rosrense to Ine CDmplYmt
Unless you do so. your default 'ill bf: entered on application of the plaintiff, and this court may enter tt )u•]gment
agalnsi you for Ihv relief demanded io the complaint. III could result m is unrsnment 01 \wages, laemg of money '
or properly, or other relief requested In the complaint. ^ ,/
DATED,. .. .. .MAY 18 1983 Clerk, B� —/ C� /�, Joep'J ;y
J F :s.n�if�v {i(
2. NOTICE TO THE PERSON SE FIVED. You ale served
a Din An To mdrvrda.tl idel— dent
b G As the p ^rson wed un9e/ the I16hb Ot6 name of .
c [_)( w. b^half of
Under C.3C0P41B10(Cu.:.orallon) L-I CC'•41c G7 f ":''p)
C,.]C.G+I A114 %JfDe! \InLI COfpOr :Inn) []CCP,1670 (Ircompe ;cn ;)
L_ 1(: Cn41L40(lcs :rla'wnorPaWIVIstup) ( )CCP41eb0pndrrduYl
ED Othell]uhl.ic Entity CCP 415.30 and 416.50
d [:] t.y personal delh,ery on (Dade)
• w _ .u{I 1.•. n m 4n'\'r.4•J t�/ In• Cal nnlr.{ er Cie r II mu't 6" li :.� r -_ .•1 .r 1" 1'.r 1'r. r ;�Ir 1.. � 4
}_• 10 C4Jf • I: a n
I ....r :. A F rill n !n'._ I'. ; I f .•• .
ITG• ,rn<Il
rr.l
Y•• 111 .lr0..] .n7 rrr lr..•
l
J♦ r.n 1,/ 'IT "I'll
orJ~ "I....r.,
rt•urJl„
r...to \. .ert :.f n,
.aril, rr ell In•r trip n,rn1
I•Ifv ;Jn,n.. lu •v .reN ll•ren lln: I...n
,.IS777701g21
un AClS hy•
(51e I.,.n, lot ` IOiI a, Self•. 11
rprr•AC.,ra.n p: n•.._qe,
Offerefl
Offer
: �. __
_1
I
sun�oaor�s
L.a I••.It. 1r1.I n•CJ "I. le
N..r..at11.,...,n.,.,J., 1 ,e,4
Ci Crt, Ial: ):
JrS1,.
)NN)nl 1•e. Nat ��
•
•
t� 453'ACL ueLOW POR Fluae LrAtlr OILY,
1
' LAW OiFlCrl OY
I uratn:r.r tt +t')r
2
f R.sv n^AVa�uLN
CLARLM(INT. GALII'Oq N1A fl >tl
TILED
"AY 18 UJ3
Attorne :> for�Ia1
'Qtt„;19 •,,,`,�''_
e
II JvtJl UIJ1KIl,i
I `,'' `: COUNTYCLERK
- titer'`
.
7
..'
N .l
8'I
IN HE SUPERIOR.COURT OF Tr1E STATE OF CALIF'ORDIA '
9II
- --
I14 AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN PERNARDINO
1011
11
�1' W.'33
i J ?LL (1+'.RIE IVIF., and RICIIARD P. j C:,SE t10.: Qs+ v%
1911
WIP, )
13
Plaintiffs, ) C O :1 P L A I11 T
1`
V. ) PERSOSAL ?NJURIES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNC -A; COUNTY OF) '
•
15
SAN DERNT,RDIr;O;S:ATE or CALIFOlZNIA;)
ALTA LWIA HIM SCUOOL; CFV,FFF.Y )
16
I JC:i:': UNIO11 HIGII SCHOOL DISTRICT; )
DAVID MC CORF,EL, and DOES 1 )
17
through 100 inclusive, )
18
yefcndants___
19I
PLAINTIFF, JILL MARIE IVIE, ALLEGES AGAINST DEFENDANT '
20I
GLEVN DAVID MC CORKEL AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE,
I
21
FoP, 11EGLIGMICE: '
22
I
1
I
That the true name; or eap.,Ci LicS, wh0Lhnr individual,
24
; corporate, asz;nCiatc or othorwise of defendants DOES 1 through '
25
i00 inclu :;iva, are unjenovn to plaintiff who therefore sues said
PG
i lr,f ondants ley such fictitiouf; names. Plaintiff is informed and
27
I believe:; and t.herefure allo,os that each of the defendants, desi9-
•
2U
nated horcin as a Doc is legally resp-,om;ible in nume ranner for '
t
1
� ' -Z
( -c
the events and happenings herein referred to, and legally Caused
injL ry and da-ages pro ;:imatcly thereby to plaintiff as herein al-
leged. •
.2.
That at all times herein mentioned, defendants, GLENN
DAVID RCCORKEL, and Does 1, 2, 3, and 4, and each of then, were
owners of the motor vehicle, hereinafter referred to and
generally described as a 1960 Ford pickup Truck, California
License Nunber 687981.
i
3.
i
That Docs 1 through 100 were the agents and employees
of dcfendan "_-s, and were at all times herein mentioned, acting
iwithin the scope of their agency and employment.
I
4.
That at all tines herein mentioned Baseline Road, Easto
of Vineyard, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a public street
and 1149hway within the judicial district of the above - entitled
Court.
5.
That at all tines herein mentioned, defendants, GLE:111
DAVID ryCCOPKEL, or Doe 1, was driving the aforedescribed rotor
vehicle with the consent and permission and );nowledge of each of
the rer,aining dr.fend.;nla.
6.
That on or aboLt October. 19, 19 02, at approsinately
12:42 P11, the plaintiff vac legally crossing Baseline Road, In
Ranch() CLCanonga, County of ran Bernardino, California.
3/q
API
k. ..k k k
1 I 7.
2 i t• + t t'.:n defendants an -ach Of
That at swirl s: an� ? -ac", ,
theta, so r:gligcntly entrusted, nanaged, maintained, drove and
operated their said nc[o:: vehicle so as to proximately cause said
SI motor vehicle to collide with plaintiff's body, and so as to
bI proximately thereby cause the hereinafter described injuries and
7 damages to plaintiff.
B 8•
9 That as a proximate result of the aforesaid acts of the
. 10 d ^f�r.dant�, and each of then, plaintiff was hurt and injured in
11 plaintiff's health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to
12 i plai ntif f.'s•body and shoe},, and in to plaintiff's nervous Sys-
13 and person,
tee^, and all the injcries have caused and contit.ca to
1'll cause plaintiff great mental and physical pain and sufferin^ and
nervousness. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore
1u
a2le9es, that the injuries 'will result in s..me permanent disabr-
1 •I
lity to the plaintiff, all to plaint.iff's general damage in ex-
lb
11 cess of the sum required for jurisdiction in the Superior Cotrt
19
i in the State of California.
20 I 9.
21 I That as a ft'.rther proximate result of the aforesaid
2 L'
acts o,`. the defendants, and each Of them, plaintiff was requr =ed
2 :'I� h sicianc: and surgeons to ex-
to and' did and cattinucs to employ physician,,-,
2
amine, lrn_al •and Care for plaintiff, and did and continuen to n-
' I; cur rv<]ical and inr.idental •cr,pense which will be shown according
to proof.
That as a further proximate result of the aforesaid
IL.IKn�ILif
ji i/ sn loll '
I
acts of the defendants, and each of then, plaintiff was prevented
from attending to plaintiff's usual occupation for a period of
time sustaining a loss of earnings an earning capacity in an I
amount to be shown according to-proof.
ail i71EREF0RE, plaintiff prays for judgment against the de-
fendants, and each of them, for:
1. General damages in excess of the sun required for
jurisdiction in the Superior Court in the State of California;
2. All loss of earnings and earning capacity, nedical
I expenses, and all incidental expenses according to proof;
3. All costs of suit incurred herein; and,
4: For such other and further relief as the ,Court
deems proper.
PLAINTIFF, JILL t:ARIE ,IVIE, ALLEGES'AGAIIIST DEFENDA23TS
CITY OF RANCHO COCAVOUGA, COUNTY OF SAN BF.P.i:ARDIHO, STATE OF •
CALIFORNIA, ALTA LOMA 111011 SCHOOL, CIiAFFEY JOINT UNION HIG11
SC40O1; DISTRICT, AND ML•S 26 THROUGH 100, IVCLCSIVF,:
11.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though set forth
in full herein the Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
12.
The defendants, and each of then, owned, controlled
supervised, designed, repaired, maintained and inspecLCd the
above referenced roadway.
13.
That on or about October 19, 1982, at approxinatcly
12:49 wi, the plaintiff was crossing Haseline Road at or near the
ahovo location. 1. 1960 Ford Pickup Trt.Ct:, California license •
2-
,
1' m.r•! :ec• 687 ^9? rrns being operated by :L .:q DAvID ticCORF:Ci. of 1920
g i gcllcrt�n Uri ve, Racienaa Heights, Califernia, at or neat' the t
• 3 above location. Uhile said vehicle was beiny o, nra ted on the I
rcad:.ay at or near the stated location,
a rained portion of the
b roa6wav, in combination with Overgrown shrubbery, partially or
g totally obstructed and /or restricted the visibility of the exist-
, inq roar and inadequate warnings and the plaintiff JILL, ht ?RIE
g I I!'IE alleges that the abo' ✓c facts independently caused or did
g I caeso, in combination with the negligence of rJeCORR °L, the
10 l t'.ccorkcl vehicle to collide with and injure JILL MARIE IVIE.
11 i 1S.
12 1 The plaintiff's injuries were brought about. as a result
defendant ticcorkel, and /or the inpro-
13 j of the negligent driving by I
14 I'� per design, construction, r..aintenante, inspection, repair and /or
15 supervision of said roadway, as well as other Factors of. negli-
•li. I, gaps+ still under investigation. I
I: 15.
1R Prior to the accident, the plaintiff was crossing
Ijl
L Raseline Road directly in front o£ Alta' LOna Fiigh School, a men -
20 I ber of Chaffey Joint Union School District. Along with the
21 P .aforementioned reasons, the plainti£f's'injurics were brought
22 about as a result o£ improper naintenance, inspection and saner -
I!
23 J!: Of the means by which individuals enter and leave the i
Y. ✓: II school grO:.nc'.::, as well as Other taccors of I�r.,:ligence et"I
' OCT investigation. ,
2C
lf.
27 flr,intiffs have tiled thr.• govnrn:;ent claim reciuired by
ail 11 'the covcrnn,ant Code of the State of Cnliforuia and said clains
Il.rka Il.(d
ek „Nr�r „ + i•
'+ ITN/ �N.HiI li
t
have either been expressly rejected or rejected by operation of
law.
1PIEREFORE, plaintiff prays for jcdg!ient against the d�
fenddants, and each of theta, for:
1. General Oawaces in excess of the sum required for'
jurisdiction in the Superior Court in the State of California;
2. All loss of earnings and earning capacity, medical'
expenses, and all incidental expenses accordirg to proof;
3.. All costs of suit incurred herein; and,
4. For such other and further relief as the Court
deems proper.
�• P.LAII1TIFF, P.ICiIAPD P.IVIE, FOR A THIRD CAUSE. OF ACT I i07
ALLEGES AGAINST ALL DF.FENDA21TS.
17.
,.laintiff incorporates as though set forth in frill
herein the entire First and Second Causes of Action. •
18. 1
The plaintiff, Richard?. Ivie, alleges that as a re-
SLlt of the injuries to his dar.ghtor, Jill Its rie Ivic, said i
Picharcl P. Ivie has been forced to incur medical and hospital ex-
penses in excess of the sun of the jurisdictional requirements of
the State of California and continuing which will be shown aceor-
I
dinp to proof at tine of trial.
i
;.,i i(Ift;FO RE, plaintiff prays for jLCignent a,ta inst the CC-
Pendants, and oach of thl:m, for:
1. Coner l damages in cxc.ess of the sun required for ;
i r.d ietion in the superior COLrt in the State of California; {
2. All loss of earning-, and earnir.q LapaciLv, rnedil-
1
2
0
7
3�9
10
11'
12
13
1&
15
• 1G,
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
2 n, 7
2r, II
2G
i�
27 f
, n,rO +,rrr�rr 1
rw trnr rrnn r. •vt.
twou.rr,
``wxvwu .I m j
'1f1a1 oft�la91
Y'
1
exponses, and all incidenta, expenses accorlin^ to proof;
Prll costs of scit incLvred h;:rein; and,
A. For such other and further relief as the Coot
c.ee, a ?roper. .
QBT6Q: ;V%Y 17, IDP3
1
LF.S' OFFICES OF IIE' @R">- -.R2 RAFIF
I.
IwPACC i^^E��LOiV POII FILI \C STAMP ONLY)
.
HU O50N. JOHNSTON 4 NAZEN
Ox,Anlo AlnMwi O[nrtlli
WI. l
.
Z I; ]]> Novx Vmvww. Wrt[ iol
ornu no[ ][e>
i� ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA i17i1
3 it pin u�.wnlo
I�
4
"
rt ncn my
5 I; Attnrneva fm—
nLwSON SANCHEZ, �r, b E D
;I DAN ?EL SANCHEZ and RUTH SANCHEZ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-
6 i;
AOMINISTRA'NON
7 II
JUL 261983
MA PY
8
7@01b1ll12111213141516
i
9
10
_
11
In thn matter of the claim of
) CLAIM NO.
12
DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ,
) CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC ENTITY
II
13
DANIEL SANCHEZ and RUTH
)
SANCHEZ
)
14 I
•
]5!1
DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ,
DANIELS SANCHEZ and RUTH SANCHEZ,
16%
hereby make claims against the ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF
17
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, and THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, for the sum of
�I
18
!Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000.00) for special damages for
19 ;j
DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ, and,
EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
20 i!
($800,000 00) for general damages for DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ.
21 ',I
Further, that Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) each for
I
22j
special damages for DANIEL SANCHEZ and RUTH SANCHEZ, and, Fifty
°';i
Thousand Dollars($50,000.00)
each for general damages for DANIEL
24
jISANCHE7. and RUTH SANCHEZ, and
make the following statements in
d5 support of the claim.
26 1. Notices concerning
the claim should be sent to HUDSON,
.
27 JOHNSTON & HAZEN, 337 North
Vineyard Avenue, Suite 201, Ontario,
28 I California 91761; Attention:
THOMAS R. HUDSON, Esq.
2. The occurence giving rise to this claim occurred on j=e
19,_1983, on Hermosa Avenue near its intersection with Wilson •
Avenue, in -the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino,
State of California.
3. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follow:
Claimant, DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ, was a#pasr:enger in a motor
vehicle, traveling southbound on Hermosa Avenue, at or near the
intersection of Wilson Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
County of San Bernardino, State of California. The automobile
when traveling southbound hit a portion of the roadway surface
which was covered with dirt and debris on the west side of the
street causing the vehicle to go out of control. Further that
the east edge of Hermosa Avenue was also bordered by mounds of
dirt and exposed concrete curb, making it impossible to bring
vehicle back into control. There were no barricades nor warnings
up aC that time warning drivers of this dangerous condition.
4. Such claim, as of this date, is for Two Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($200,000.00) for special damages for DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHI
and, EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($800,000.00) for general dam-
ages for general damages for DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ. Further, thal
Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) each for special damages
for DANIEL SANCHEZ and RUTH SANCHEZ,. and. FIFTX. THOUSAND. AO.LLARS. ..
($50,000.00) each for general damages for DANIEL SANCHEZ and RUTH
SANCHEZ, the parents of the minor claimant, DEBRA THOMPSON SANCHEZ
DATED: July 20, 1983 Respectfully submitted,
HUDSON, JOHNSTON 6 HAZE_N,• --)
By
Attorneys for Claimants
)II -2-
0
6
1 It
COPY_.„: „_�.r,. I. _.wr
AIIlFU1mN FOR AECONOLIC MIRAGS IKFNS1131
I, lY[FISI Of IICENSFISI
FILE NO
L: I>., I-- l el Al-Tel. E..vog m
F Cael
RECEIPT NG,
I"I Needwvr
wll”
Se'.. Calif. 9331E 'A'' p- "O
.6E ple Vrnq[nl
GfOGF4>HICAL
•......•.....ua
„, lo.
I..r..J.
CODE )JOY
De„
—td ...brepel
Lnnra 4rcnb.d er lelb r
Wide, Sec. Q
bored
2, NANOSI Of AiNKANi(S)
Lmp Eumn
.
l4:ItY.: \L <OIN:IIllr ^.: S:VI D L :C. _
edo4
ERNY. Ce.
FM[u.e Dore
x Lrla4ate Cbpnmb,en)
3 1YKItl OI TIANSACiIONi,
lfF
LK
K
-13
I
4 Name el !norm
w
�� _L C � ll
,
.
S 1-.- o1 Rm�nrD -Nambv eM slip.
X V
'14ppN
ILO c.,[DO1Lm
— _Jqp,�SI1��4yy6��6��9�"�0p"�
All
MW�F�r'NryY„F�E
Fil
Ylil
cry aM I.0 Cad. Ce.nry
. n nrv..vnc 91701 sic
r � TOTAL
._
SM1a. Srq nr UN, m, 2:- 6:3163 /p
E Mahn Ad..... IA diR.nnl! rem S)- N—ter, oM SINN
.. S. Tn JLWM r Cgl[ 0r A Fldz, 9_°S,
9, Na.. Yo. .m been [ana[Na W o rapnrr ID ilex. MN ..v NNOba oq el X„ pe.N:em er M. A,.,pbr
• ^ ”, I. F. All AFI er rp.loliom el IM OFpemmm p.r.
li /A Mmrp le X.. 1,.1 �n
11. F.pa.n a `YES" nnr..r le N. p er ID en en Nlgfim.m ..646 IMII be d.rmed pe,1 W Ye oppEN,,W,
IL Appl„..I Ipre., lal 11.1 v.. m nag^ —RIerN, n axwk Ij,,e, pr.me Fa.. OII M. peebfi[opanr w
,and
@I r6n1 M .AI ne .eleb . er p.rmn to be �Nmed enr er IM .... r er iL. Almboll_M_ereq. [nmrel AN,
mnn
11 STATE Of CALIFORNIA Coenlr or ,�Jn.Pinn ........ ......... .PoN _ q [y�� ,
ee
.w.........,. ... ..rn..i ...n... a. r ...w�„ . r,..... .... .. ... ...a
11 APPLICANT
SIGs HERE ..._--4---
.�9 ..............- __.,...___... ....__.,, ,.._._..........._..._.........
IA:,i3. zm= 3:'C .. --------------- ----------- _------- ..._._..-----------------
..
j APRICAYION BY TRANSFSROR
ES SiRif Or CALIFORNIA Cenry. l .... .S dm ........._.._.. ..... .... _.1.-
----- .
T J-
I w...n . r. i,.......» » .... v n.. x r n »..... ....«.« . ......... ..... .v ....ee ..u.... .... r . nu........... r
Id 19-111 a1 1<r —.10 17 Sanela„lJO1lken,rekl
C J
ATIGr)J. (:NVi.III!`K I: F'lttl:':fi If'C.
T�.
(��+ \- 'fT.yy-
Humps ale "II CHY and Iip Cod. CevnF
32. ,1 f Cai,S. -- — 1ne SutnmcF_._ ,
IT. V.,wN,R"N' ibb 1, Vary FaglhRrNLmml OF Only - --
AIMe.A F1 Nr.m.e neq., /•:—n:.
�rj �fJ )��g /gi
❑ ..... ..... 7 N 1 CONES MAII(D X3fjc�,�ikXiX$G XXAM*AW XXIXR
)
_____ __ __ _____ __ m
.. I A .. R
Q Rm.ma6lre el...._......f`e p A �% .. .:.....f, pAV. en 'Jloipr Ne '•`)
s
•
9
ct •% &A,
bR4CAr1ON FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SICSNSS(S)
ru: apo•rmml ur Al.elgl,[ S..pnp. C -..,
IDJI Meed.w
Sarm.me, Cdl DNIS SA. _
IM unJ.npM Aw.b I epGMap
lu.mu dor,bN et lelb -•:
I IYI+IS Ci IICINSE S,
qLE NO
Op
Appl•N uMw Sw 1104
lfwr,.. DOn. 1_n,r;
gEcNn NO
1 �..] +
GEOCRAPHICAL
CODE ]::15 .
Don
lgeN
]. NWf151 Of ArRIGN1131
r.mp r.rma
fnecxr. 0ert
e CaC; ^.;.Zd Lt'•'InP. . \'iJ ^ ^I,I!:', ""' ^,::
7•!C.
] IYffISI Of TPANSACIIONISI
fEE
LIC
lYp
^pCP.9.-
F t�nn
y
Ve�l/�3 rb LSYLL °i !.LC60[lce ret A.
STOCBiiJLJLP.S:
-.._,r •(. °• -et..- a .,..
I
1 Nem. 01S ,.
ea;oeap.;yipax4.tS11wRx5xMEAf1 li, rr�ovp=
S l.aa+en el Wx,.a.- NUmb.•eN SmX Li.juo[S
10277 Foothill rllvd.
—
CM eM i.p CN. '.ou•ry
ee: +� n _ y11yry�.i1L ^ ^_^—•Y
__. TOTAL
7t. ^b
Au M1emner'nu
9 Xm11W Irn Ue.. •an.•(NJ q a IeM11 m. Fu ..rr Melva e ♦ prerixoq er rx. A4Melirt
Mera I Cemrel Arr p rpubnem el •M Drperrmem prr
Iwn,ry la rAe 1qr -.
11 Mpla,n A "YES" .,,— n ,nmr D e• 10 w. — enpFmmr -Arch doll M d .m pqn q rlxr P,I... -
12 APol4eq egren Eel rMr eny me„epu .mpbyN m emwb Lwnxd pemne• vAI be.e ell Me gwl,f¢q,en• el a M.nln, eN
(bl aq M -el n :qn .1 c w 11. ro b. n.Iu n ql dl paanam al rhf Alegh.l•< Mero4e Ce ^••el Ao.
IS STATE Of CALIFORNIA C..,, el .... :1➢.:.LrX rdi..l'O .... .ben.. .7/.13/2.1.
.. p.. n..- r ,r ,.. .....r..r......- .....na.. ... w. ,.. w,.r .... a „....... ....w .- ,--Lr .
le APPLICANT '
r, r
SIGNNFIIf ....... .. ............. . L .._..a /' .._......................... ....... .. .. .
... -.... .
ARKICATION BY TRANSFEROR
IF STAN or CALIFOP4u Cw..ry q.il:L!!=,ARnI :;p .............. 0.•. -------- ] ---------
16 Nnm• .11Y.••- •.••••a.,.n .u'. .^'e^'• I1 S,gna rrL1 :'Ir ,10 IS Lc •Numbw(J
— = : ^;c. l„r_.t.� - -- — —' - -- — cm— %F RANCHO CU Mfid'1.11)
MI00I5TRAT1°�
-- — — — —- —_.._ 191yg{ry -- —
w tF «..o _._ _— N.,me.. �..e ir•..� — . ___ on e,d ¢,p �ea.71e191 ICf11P1�1618
n, Vn: X'•iu Prinn trot I;nrl For Mm"—w r "od,
�; Ndutaq pnp..v I I
[� ............ ...._.WC- alh_�.? _EOrles rnutm .._..... .._7,'L` /., }.... _�..��
❑ Mm.. II.. N..........) ae. ............................ Or.. a^................. B.c«p No ....... ........ .......
a_.
I i. I.:
m
.: =_a
I
0
0
J
v
COPY__Ma�..._..:
ec.'• Imo,, •.``^`�, {,` [�pR����^��''_r�`�(
A IM wM�.,W Mi-IY rr�I.wm�
RPPIrCATSON IM MCON3[1C MINAN LNIH3t131
i, ttpE131 Of UCINSFIS)
flit NO,
- -•_.
re: Oep«Inwr el M,oMk b.wep. Ca;ud
NCIIrt NO
lool
S.oww, C.N. gN _.n P =rU_n_
rr
(.t4.iIlAMIKAI
IM ngwWad A«.bl..Plnr la
Dm
k.mel /.wnSed w /eN..n
AppW ad« 3a. 2q 4 0
Nre.t
3. NAMe1S1 Of AMKANf(3)
T" I«nr
—' --
,�
tm.x.. p.l..
n ie.v i�R.3 : "In �, T' 1
S. iHtf51 Or iRANAtrgry3l
fit
l
7.1;t,pl.
'
r
A Naw N IUUp... -.
- --
-
S, laden N Mnn. -N.nS« .nt SNM
i€itsw W u�ypYRaRleitw3aa
CA eM Yp Cea. C.
e3pem • ���wws •.Sri ^..A >.awn lnM
rOTAI
I
, :a
3. NNI:q Adsnw p1 iR.nUr Nw s1JleMSw.n1 S.r..l H•11;N+r
P, lie.. leU ...r b... rwwrrN a . M1Mryt lo, rl«v ru m. dU1pM wn d IM p..fiwU N Xn AkM.4
NIA N"'^t r^ IM ArH M w r.p.wywernrinu 0.jO1r*«H M
lit. plm.- nY......NwUNr «Ip.n ««rwlm.;,r.N[n ✓,.n e. e..m.�p.n NrNr apW.r'sn. ,
I}, Appl..1 epw\ (w rM eq inwiopn .wplor.rl M wr.p4 Ik.nMG 1. n:ll Ma...1 To "Illw .1
RI lha M .;II .a .v4N _= " p^TF ro 3. MN.I.d .10 M. pwlrom N IM Almndy Mw!K �.Ca Mr.
13. 3G1t CM CIVIORNN <wnry N LT. y4 yy 7 i-,.l
.; .•Fr. ww. n.w .u.n ww• .w..Aw�� .r +r+.... w
.V.• + r� �Y'�+ .•.w'n n... .�..w...... M .:. wp•.. w Fr.... Ai M � Ir .../ w w
_. w•r.+. +•.4 � s ro�M1 +r ti +wr ir.i
«r• wu.w. h n. w. w •wkw .uN.M1 n � w. «.w++. w w .e'^�M �� .w w. s.i• � tiMww w w
w.w �• �ln ,VUt�l.'Mel urlor.[1,.w'��` a. F .one. -. F +� « r... w +. F.... w n ...w.. wrr w
Il AMICAW
SIGN N!M
.•rn A. 4mi, rt:acropt 3WRbn
APPLICATION AT TRANSTSROM
S. SIAi1 OF [AIIIORMA C..nrp N OsN
4n Nin. w..e• F w. F.rww�p nnw nn ^M +�+�M p I e z .....
. •�^ , +N ✓w ..w. nw•..•n entice r In
R{,..M Syr.
...1�D� ...•
M NM SYMr Mme TAlr I.iw; Fn17)r'p1HMIM 1'.e aNy
An.rAN. n hro-AM m!ke.
n rNwal p.y.H. . ^IIRNICT .TIL ?M" ,
... ....... ... canes ASAntR ,. 1
tip
r) ON 1 ew M
•
•
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY 01'' RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 3, 1983
City Council and City Manager
(� C9
F p Z
1977
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
Alta Loma Channel Assessment District Authorization to Begin Second
Phase
The contract with Don Owen and Associates contemplated two phases for the
Assessment District for the Alta Loma Channel. The first pFlse was initial
review and development of the Assessment Spread with workshops with developers
and property owners to assess the viability of the District. At completion of
tnis phase, the Council has the option of terminating proceedings or
continuing to the final District formation hearing. To prepare for this
hearing, the consultant will be required to prepare the formal Engineer's
Report, the 1931 Act Debt Report, prepare formal notices and conduct several
more property owner workshops.
The consultant has prepared his evaluation of the District at the current time
in the attached letter. Based on contacts to date, we can anticipate less
than a 10 percent protest.
It is Staff's opinion that the proposed District remains the best means of
dealing with the Alta Loma Channel District and recommends authorization to
proceed to the District formation hearing as soon as possible.
Phase 11 of the consultant work will not exceed 516,000.00 as stipulated in
the original agreement attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend authorization to direct Assessment DistricL Engineer to proceed with
preparation of the necessary documents to hold public hearings on the Alta
Loma Channel Assessment District.
Respectfully submitted,,
L8 a
Attachments
%q 7
I$D o DON OWEN & ASSOCIATES INC.
July 13, 1983
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Post Office 807
Rancho CUamonga, California 91730
Dear Lloyd:
This letter represents a progress report on the assessment engineer-
ing work on the Alta Loma Channel. At this point, we have ompleted two
workshops with property owner. within the proposed .a- ssessiert boundaries.
The first wor;:shop was arranged through the BIA and was attended by five
landowners. In addition to the BIN meeting, I have discussed the
proposed mthod of spread with nine additional landowners.
• On July 12, 1983 following notice to all landowners of record, we
met with 14 residents and landowners within the area. By my estimate,
there are sere 80 individuals who are landowners within the area and we
have therefore met with approximately 358 of the individual people who
own lard within the proposed Alta Lom Assessment District.
There will be about 600 acres available for assessment for the
project after appropriate adj+tstments. Engineering studies still under
way have placed the approximate cost of the project and incidentals at
.,:,:,mot $4,000,000. This would indicate an assesaient of approximately
$6,700 per acre.
The ownership pattern of the assessment district indicates that
three individuals own 172 parcels out of a total of 240 parcels. These
three individuals are: First Ir- state Bank, Crocker Banc, and Dick
Scott. In terms of area, developers represented through the BIA own
approximately 538 of the total area, approximately 320 acres.
At thc present tin, my est imate of acceptance by the landowners is
as follows:
1. Protest - 58
2. No Protest - 53%
3. Unknown - 428
2061 Business Center D„ve, Smte 203 • Irvine, CS I,fornia 92715 • (714) 752 -9082
{ 7-
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City of Rancho Cucamonga
.July 13, 1983
Page Two
It is somewhat disappointing that our noticed workshop did not
receive more attendance. It leaves us in a position with a relatively
large unknown area which may or may not protest the assessment district.
From my previous experience, I find that the real ir`e est in a project
of this nature is generated upon the notice of preliminary assessment
which includes an estimate of the assessment for each parcel. I would
recomned that we proceed with the preparation of the 1931 Debt Report
and the Assessment Report and give preliminary notice of assessment. We
should also schedule an additional workshop approximately three weeks
before the public hearing and protest hearing. The estimated assessment
per parcel should be either conservative enough to acct modate adjust -
Rp is between the workshop and the protest hearing or the City should be
prepared to make a City contribution W take up any necessary adjust-
ments. The Hain argument that I expect to be advanced by the protestants
is that a substantial portion of the project costs should be borne by
existing development and that the assessment district should be postponed
until after the City's benefit assessment election is ommpleted in
Novmber. There will be some argument that major developers should bear .
the entire costs of the project and parcels five acres and smaller
should be exm pt. There are several alternatives that could be developed
to offset the expected protest. However, in terms of total area protests,
I believe that the alternatives would generate even greater protests
from others within the proposed district boundaries. The final decision
on this can be reached in the time between the proposed additional
workshop and the protest hearing.
We are proceeding with negotiations with major landowners in
relation to laid dedication requirements to the project. I have an
additional meeting set up with the landowners adjacent to Almond Street
for the proposed addition of Almond Street pavement within the project.
I have met with Joe Nicosia in regard to intract inprovements to be
added on to the proposed assessment district and I have a meetinq
scheduled with Dick Scott for additional intract facilities on his
development.
Under my contract wir h the City, we have reached the point where
the City should deci,:r. whether or not they wish to proceed with the
assessment. My remnnnJdation is to proceed in the nnanner set forth
above.
•
�. Q
0
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City of Rancho Cucamolwa
July 13, 1983
Page Three
If you desire Wore detailed information on the progress of the
assessment proceedings, I Mould suggest a meeting. Please advise me on
how you Mould like to proceed.
IM:rs
cc: Larry Rolapp
F. MacKenzie Brown
•
E
i �T
W
0
c t
C. Tne Consalrant shall perform in a diligent manner the follow-
ing services:
1. Assemble, review, $nd analyze all available financial
engineering, legal, and ecomnic data and information which may
have a bearing on the program for the financing of the Alta Lam
Flood Control Channel.
2. Prepare a preliminary spread of assessments and pan:icipate
in workshop programs as delineated in items 1. through S. in
Attachment A.
3. Prepare a preliminary engineers report on the spread of
assessmnts among property owners within the benefited area and
conduct those item as set forth between items S. and 16. as set
forth in Attacj=nt A.
4. Assist in the sale of said bonds and other activities as
generally set forth in items 18. through 25. in Attachment A.
lam
Fee for services performed under this contract shall be paid
monthly by the city upon receipt of an invoice by the Consultant based
upon the fee schedule in the Attachment A.
The fee for the t+ork conducted pursuant to iWms I. through S.
Of Attachmnt A will ML t.<ceed $9,00^ and the Consultant will not
proceed bcyoni this point without written instructions to proceed from
the City.
�n -2
c c
Upon receipt of written instructions to proceed on the second •
phase, items 9. through 18. of the AttachTent A, the City will pay as
per the attached fee schedule monthly upon the receipt of the invoice.
The total amount not to exceed $16,000 for the second phase of Mork.
The Consultant may proceed or. the third phase of Mork in the interest of
achieving the proposed schedule but will not be entitled to convensation
until such time as notice to proceed on the sale cf bonds is presented
by the City. (Such notice to be constituted by confirmation of the
assessment at the public hearing.)
Payment for services related to the bond sale will be provided from
monies included in the bond issue at the tims of bond closing and such
amount will be fixed at $17,000.
The mailing address of the City is as follows: .
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAVrA
9320 C Baseline Road
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
The mailing address of the Consultant is as follows:
OON WEN 6 ASSOCIATES
2061 Business Center Drive, Suite 203
Irvine, California 92715
IN WITNESS MIEREOF, said City has caused this contract to be executed
and attested by its proper officers duly authorized and the Consultant
Cl
��j -3-
1 V
0
C
C
has caused this contract to be executed by one of its officers as of the
date hereinafter set forth.
AV.,
CAM I51-
m I` {'
Lill ::iU\'Y:GR
P.M.,vo Cuz A i^.ci UI "..R@
"CITY"
[Y 611Li;gl.����l4LiFii Y�33fi'e�h1
Title 4/ et-D
Date
Attest:
"0"XISI ITANP"
• DON ON 6 ASSOCIATES
BY // fJs
Title
Date
C LEI -4
c �
<1 DO DON OVJGN & ASSOCIATES INC.
<� •
Novarlxar 22, 1982
City of R.zncho Cuca^onga
9320 C Baseline Road
Post Office Pox 807
Rancho Cu=,onga, California 91730
Attention: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to propose the basis of a service
agreement for your forthcoming Assessment District No. 82 -2, the Alta
Itm=. Flood Control. Channol. The proposal is for assessment enoin=_ering
work for the proposed project and includes (at your option) the sale of
bonds for that project. From previous work already accc.'plished on the •
project in m`etirgs with lanP.o..ners and the preliminary structuring of
the proposed assessment district, it is apparent that a problem exists
in relation to several small landowners, three to fife acres in size,
who at present have one house on the property and do not intend to
subdivide_. An im-ortant part of the proposed program is an e�ctMsive
workshop program which would hopefully result in a method of assessments
for the project w1nich would mitigate adverse drrYacts upon these smaller
property or"mers.
SCIRDULr O° T,AS.":S ,%TD LL'VII. OF WOM PROPOSM
The attached Assessment Engineer's Schedule has been prepared to
present a basis for this proposal. At this point, both bond couael and
the design engineer havo not had an opportunity to determine that the
proposed sdxdulo will in fact work. Therefore, subsequent char. ^e to
the sch`dule may be rccuire:] in order to accr_m:odate ti rc schedules and
availability of o'lh•.es cc..sul.t nts on tl:e proje,L. The proposal does,
W,,,ver, set forth want woo b ii.ove to bo an achievable sclxduie from the
stmxl;oint of tl:c asses --ent engincor and bord -sales. On the sd'ociulc,
you will note a nu-her in parmthesc associated with each event or t-a-0
schedule which rcprosents the hours of effort wihieh is anticipated in
that task or event. Itcas 2 thra:gh 8 constitute a workshop pra,ram
designei to solve the already noted Problun on the project. Tho remaining
item;, with the cxrptio:n of 17, 20, 21, 22, and 25, are routine assess- •
rent ongintiring tasks. The excepted items are those tasks which ax
related to Uho sale of the proposed bor>_d.
ATrACI1`= A `�
9
C C
City of Pane» Cucamonga
Attention: Lloyd Nut'bs, City khgincer
Novo. ?b:x 22, 1982 .
Page 7vo
In suvvey, the analsyis indicates that arproximately 97 hours
would be re^uixed for the workshop progr.nn, 145 hours for the normal
assess. -m_nt work, and the bond sale could involve 116 hours.
PPOPCIGM COSTS
P7e propose to acco nlish the assess:rr�t work on a fixed fee bicis
for the total job of $25,000 with parrent nonthly upon receipt of an
invoice. If the City does not elect to hire a separate rtuaicipal
financial consultants to sell the bonds, $17,000 should be added to
the asses=nt engineer's fee of $25,000. If the City chooses to uedify
the pro,-rem over that currently contarplated, adjustments (either up for
extra work or dam for Work which could be depleted or possibly accvm-
lishcd by the City) would be on the basis of the attached fee schedule.
• in case o: abando nment of the program, two potential abandonment
dates have been considered. The first which should be considered would
occur on alvut Karch 15 at the conclusion of the final workshop. At that
tic: we should be able to determine if sufficient protest will exist in
order tolrpair the successful ooaplet:ion of the program. The abandonment
cost at that tin.- for assessment engineering work would be $9,000.
A second potential abardomr_nt date would be upon conclusion of the
protest hearing on Junc 30. The abandonment cost, as of that date,
would be $25,000.
The above outline of costs include salary and citerial costs includ-
ing printing of the engineer's report. Not included in these figures are
bond and official statament printing costs and /or the physical posting
of the project area includ-d in item 14. Physical posting has been
considered to be acomplisihod. by the City stiff at the appropriate tin..
SU I-Nny
I am hc- ful t'.nt this brief proposal serves your needs. If you
require fur L7cr &=iption of the project tasks and /or the pm-,ram that
I hnvu presented, please feel frN1 to call upon me. I am looking for:;ard
to this promr:m m :d to U..c challenge of h.urd;vhg out the equity problem
between the larger vil tl:e ..^allot prcpzrty o:mcrs.
is Vo} truly /yQoars,
L�/L doll 10. Oman
LhO:rs vn U
Event
1. Notice- to Start x
2. De=velop Altcrnate
Sr reads x
3. City R-Viea
4. Project Defi need
S. obrkshop Notice
6. Public 9brkshop
7. Larzo.mer Ncetirys
V
S. Fira1 Workshop
9. Prepare Preliminary
F:gi,sering P.eport
10. Receive and Review
ZrGir_tr's Cost
11. F�eviea Plans and
°p^cifications
12. Construction Bid
Period
13. Contractors Meting
14. Notice F'ajority
Protest Meeting
15. Receive Construction
B*
ASSPSSD= MrnZEE t'S SCFED=
ALTA MMA CIIA IOM P%aTGCf
VP TO NurIC2 TO ST11Rr CONS4RUMCN
Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar • April; !�Mt
(30)
X (5)
X(8)
X(8)
X(22)
(16)
X X
X(8)
(60)
X X
X(8)
X(12)
June
X X
X(4)
X(16)
x
July
L%. --It
16. Pre ?are Final
Eagi-c ^_r's P�aort
17. Prue Official
Statcaz nt
le. Public Itearing
(Cori: irm. )
19. Cash Collection
F= ia1
20. BO.14 Biddin, Perim
21. Pxard Bonds
22. Pond Closing
23. ;;xard Construction Bids
24. t`otice to Start
25. Proced=e Manual
Dec. Jan.
0
Feb. Mar. April !"m
0
June July
x(30)
X---X
X (15)
X —X
x
X
X
X
X
C �
Q j DON OWEN to ASSOCIATES INC.
FEE SCHEDULE
hourly
Rates - Langdon W. Owen . . . . . . . . . . . . $90.00
- Lawrence G. Rolapp . . . . . . . . . . $00.00
- Frank Gehrke . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50.00
- Lawrence H. Burton . . . . . . . . . . $50.00
Expenses Transportation outside of Southern California will
be charged at actual cost. Other costs are included
in the hourly rate.
•
•
`J�
•
W
10
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983 U,,
TO: City Council and'City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Alta Loma Park Concrete Contract Change Order No. 1
During construction of the subject concrete improvements, it has become
apparent that in order to insure proper drainage, protection of facilities,
protection of users, and reduce future maintenance, that certain deletions
and additions to the subject contract are necessary.
Specifically, additional curb and gutter and the addition of a cross gutter
would increase drainage control and reduce maintenance. Also, the substi-
tution of headwalls with fully enclosed catch basins and the addition of wing
walls and pipe post for protective railing would help to ensure public safety.
A copy of Change Order No. 1 is attached for your information.
RECOMMENDATION
It is Staff's recommendation that City Cuuacil approve Contract Change Order
No. 1, Alta Loma Park Concrete Project in the amount of $5,538.00.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH. P:jaa
Attachment
66
_ C1 TT OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Nth. l CONTRACT. 40. 41 -50 -02
PROJECT Alta Loma Park Concrete Pruett _-SHEET l OF 2 SHEET5
n' m Ire apt Iwlm descrioml wok rxA :K titled in Ire vlam ad ;pee ifYeat hxK m
ortMal additional word a Contract price, 'real a,, and force account,
arise stator, rates for rental of a xuabor t mva only such time And
is actually used and m allowance will w made fa idle tine.
1. Estimate of increase in contract it,-, at Contract prices
a, Instal V additional Curb and gutter ad Ivelted by Engineer in the field.
Item No, 1, P.C.C. Curb A G. tf.e,%ftw
280 L.F. P $9.25 per L.F. S2,590.00
Estimate of Increase • $21590.OD
2. Estimate of increase at agreed unit Prices
a, nsta cart at Der tan ar swings 501 A 502 at Northeast
corner at Pper field and at South side between fields.
b. Construct wing walls adjacent to headwalls.
c. Install 6' x 1 778 G.I.P. pott in head A wing walls for fiture pr.tective
railino.
d. Construct cross gutter per Standard Drawing No. 308, k - 31 at Northeast
corner of lower field,
e. Remove curb and gutter where damaged by grading operations as directed,
Item 1 -2a, Catch Basin 41 per Std%. 501 A 502
2 Each P $450.00 Each - Of S 900.00
• item 1-2b, wing walls, w - Jul, N . 24"
6 Each R 585.00 Each S 510100
It am 1 -2c, G.I.P. Post
72 L.F. B 51.40 per L.F. • S 100.80
Item 140, Cross Gutter par Std 308, S • 3'
70 L.F. B $8.40 per L.P. + $ SWOC
Item 1-2e, Remove Existing curb and gutter
60 L.F. P 510.00 per L.P. • f 600.00
Estimate of Increase • S269B.30
3. Estimate of increase at agreed Lump Sum price
a. Patch all curb and gutter where damaged by grading operation as directed.
Lump Sum 0 5400.00 • S 400.00
Estimate of Increase • $ 400.00
Estimated Cost: Decrease f or Increase f
y reason Nn Cum Cpip earn wt to asst as p wa;
submitted by: Pate:
Approved: Res. Engineer by:
hemby wlrfe, If this proposal a1 X111N, thnt.e wall prafida ail oy Nmam, furnish
all mab:rlals, exttpd Piety otMTrlse palpated abvv, And carom alt Services Rcessay
ran 1M cent Mont wecifiod, amt will ,Accept as full pained therefor the aloes stern ebare,
Accepted, Date _ Contractor
By: � Tolle__
d, N• t W ti m. Col n1L siTinnloccIf 11i1N5 �'VMMinn 15
d idr amt y tl" f,l T, Ai M tin sotctlicatims e, In phereini wlila the
InhiU mna .nl fit um7 a re'uttm prhtest within the ton! tRrean site ifu ol.
(j
OITT OF RANCHO COC A O H GA
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CONTRACT. NO. II -50 -02
PROJECT Alta Lama Part - Concrete Project SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
the following describes work not inlcletd in tte plan and snaificatiorA on
IANGE ORDER IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL APPROVED BY THE F
Segregate between additional wok at contract price, agreed prig and fare a®nnt.
Unless otherwise stated, rates far rental of equipment cave only sum time and
esuia eot is act aelly i seil aN no all. will be Piano for idle tire,
A. Estimate of decrease In contract items at contract unit prices
a. Delete Headwall at North side between fields
Item 2, P.C.C. Headwall
1 Each at $150.00 Each - $150.00
Estimate of Decrease • f150.00
Estimated Cost: Decrease f or Increase f 5.578.80
remm tAis adr t>P tl�rrnp e[nm wi be alfustM as o M:
Submitted by: O,le:_ -_ _
Aporoved: Res. Engineer by: Dale:
W IN andors i7vol cmtratnr owe gran LweT1 Cm11ICrTdt11T b t prDpvSN and
limey agree. If t)iil Proposal IS app . lMt W. w111 p ,m, all eWi meet, famish
all materials, e.,"L as may otherwise be ontmd above, and perform all smites necessary
for the molt above waclfied, and Will accept as full Payment tMefar the pries ~ above.
Accepted, Dale Contractor_
0y: Title
If t)e cnYV ioriknv Pit sm�rl x�eptal[n - -n t prtl+',nls attent mm Is
directtd to .ye mneamwIs of lie sv ciflcatir as to pwgcie ion, with the
udred wrk ad filing a wnttHl Prot witbi,, the tine therein sotelYled.
I A
4
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
8V: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
GG G M
s 1
CF z
isn I
SUBJECT: Approval of Extension Agreements for Tracts 11934, 12044, 12045 and
12046 submitted by William Lyon Company (Victoria Planned Community
Phase 1)
Tracts 11934, 12044, 12045 and 12046, Phase 1 of the Victoria Project received
final City Council approval along with acceptance of the bonds and agreements
on August 9, 1982.
The develop:r, Willliam Lyon Company, has submitted the attached Improvement
Extension Agreements requesting a one -year extension to complete the project.
Bonds for the above subject tracts ara on file in the City Clerk's office.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a
one -year extension of time for the Tracts 11934, 12044, 12045 and I2046.
lly submitted,
:jaa
Attachments
l,3
CASH DEPOSIT MDKWNTING BOND
Additional Cash Deposit: None
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
PrliR ipal Amount: None
To be posted prior to acceptance of the project by the City.
. ........... . ... . ..... . ..... .......... ......n..............uuua.......
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA DEVELOPER
CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation B C LAND COMPANY, a General Partnership
By:
By THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,
ral
Jon 0. MikeTs. aYOr Pe rene
. Attest:
Vice President
NOTE: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MOST BE NDTARIZED 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT
FOR
TRACT MD. 11934
KNOW ALL MEN BY THE5E PRESENTS: That this agreement Is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said
City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and R. C. Land Company, A General
Partnership, by The William Lyon Company, A California Corporation, As General
Partner referred to as the Developer.
WITHESSElN:
THAT, WHEREAS said Developer entered into a subdivision improvement agreement
with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by
said City, and
WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of
the said improvement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as
follows:
1. The completion date of the terms of the said improvement agreement is
hereby extended by a period of 12 months from the date of expiration of
the said agreement.
2. Increase in tlprovewent securities to reflect current Improvet costs
shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be
approved by the City Attorney.
3. The required bond and the additional principal Amounts thereof are set
forth herein below.
4. Ali other terms and conditions nf the said improvement agreement shall
.
remain the sane, .
As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of Intent to
Comply with same, the Developer has submitted the below described improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BON
Description: Tract No. 11934 Additional Principal Mount: None
Surety: The American Insurance Co.
Address: c/o Len Miller B Associates
I8121 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, G 92M
MATERIAL AND LABOR BOND
Description: Same Additional Principal Amount: None
Surety: Sm
Address: Sm
CASH DEPOSIT MDKWNTING BOND
Additional Cash Deposit: None
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
PrliR ipal Amount: None
To be posted prior to acceptance of the project by the City.
. ........... . ... . ..... . ..... .......... ......n..............uuua.......
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA40NGA DEVELOPER
CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation B C LAND COMPANY, a General Partnership
By:
By THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,
ral
Jon 0. MikeTs. aYOr Pe rene
. Attest:
Vice President
NOTE: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MOST BE NDTARIZED 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMNGA
IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREFMESIT
FOR
TRACT NO. 12044
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: The. this agreement IS made and entered into,
In conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Nap Act of the CIE) of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by AM between the said
City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and R. C. Land Company, A General
Partnership, by The William Lyon Company, A California Corporation, as General
Partner referred to as the Developer.
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS said Developer entered into a subdivision improvement agreement
with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by
said City, and
WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of
the said improvement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as
fol IONS:
1. The completion date of the terms of the said improvement agreement is
Hereby extended by a period 9. 12 Months from the date of expiration of
the said agreement.
2. Increase in Improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs
shalt be furnished by the developer with this agreement add shall be
approved by the City Attorney.
7. The required bond and the additional principal Amounts thereof are set
forth herein below.
4. All other terms and conditions of the said improvement agreement shall
•
remain the some.
As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of Intent to
comply with same, the Developer has submitted the below described Improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITNFIN PERFORMANCE BOND
Description: Tract No. 12044 Additional Principal Amount: None
Surety: The American Insurance Co.
Address: C/o Len Miller E Associates
18121 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, CA 92680
MATERIAL AND LABOR BOND
Description: Seine Additional Principal flaunt: None
Surety: Same
Address: Same
CASH NEPOSIT WJAMENTING BOND
Additional Cash Deposit: None
MAINTERANCC GUARANTEE BOND
Principal Amount: None
To be posted prior to acceptance of the project by the City.
...................• a..........•.............. .....................a....a.....
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPER
CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation R C LAND COMPANY, a General Partnership
By TIIE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,
Attest:
Past.
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk ---r! n
AN.� MOTE: DEVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MUST BE
■ r m n
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT
Fut
TRACT NO. 12005
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said
City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and R. C. Land Company, A General
Partnership, by The William Lyon Company, A California Corporation, as General
Partner referred to as the Developer.
WITMESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS said Developer entered into a subdivision improvement agreement
with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by
said City, and
WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of
the said improvement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as
follows:
1. The completion date of the terms of the said improvement agreement Is
hereby extended by a period of 12 months from the date of expiration of
the said agreement.
2. Increase i0 improvement securities to reflect current Improvement Costs
shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be
approved by the City Attorney.
1. The required bond and the additional principal amounts thereof are set
forth herein below.
0. All other terms and conditions of the said Improvement agreement shall
remain the Skase.
As evidence of understanding the provisi... contained herein, and of Intent to
'
comply with same, the Developer has submitted the below described Improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE 9000
Description: Tract No. 12005 Additional Principal Amount: None
Surety: The American insurance Co.
Address: c/o Len Miller L Associates
10121 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, CA 92680
MATERIAL AND LABOR BOND
Description: Same Additional Principal Amount: "4"
surety: 5ams
Address: Same
CASH DEPOSIT MOMMENTING OW
Additional Cash Deposit: None
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
Principal Amount: None
To be posted prior to acceptancE of the project by the City.
............ .. a.......... a.................. .................................
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPER
CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation R C LAND COMPANY, a General Partnership
by TIME WILLIAM LYON COMPANY,
By:, a California Corporation as General
on a 5. .ayor - Partner
Attest;
Asat. S cretar
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk .
ce tea ant
NOTE: DIVELOPER'S SIGNATURE MUST BE 119TM IIE
.• � i1 �
�. /n 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AgREEYEVr
FOR
TRACT M. 12046
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Art of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California, a mvniclnal corporation, by and betweer the said
City, hereinafter referred to as the City, and v aapniy, A General
Partnership, by The William Lyon Company, A Cal iforma Corporation, as General
Partner referred to as the Developer.
NITNESSETH;
THAT, W4EREAS said Developer entered into a subdivision improvement agreement
with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of said Tract by
said City, and
WHEREAS, said Developer desires an extension of time to complete the terms of
the said improvement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said Developer as
£allows:
1. The completion date of the terms of the said improvement agreement is
hereby extended by a period of 12 months from the date of expiration of
the said agreement.
2. Increase in improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs
Shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be
approved by the City Attorney.
The required bond and the additional principal amounts thereof are set
forth herein below. •
4. All other terms and conditions of the said improvement agreement shall
remain the same.
As evidence Of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to
comply with same, eie '"eloper has Submitted the below described improvement
security, and has iff, xed hia signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
Description: Tract No. 12046 Additional Principal Amount: None
Surety: The American Insurance Co.
Address, 2/o Len Miller b Associates
• 18121 Irvine Blvd., Tustin, CA 92680
MATERIAL AND LABOR DOND
Description: Same Additional Principal Mount: None
Surety: Same
Address: Same
CASH DEPOSIT MONUaENTING BOND
Additional Cash Deposit None
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
Principal Amount: None
TO be co Sind prior to acceptance of the project by the City,
...............r r rru..... rr rrr, rrrrurr... ...... :.r.rrururr......rrrurrrr
CITY OF RANCND COCAMONGA DEVEL111Ea
CALIFORNIA, a municip.i corporation R C ! ND CbtIPANY, a General Partnership
by THE WILLIAM LYON CCd,FANY,
8y; a Califnrnia Cr pnratlon, an Gene r.
nn ;1lG eii, 'aaynr Par Ciir - -'J
Attest;
Asst . nacre a y
Lau r<n a SSenna City CTl!rk
'Nice Prea tdene
NOTE' DEVELOPER-S SIGNSIGNATURE C MUST BE MO
• RESOLUTION NO. * ?�"IG'%
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 11934,
12044, 12045 AND 12046
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, has for its consideration an Improvement Extension Agreement
executed on August 3, 1983 by William Lyon Company as Developer, for the
improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to real property specifically
described therein, and generally located north of Base Line, west of Etiwanda
Avenue and south of Highland Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said
Improvement Extension Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be
done ir, conjunction with the development of said real property referred to as
Tracts 11934, 12044, 12045 and 12046; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Extension Agreement is secured and
accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified
in said Improvement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
• Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Extension Agreement and
said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is
hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Jon 0. Mikels, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 123-B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.0219(b)(7) OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 123,
RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 61.0219(b)(7) of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim
Zoning, Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows:
Of
(7) Residential Uses:
(A) Sir;le- family dwellings (conventions.). Two
(2) parking spaces within a garage. or
eerperk. The one of earpepke regwiree approval
fret" She Design Review 6e"ikkee, removed by
Council.
(B) Cluster development (condominium, townhome,
etc.) semi - detached single family (zero lot
line, patio homes, duplexes, etc.) and mobile
home parks:
(I) Studio: 1.3 off - street parking space
per unit in a garage or carport,
(II) One (1) bedroom: 1.5 off - street parking
spaces per unit of which one space shall
be in a garage or carport,
(III) Two (2) bedrooms: 1.8 off- street
parking spaces per unit, of which one
space shall be in a garage or carport.
(IV) Three (3) or more bedrooms; Two
off- street parking spaces per unit of
which one space shall be in a garage or
carport.
(V) In addition to the required number of
parking spaces for each unit, one
off - street uncovered parking space shall
be provided for each four units for
visitor parking. For single family zero
lot line, patio homes, and duplexes,
on- street parking may be substituted for
visitor parking.
Of
Ordinance No.
Page 2
(VI) For developments containing five or more
units, up to fifty percent of the
required uncovered spaces may be compact
car size.
(VII) The use of carports requires approval
from the Design Review Committee.
(C) Apartments:
(I) Bachelor and one bedroom dwelling
unit: 1.3 off - street parking spaces for
each dwelling unit of which one space
shall be in a garage or carport for each
unit.
(II) Two (2) bedroom dwelling units: 1.6
off - street parking spaces for each
dwelling unit of which one space shall
be covered for each unit.
(III) Three (3) bedrooms or more dwelling
units: 1.; off - street pai k ing spaces
for each dwelling unit of which one •
space shall be covered for each unit,
plus 0.2 off - street parking space for
each bedroom in excess of three (3).
(IV) In addition to required number of
parking spaces for each unit, one (1)
guest parking space shall be required
fnr oarh fnnr (Q) units.
(V) For building sites containing five (5)
or more dwelling units, up to fifty (50)
percent of the required open parking
spaces may be of compact car size.
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
A ..endment.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its
passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
J
16
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as foliuw5:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the
time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the
rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and
this City Council has held a public hearing in the
time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and
considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General
• Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
Impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned
in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly.
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 1077 - 401 -01 & 03, approximately
13.1 acres in size and located on the northwest corner of
Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, is hereby changed
from A -1 ('- imited Agriculture) to C -2 (General Business
Commercial).
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
7r
—
ORDINANCE N0. *q7Q (O
Q li� 3, r 483
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Cr RANCHO
CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER'S
1077- 401 -01 & 03, LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST
CORNER OF
HAVEN AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,
FROM A -1
TO C -2
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as foliuw5:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the
time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the
rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and
this City Council has held a public hearing in the
time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and
considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General
• Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
Impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned
in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly.
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 1077 - 401 -01 & 03, approximately
13.1 acres in size and located on the northwest corner of
Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, is hereby changed
from A -1 ('- imited Agriculture) to C -2 (General Business
Commercial).
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
7r
•
9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
Gt;CAMp�
j r
pF
rG� II>
1977 1
SUBJECT: Order to Vacate a 20 -foot Alley Adjacent to Lots 2 Through 12 of
Tract 2521 Generally Located Between Foothill Blvd, and Red Hill
Country Club Drive
Development Review No. 83 -08 submitted by Gerald Edwards, for the development
of a 3,858 square foot auto service building on .37 acres of land located on
the north side of Foothill Blvd., 750 feet east of Grove Avenue was approved
by Planning Comission on May 11, 1983.
This project is designed to include a portion of the alley to be vacated.
Since a portion of the building is designed to be on the existing alley,
approval of the project is contingent to the vacation of the alley. A copy
of the site plan is attached.
The alley is unpaved. All properties adjacent to the alley have access on Red
Hill Country Club Drive or Foothill Blvd.
The site has been posted and the resolution of intent has been sent to the ad-
jacent property ovners.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider
all public input. If Council approves, a resolution is attached for signature.
Resp�ec tfully sub fitted
LBH K:jaa
Attachment
I •> •I
LA
of
I �
A
CJ
— —— — -- - - -: RED RILL COUV7RY CLUB.1'I_�Y�y..
J-`� .t- ____�_._— „.•�y.'�� �( y.ilRG it Y114..J
"\
� • r o G. r- . ��,o � •I r
$ \
- 33 .¢ 0 2 0 18 � b •t
-
- - w -
T JB 39 Lra .O.
(.7, 1� 1 1 O £ 1 O GtU O�OO
•• SAN 9F.RraAROINO
TO BE VACATED
`cr3r Spr,}, titlr;
(:ITY OP R /\ \'CI IC) Ca'CA \1O. \Grt A _
x ENGINFERIXG DIVISION T `
y” nn VICINITY \IAP l \III •�
pa
!'
RESOLUTION NO. * 131
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ORDERING TO BE VACATED A 20' ALLEY ADJACENT TO LOTS 2
THROUGH 12 OF TRACT NO. 2521 GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 83 -97, passed on June 15, 1983, the
Council of the City of ,Rancho Cucamonga declared its intention to vacate a
portion of a City street hereinafter more particularly described, and set the
hour of 7:30 p.m. on August 3, 1983, in the Lions Park Community Center
Building, located at 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time
and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, such public hearing has been held at said time and place,
and there wcre no prctests, oral or written, to such vacation.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as
follows:
SECTION 1: The Council hereby finds all the evidence submitted that
the alleys are unnecessary for present or prospective public street purposes,
and the City Council hereby makes its order vacating that portion of said City
• street as shown on Map No.V -028 on file in the office of the Clerk of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, which has been further described in a legal description
whic;. is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A ", and by reference made a part
thereof.
SECTION 2: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations
and exceptions, if any, set forth in Exhibit "B ", which is attached hereto and
by reference made a part hereof.
SECTION 3: the Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution
to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County,
California.
SECTION 4: The Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this reso utr and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ASSENT:
h �
EXHIBIT "A" •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ALLEY FOR PROPOSED VACATION:
All of the alley(s) adjacent. to Lots 1 through 12 inclusive as shown on Tract
2521, as recorded in Map Book 36, pages 37 & 38, County of San Bernardino,
State of California.
EXHIBIT "B"
Reserving and Excepting unto, Cucamonga County Water District, Southern
California Edison Company and General Telephone Company, all the area
described in Exhibit "A" an easement for Public Utility purposes.
Reserving and Excepting unto the Southern California Gas Company the area West
of the Northerly project of the Easterly line of Lot 5 of Tract No. 2521 filed
in Map Book 36, Pages 37 and 38 Records of the San Bernardino County Recorder,
an easement for Public Utility purposes.
•
•
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
C—C' ."0"6
t Z�' Y
w7
SUBJECT: Order to Vacate a Portion of the Frontage Road on the South Side of
Foothill Boulevard, West of Ramona Avenue in Connection with Parcel
Map 6114
As a cond`.tion of approval for Tentative Parcel Mao 6114 and Director Review
81 -38 for the development of an office complex (V.I.P. Professional Center) at
the southwest corner of Ramona A.a. and Foothill Blvd., the developer Mr.Bill
Campbell, initiated the process to vacate the frontage road contiguous to the
subject property.
The initial public hearing was set on December 15, 1982 along with final
approval for Parcel Map 6114 and continued several times. Since the developer
has not yet submitted the required bonds and agreement, Staff recommends that
the requested vacation be denied at this time.
When the developer submits the required bonds and agreements, the vacation
process can be initiated again with a resolution of intent and the posting of
the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
If after consideration of all input, City Council can recommend denial, a
resolution of denial is attached for signature.
Respectiully submitted,
LBH jaa
Attachments
77
WE
- - - -I
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
a- - - -- ------- - - - - -- L4
aui
_m, uz
U Q
Q
0
1�
uj
Z
W
D: Q
J 1
VACATION
No. 0 -24
UTE HI H A OUTH
$
lrau)
UAO1
4109
T
11 /1T
1r..,
inn
i �LG
v�'t
iGa
12
iG i
4125
0
1�
uj
Z
W
D: Q
J 1
VACATION
No. 0 -24
RESOLUTION NO. * j3 -4rr
A RESOLUTION OF TI'E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE ORDER TO VACATE A
PORTION OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD; 'WEST OF RAMONA AVENUE IN CONNECTION
WITH PARCEL MAP 6114
WHEREAS, by Resolution 82 -195, passed on November 17, 1983, the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga declared its intent to vacate a
portion of a City Street and setting a public hearing for August 3, 1983; and
WHEREAS, without final approval of Parcel map 6114 said vacation is
not required; and
WHEREAS, the developer has not met with the Conditions of Approval
for said Parcel Map.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that
said vacation is denied.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
AYES:
• NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City ClerW
10
Pi
Jon D. Mt a s, Mayor
0
E
nTMIP /,TT n A ATn TTn nT Tn A I N / XT, A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 for Parcel Map 7349
rd
3
1977
The subject Landscape Maintenance District was set for public hearing on July 6,
1983 by special request of the Developer to expedite recordation of Parcel Map
7349. On July 6, the applicant, Lewis Homes, had not completed the required
bonds and agreements to allow recordation to occur. The item was continued to
August 3. No progress has occurred in the intervening time.
Council has likely noticed that this practice is not uncommon in the development
community. Advertising, posting and preparing the documentation for these items
consumes a great deal of time and inconvenience.
It is recommended that no further continuances be granted on this item and that
when the final documentation is completed, the applicant Dare the expense of
readvertisement and posting for the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold public hearing on this item and take action to table the item for no action
at this time.
Respectfully sub
L8 jaa
• RESOLUTION NO. 83 -112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the
"City ") did on June 15, 1983, adopt Resolution No. 83-92 giving its
preliminary approval to an Engineer's Report (the "Engineer's Report ")
prepared in connection with the formation of an assessment district to be
known as "Landscape Maintenance District No. 3" pursuant to the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City did on June 15, 1983 adopt
Resolution No. 83 -94 declaring its intention to order the formation of an
assessment district to be known as "Landscape Maintenance District No. 3" and
to levy and collect assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972; and
WHEREAS, a certified copy of said Resolution No. 83 -94 was duly
published in the time, form and manner required by law as shown by the
• Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution on file in the office of the City
Clerk of the City; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was duly mailed to all persons
owning property within the proposed Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 in
the time, form and manner as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held and this City Council has
duly received and considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the
necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be derived therefrom
and this City Council has now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed
work.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: This City Council hereby gives its final approval to the
Engineer's Rupert.
SECTION 7: This City Council hereby orders the formation of
" Lnndscape Maintenance District ':o. 3" and the maintenance of certain
landscape improvements to be located within said Landscape Maintenance
District, as more particularly described in the Engineer's Report.
SECTION 3: This City Council hereby confirms the diagram of
"Landscape Maintenance District No. 3" as more particularly described in said
Engineer's Report and hereby confirms the assessments for fiscal year 1983 -84
and the method of assessment as more particularly described in the Engineer's
Report.
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby
authorized and directed to file the diagram and assessment contained in the
Engineer's Report, or a certified copy thereof, with the County Auditor.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 1983.
AYES:
NOES1 0
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
C c'.
•
•
•
�— — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAATONGA �ucahr °Y
STAFF REPORT°
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager U` -- 7�>
1977,
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Formation of Street Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 & 2
Notice has been given for the establishment of assessment districts for the
purpose of defraying the cost of street lighting to be installed in the future
in residential areas of the City. The proposed districts involve 2.5 tracts
recently recorded and, except for two, unoccupied. The two tracts having
partial occupancy were approved with the condition that lighting and
landscaping districts be formed or joined. This is also true of most of the
other tracts. At tonight's hearing the Council, as set forth in Resolutions
No. 83 -115 and 83 -117, will be considering, among other things, the degre- of
protest received. This protest, if any, will be summarized for you at t. +e
opening of the hearing.
• The Engineer's Reports attached hereto describe the method of determining
benefits and assessments, the properties involved and the street lights for
which assessments are proposed. The reports cover two overlapping districts,
one for arterial streets and another for local residential streets. This is
due to equal benefits being received by all residents, whether living in
houses, condominiums or apartments from the lighting on arterial and collector
streets while local street lighting only benefits those residents in the
immediate area. District 81 covers lights to be installed on arterial and
major collector streets and includes all tracts and apartment projects. The
benefit is spread on a dwelling unit basis and results in an annual assessment
of $8.82 per unit.
District k2 covers local public streets within subdivisions, all of which are
provided with the same level of lighting under city standards. This benefit
is local in nature so it has been spread among only the tracts involved. The
annual assessment for this lighting is $35.86 per unit.
Apartment and condominium units would be included only in District B1 at $8682
per year ano single family dwellings on public streets would be inciuded in
both Districts at $44.68 per year.
The Engineer's Reports attached do not, because of hulk. contain all the
assessment diagrams, Samples are attached and all will be available at the
meeting and are on file with the original reports.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Formation of Street Lightino Maintenance Districts 1 and 2
August 3, 1983
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the attached resolutions ordering the formation of the
districts and confirming the diagrams and assessments be approved if such
action is found appropriate after conducting the public hearing.
R3spectfully s /upmitted,
L�/PAR: jaa
Attachments
•
0
• RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
6th day of July, 1983, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 83 -115 to order
the therein described work in connection with Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 83 -115 was duly and legally
published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the
Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office
of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said
Resolution of Intention, headed "Public Notice" was duly and legally posted,
where appropriate, in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required
by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the
office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the
Resolution of Intention were duly mailed, where appropriate, to persons owning
real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said
• Resolution of Intention No. 83 -115, according to the names and addresses as
prescribed by law, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and
manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in
the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered
evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdictiun facts in this
proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the
benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired
jurisdiction to order the proposed work.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamnnga has
determined tFat -the public interest and convenience requires that said City
Council order the formation of Street Liqhting Maintenance District No. 1, and
any subsequent annexations to said District, and said City Council hereby
ordnrs that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of
Intention No, 83115, be done and made.
SECTION ?; The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally
approved.
SECTION 3: The assessments for fiscal year 83 -84 and method of
assessmen[ in Lhe Engineer's Report are hr.,-cby ppprnved.
19 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
(7,Z
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
SECTION 1. ADTHORITY FOR REPORT
This report is prepared in compliance with the requirement 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 report deals with the estimated assessments for Fiscal Year
1983 -84 of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 for Tracts enumerated in
Exhibit A within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The area to be considered is
specifically defined in the body of this report and on the attached Assessment
Diagrams. Work to be provided for, with the assessments established by the
District are:
The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary
and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street
light improvements on arterial and certain collector
streets. Improvement maintenance is considered of general
benefit to all areas in the District and cost shall be
divided on a per lot basis. In the case of condominiums
with airspace ownership only, and apartments, a dwelling •
unit shall be considered to benefit the same as a lot.
SECTION 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The plans and specifications for street lighting have been
prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in
the conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City
Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or
development plan and the assessment diagram for the exact location of the
street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting
improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report
to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting
district include: the re, 'r, removal or replacement of all
or any part of any improvement, providing for the
illumination of the subject area.
SECTION 4. ESTIMATED COSTS
No costs will be incurred for street lighting improvement
construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on
available data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes
will be as indicated below, for the fiscal year 1983 -84. These cost, n�
estimated only, actual assessments will be based on actual cost data. .
-1-
Q (w
• 19.83 -84 Estimated Assessment
T. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy:
Lamp Size* Quantity Rate **
9500L 68 9.9
5800L 33 8.75
*High re sH� sure So�m Vapor
Lamos Rate Mo's Total
68 X 9.90 X 12 = $8078.40
33 X 8.75 X 12 = $3465.00
s1154Y30
2. Incidental Expenses:
Engineering and Administration = 041000,00
3. Costs per dwelling unit:
Total Annual Estimated Costs_ = $11543.40 + $1000.00 = $8.82 /year /unit
No. of nits in District �2
$8.82 divided by 12 = $0.74 /mo. /urit
Assessment shall be applied to each lot as explained in Section 6.
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
Copies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this
report and labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. V. These
diagrams are hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. ASSESSMENT
Improvements for the District are fopind to be of general benefit
to all dwelling units within the District and that assessment shall be equal
for each unit. Where there is more than one dwelling unit per lot or parcel
of assessable land, the assessment for each lot or parcel shall be
proportional to the number of dwelling units per lot or parcel.
It is proposed that all future development shall be annexed to the
District.
SECTION 7. ORDER OF EVENTS
1. City Council approves institution of District proceedings
(6- 15 -83).
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
40 Engineer's report.
-2-
Y7
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to form a District and •
sets a public hearing data.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, CDrsiders all testimony and
determines to form a District or abandon proceedings.
S. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with City
Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and
approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
•
11
-3-
0
•
9
EXHIBIT "A"
Properties and improvements to be included within Street Lighting Maintenance
District 1:
TRACT
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS
ARTERIAL LIGHTS
10491
20
4
9539
19
1
9584
52
0
9584 -1
47
12
9584 -2
45
0
10569
42
0
9638
25
8
11350
114
7
11609
12
4
9441
72
0
11696
6
0
10762
84
5
10277 -1
8
2
9269
53
13
11663
13
2
12019
35
2
12020
28
3
12021
33
4
12022
36
4
12040
328
10
9658
52
4
11734
144
6
12090
128
7
10045
10
0
10045 -1
16
3
l�
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I •
,ki— _,., x ,''/ a' 3A3 a ,4,. a- .`,— "a /—a a 7 a .B a-�U�.. ....,
57
'42
14
007
W f
35
en,
Ile
........ ..
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. i
/ y � 9 � .J ` • /'.ten` \l
".i`
_ r\{ �~�r' r`l�as�' �(T�',:��r%.�� -,j��� "•i11��J1e'ii— '•�'�"�' \v i:, �1
. .. ..... ...
Jllf \ \Iql,.
1977
L
I
CITY OF RANCIIO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ^ TYOU Nn. 10762
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - �T
fi �BSC
• RESOLUTION NO. * 'U3 —/3a
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 2
WHEREAS, the rity Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
6th day of July, 1983, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 83 -117 to order
the therein described work in connection with Street Lighting Maintenance
District No. 2, which Resolution of Intention No. 83 -117 was duly and legally
published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the
Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office
of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of said
Resolution of Intention, headed "Public Notice" was duly and legally posted,
where appropriate, in the time, form, manner, location, and number as required
by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Posting said notices, on file in the
office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption of the
Resolution of Intention were duly mailed, where appropriate, to persons owning
real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in said
• Resolution of Intention No. 83 -117, according to the names and addresses as
prescribed by law, which said copies were duly mailed in the time, form, and
manner as required by law, as appears from the Affidavit of Mailing on file in
the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered
evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this
proceeding and concerning the necess "y for the contemplated work and the
benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired
jurisdiction to order the proposed work.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
determined that the public interest and convenience requires that said City
Council order the formation of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2, and
any subsequent, annexations to said District, and said City Council hereby
orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of
Intention No. 83 -117, be done and made.
SECTION 2: The Report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally
approved.
SECTION 3; The assessments for fiscal year 83 -84 and method of
assessmen 'Tr .the Engineer's Report are hereby approved.
19 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
r�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FOR
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT
his report is prepared in compliance with the requirement 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
T is report ea s with the estimated assessments for Fiscal Yea -
1983-84 of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 for Tracts enumerated in
Exhibit A within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The area to be considered is
specifically defined in the body of this report and on the attached Assessment
Diagrams. Work to be provided for, with the assessments established by the
District are:
The furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary
and usual maintenance, operating and servicing of street
light improvements on local residential streets.
Improvement maintenance is considered of general benefit to
all areas in the District and cost shall be divided on a per
lot basis. .
SECTION 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The pans and specs ications for street lighting have been
prepared by the developers. The plans and street lights are as stipulated in
tie conditions of approval for the development and as approved by the City
Engineering Division. Reference is hereby made to the subject tract map or
lopment plan and the assessment diagram for the exar,t location of the
street lighting areas. The plans and specifications for street lighting
improvement on the individual development is hereby made a part of this report
to the same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
Detailed maintenance activities on the street lighting
district include: the repair, removal or replacement of all
or any part of any improvement, providing for the
illumination of the subject area.
SECTION 4. ESTIMATED COSTS
No— us,s wi 1T hr incurred for street liqhting improvement
construction. All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on
availabe data, it is estimated that maintenance costs for assessment purposes
will be as indicated below for the fiscal year 1983 -84. These costs are
estimated only, actual assessments will be based on actual ccct data.
-I-
0' •
J
0
•
9
1983 -84 Estimated Assessment
1. S.C.E. Maintenance and Energy
Lamp Size* Quantity Rate **
5800L
*High Pressure Sodium vapor
* *SCE Schedule LS -1. All night service per lamp
per month, Effective 1 -1 -83
Lamps Rate
152 X 8.75
2. Incidental Expenses:
Me's Total
X 12 = $15960.00
Eng;nzering and Administration = $1000.00
3. Costs per dwelling unit:
Total Annual Estimated Costs = $15963040 + $1000.00 = $35.86 /year /unit
No. of Units in District 07-3
$35.86 divided by 12 = $2.99 /mo.
Assessment shall be applied to each lot as explained in Section 6.
SECTION 5.. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
opies of the proposed Assessment Diagrams are attached to this
report and labeled "Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2". These
diagrams ar- hereby incorporated within the text of this report.
SECTION 6. ASSESSMENT
Improvements for the District are found to be of general benpf it
to all dwelling units within the District and that assessment shall be equal
for each lot or parcel.
It is proposer; that all future development shall be annexed to the
District.
SECTION 7. ORDER OF EVENTS
1. City Council approves institution of District proceedirgs
(6- 15 -33).
2. City Council adopts Resolution o" Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's report.
3, City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to form a District and
Sets a public hearing data.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony and
determines to form a District or abandon proceedings.
-2-
(- ":1
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with City .
Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing and
approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
•
r I
L
-3-
qr
LJ
E
EXHIBIT "A"
Properties and improvements to be included within Street Lighting Maintenance
District 2:
TRACT
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS
LOCAL LIGHTS
10491
20
4
9539
19
4
9584
52
15
9584 -1
47
19
9584 -2
45
15
10569
42
11
9638
25
11
11609
12
4
9441
72
32
11696
6
1
9269
53
15
9658
52
9
10045
10
5
10045 -1
16
7
r j
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
/J`
7
W
:
I1,
i
n I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA e "ir;
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO L_ No e
4 x STATE OF CALIFORNIA
N page
Ifn i i mn ui iFti� CITY ENGINEER RCF 23P ?9 GATE
0
•
1r1
CJ
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983 G'.`
19:
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Levy and Collect Assessments Within Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1
Attached is the Engineer's Report and Resolution for setting the rate of
assessment for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. The annual assessment
has been reduced $2.00 from last _year's assessment of $45.00 per lot to $43.00
per lot for this year.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached Resolution setting
the 1983 -84 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 assessment at $43.00 per lot.
Resoecttully submitted.
LBH:j
Attachments
0
RESOLUTION NO. * 4 IiI
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1983 -34 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF
1972 IN CONNECTION WITH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the
18th day of May, 1983, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 83 -68 to order
the :heroin described work in connection with Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1, which Resolution of Intention No. 83 -68 was duly and legally published
in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of
Publiction of said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City
Clerk; and
w::EREAS, said City Council having duly received considered evidence,
oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and
concerning the necessity for the contemplated work and the benefits to be
derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to
order the proposed work.
SECTION 1: It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of
• Rancho Cucamonga that the public interest and convenience requires the levy
and collection of assessments within Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for
the fiscal year 1983 -84, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as
set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 83 -68, be done and
made; and
SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the
Engineer, is hereby finally approved; and
SECTION 3 Be it finally resolved that the assessments
year 198 and method of assessment in the Engineer's Report
approved. �<
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
19 ATTEST:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
Lauren M. Wasserman, City C er
C -q
for fiscal
are hereby
c c
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
1983 -84 ENGINEER'S REPORT •
FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER i
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 -3', 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 on 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 walls •
immediately adjacent to the cultivated areas.
1G e�
C
• SECTION 4. ESTIMATED COSTS
Due to general det:rioration, vandalism or loss various
parkways within the District will be renovated, repaired and
replanted at an estimated cost of $15,566.29. Based on
historical data adjusted for inflation, it is estimated that
maintenance cost for assessment purposes will equal seventeen
cents ($.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)
9_ ots
1982 -83 Actual Cost Summary
Restoration of parkway at Base Line and Ramona
Labor and Materials $5,043.32
82 -83 Actual Parkway Maintenance
Costs
Utilities
$4,847.52
City Labor
1,635.57
Parts
643.95
Contract Maint.
22,368.88
Weed Control
. 924.61
Administration
2 7 02.52
TGTAL $33,123.05
Actual Assessment ($39,987.00) less Actual Cost ($33,123.05) +
G2 -83 Restoration Carryover ($13,759.66) less Restoration Cost
($5,048.32) = $15,576.29 CARRYOVER FOR 83 -84 RESIORATION
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 P Placer (Tract 10569)
19
1" I
C
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
C
A copy of the proposed Master Assessment diagram is •
atta.:hed 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
52
0
Tract
12040
328
0
Tract
10045
10
0
Total
Lots
—�
NOTE Only annexed Tract 60% occupied shall be included
for assessment purposes.
TOTAL ASSESSABLE LOST 1983 -84 = 892
SECTION 6. ASSESSMENT
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,W.32 divided by 892 lots $42.58 ($43.00)
'!! .
611
•
S 43.00
RACCT 9267
1062 -241 -1
1062 -241 -2
1062 -241 -3
1062 -241 -4
1062 -241 -5
1062 -241 -6
1062 -241 -7
1062 -241 -8
1062 -241 -9
1062 - 241 -10
1062- 241 -11
1062- 241 -12
1062 - 251 -15
1062- 251 -16
1062 - 251 -17
1062- 251 -18
1062 - 251 -19
1062- 251 -20
0062- 241 -23
1062- 241 -24
1062 - 241 -25
1062 - 241 -26
1062- 241 -27
1062- 241 -28
1062- 241 -29
1062 - 241 -30
1062 - 241 -31
1062 - 241 -32
is
1983 -84 ASSESSMENT LIST
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1
$ 43.00
TFACT 96 8
1062 -251 -1
1062 -251 -2
1062 -251 -3
10 2 X51 -4
1062 -251 -5
1062 -251 -C
1062 -251 -7
062 -251 -8
1062 -251 -9
1062- 251 -10
1062.251 -11
'OC'- 251 -12
1062- 251 -13
1062 - 251 -14
1062 - 241 -33
1062 - 241 -34
1062 - 241 -35
1062 - 241 -36
1062 - 241 -37
1062 -081 -7
1062 -081 -8
1062 -081 -9
1062- 081 -10
1062 - 081 -11
1062- 081 -12
1062- 081 -13
1062 - 081 -14
1062 - 081 -15
1062 - 081 -16
1062- 081 -17
1062- 081 -18
1062 - 081 -19
1062 - 241 -13
1062 - 241 -14
1062 - 241 -15
1062 - 241 -16
1062- 241 -17
1062 - 241 -I8
1062 - 241 -19
1062- 241 -20
1062- 241 -21
1052- 241 -22
1062 -091 -1
1062 -091 -2
1062 -091 -3
1062 - 091 -29
1062- 091 -30
1062 - 091 -31
1062- 091 -32
1062- 091 -33
1062 - 091 -34
1062- 091 -35
1062 - 091 -36
�r 7
E 43.00
TRACT 9c6-T
1062 - 081 -26
1062- 081 -27
1062- 081 -28
1062 - 081 -29
1062 - 081 -30
1062 - 081 -31
1062- 081 -32
1062 -091 -4
1062 -091 -5
1062 -091 -5
1062 -091 -7
1062 -091 -8
1062 -091 -9
1062- 091 -10
1062 - 091 -11
1062- 091 -12
1062- 091 -13
1062- 09 - -14
1062- 091 -15
1062 - 091 -16
1062- 091 -17
1062 -091 -18
1062- 091 -19
1062- 091 -20
1062- 091 -21
1062- 091 -22
1062 - 091 -23
1062 - 091 -21
1062 - 091 -25
1062- 091 -26
1062 - 091 -27
1062- 091 -28
1062- 081 -20
1062 - 081 -21
1062- 081 -22
1062 - 081 -23
1062 - 081 -24
1062- 081 -25
1062- 081 -33
1062 - 081 -34
1062 - 081 -35
1062- 081 -36
1062 - 081 -37
1062 - 081 -38
1062 - 081 -39
1062- 081 -40
1062 - 081 -41
1062 - 081 -42
1062 - 081 -43
1062- 081 -44
1062 - 081 -45
1062- 081 -46
1.062- 081 -47
Landscape Maintenance District N1
S 43.00
$ 43.00
$ 43.00
S 43.00
TRACT 9306
TRAC 9
TRACT 9402
TRAC 4 3 .
1061 -521 -1
1062 -491 -3
1062- 491 -19
201 -731 -1
201 -751 -1
1061 -521 -2
1062 -491 -4
1062- 491 -20
201 -731 -2
201 -751 -2
1061 -521 -3
1062 -491 -5
1062- 491 -21
201 -731 -3
201 -751 -3
1061 -521 -4
1062 -491 -6 -
1062 - 491 -22
201 -731 -4
201 -751 -4
1061 -521 -5
1062 -491 -7
1062 - 491 -23
201 -731 -5
201 -751 -5
1061 -521 -6
1062 -491 -8
1062 - 491 -24
201 -731 -6
201 -751 -6
1061 -521 -7
1062 -491 -9
1062 - 491 -25
201 -731 -7
201 -751 -7
1061 -521 -8
1062 - 491 -10
1062- 491 -26
201 -731 -8
201 -751 -8
1061 -521 -9
1062 - 491 -11
1062 - 491 -27
201 -731 -9
201 -751 -9
1061 - 521 -10
1062 - 491 -12
1062- 491 -28
201 - 731 -10
201- 751 -10
1061 - 521 -11
1062- 491 -13
1062 - 491 -29
201- 731 -11
201 - 751 -11
1061 - 521 -12
1062- 491 -14
1062 - 491 -30
201 - 731 -12
201- 751 -12
1061 - 521 -13
1062 - 491 -15
1062- 491 -31
201 - 731 -13
201 - 751 -13
1051 - 521 -I4
1062 - 491 -16
1062 - 491 -32
201- 731 -14
201 - 751 -14
1061- 521 -15
1062 - 491 -17
201 - 731 -15
201451 -15
1061 - 521 -16
1062- 491 -18
201- 731 -16
201- 751 -16
1061 - 521 -17
201- 731 -17
201 - 751 -17
1061 - 521 -18
1062 - 481 -24
201 - 731 -18
201- 751 -18
1061 - 521 -19
1062- 481 -25
201- 751 -19
1061 - 521 -20
1062 - 481 -26
201- 731 -69
201- 751 -20
1061 - 521 -21
1062 - 481 -27
201 - 731 -70
201 - 751 -21
1061- S21 -22
1062- 481 -28
201 - 731 -"
201- 751 -22
I061- 521 -23
1062 - 481 -29
201 - 731 -72
201- 751 -23
1061 - 521 -24
1062 - 481 -30
201 - 731 -73
201- 751 -24
1061- 521 -25
1062 - 481 -31
201 - 731 -74
201 - 751 -25 •
1061 - 521 -26
1062 - 481 -32
201- 751 -26
1061 - 521 -27
1062 - 481 -33
201 -741 -1
201- 751 -27
1061 - 521 -28
1062 - 481 -34
201 -741 -2
201 - 751 -28
1061- 521 -29
1062 - 481 -35
201 -741 -3
1061 - 521 -30
1062- 481 -36
201 -741 -4
201 - 741 -12
1061 - 521 -31
201 -741 -5
201 - 741 -13
1061- 521 -32
i062 -332 -1
201 -741 -6
201 - 741 -14
1061 - 521 -33
1062 -332 -2
201 -741 -7
201 - 741 -15
1061 - 521 -34
1062 -332 -3
201 -741 -8
201 - 741 -16
1061 - 521 -35
1062 -332 -4
201 -741 -9
201- 741 -17
1061 - 521 -36
1052 -332 -5
201- 741 -10
201 - 741 -18
1061 - 521 -37
1062 -332 -6
201- 741 -11
201 - 741 -19
1061 - 521 -38
1062 -332 -7
201- 741 -20
1061 - 521 -39
1062 -332 -8
201- 741 -27
201- 741 -21
1061 - 521 -40
1062 -332 -9
201 - 741 -28
201- 741 -22
1061- 521 -41
1062- 332 -10
201- 741 -29
201 - 741 -23
1061 -521 42
1062- 332 -11
201- 741 -30
201- 741 -24
1061- 52' -43
1062- 332 -12
201 - 741 -31
201- 741 -25
1061- 52. -44
1062- 332 -13
201 - 741 -32
201- 741 -26
1061- 521 -45
1062- 332 -14
201 - 741 -33
1061 - 521 -46
1062- 332 -15
201 - 741 -34
1061 - 5211-47
1062- 332 -16
201 - 741 -35
1061 - 521 -48
1062- 332 -17
201 - 741 -36
1062 - 332 -1a
201 - 741 -37
1062- 332 -19
•
1062 - 332 -20
Landscape Maintenance District 81
•E 43.00 E 43.00 E 43.00 E 43.00 E 43.00
TRACE— TRACT CT 434 TRACT 943 TRACT 94 RACE( T 4�—
201 -941 -1
202 -671 -1
202- 691 -12
202 -691 -1
1062- 251 -25
201 -941 -2
202 -671 -2
202- 691 -13
202 -691 -2
1062- 251 -26
201 -941 -3
202 -671 -3
202- 691 -14
202 -691.3
1062 - 251 -27
201 -941 -4
202 -671 -4
202 - 691 -15
202 -691 -4
1062- 251 -28
201 -941 -5
202 -671 -5
202 - 691 -16
202 -691 -5
1062- 251 -29
201 -941 -6
202 -671 -6
202- 691 -17
202 -691 -6
1062 - 251 -30
201 -941 -7
202 -671 -7
202- 691 -18
202 -691 -7
1062- 251 -31
201 -941 -8
202 -671 -8
202- 691 -19
202 -691 -8
1062 - 251 -32
201 -941 -9
202 -671 -9
202 - 691 -20
202 -691 -9
1062- 251 -33
201- 941 -10
202- 671 -i0
202 - 691 -21
202 - 691 -10
1062- 251 -34
201 - 941 -11
202 - 671 -11
202- 691 -22
202 - 691 -11
1062- 251 -35
201 - 941 -12
202- 671 -12
202- 691 -23
1062 - 251 -36
201 - 941 -13
202- 671 -13
202- 691 -24
202 - 691 -34
1062- 251 -37
201 - 941 -14
202- 671 -14
202- 691 -25
202 - 691 -35
1052- 251 -38
201 - 941 -15
202 - 671 -15
202- 691 -26
202 - 691 -36
1062 - 251 -39
201- 941 -16
202- 671 -16
202- 691 -27
202- 691 -37
1062 - 251 -40
201- 941 -17
202 - 671 -17
202 - 691 -28
202 - 691 -38
1062- 251 -41
201 - 941 -18
202 - 671 -18
202- 691 -29
202- 691 -39
1062- 251 -42
201 - 941 -19
202- 671 -19
202- 691 -30
202- 691 -40
1062- 251 -43
201 - 941 -20
202 - 671 -20
202- 691 -31
202 - 691 -41
1062- 251 -44
201 - 941 -21
202- 671 -21
202 - 691 -32
202- 691 -42
01- 941 -22
202- 671 -22
202 - 691 -33
202 - 691 -43
01- 941 -23
202- 671 -23
202 - 691 -44
201- 941 -24
202 - 671 -24
202 - 691 -46
202- 691 -45
201 - 941 -25
202- 671 -25
202- 691 -47
201 - 941 -26
202- 671 -26
202- 691 -48
202- 691 -51
201 - 941 -27
202- 671 -27
202 - 691 -49
202- 691 -52
201- 941 -28
202- 671 -28
202 - 691 -50
20-- 691 -53
201- 941 -29
202- 671 -29
202- 691 -54
202 - 671 -30
202 - 691 -55
202 - 671 -31
202 - 671 -32
I*
I7 /,f
Landscape Maintenance
District 81
•
E 43.00
E 43.00
TRACT 944 —
ACT 94
201 -163 -1
201 -132 -1
202 -661 -1
202- 661 -49
201 -163 -2
201 - 132 -2
202 -661 -2
202- 661 -50
201 -163 -3
201 -132 -3
202 -661 -3
202 - 661 -51
201 -163 -4
201 -132 -4
202 -661 -4
202 - 661 -52
201 -163 -5
201 -132 -5
202 -661 -5
202 - 661 -53
201 -163 -6
201 -132 -6
202 -661 -6
202- 661 -54
201 -163 -7
201 -132 -7
202 -661 -7
202 - 661 -55
201 -163 -8
201 -132 -8
202 -661 -8
202- 661 -56
201 -163 -9
201 -132 -9
202 -661 -9
202- 661 -57
201 - 163 -10
201- 132 -30
202- 661 -10
202- 661 -58
201 - 163 -11
201 - 132 -11
202- 661 -11
202- 661 -59
201 - 163 -12
201- 132 -12
202- 661 -12
201 - 163 -13
201 - 132 -13
202- 661 -13
201 - 163 -14
201- 132 -14
202- 661 -14
201 - 163 -15
201- 132 -15
202- 661 -15
201 - 163 -16
202 - 661 -16
202- 661 -17
201 -152 -1
202 - 661 -18
201 -152 -2
202 - 661 -19
201 -152 -3
202 - 661 -20
201 -152 -4
202- 661 -21
201 -152 -5
202 - 661 -22
201 -152 -6
202 - 661 -23
201 -152 -7
202- 661 -24
201 -152 -8
202- 661 -25
201 -152 -9
202 - 661 -26
201- 152 -10
202- 661 -27
201 - 152 -11
202- 661 -28
201- 152 -12
202- 661 -29
201- 152 -13
202`661 -30
201 - 152 -14
202- 661 -31
202- 661 -32
201 -142 -1
202- 661 -33
201 -142 -2
202- 661 -34
201 -142 -3
202 - 661 -35
201 -142 -4
202- 661 -36
201 -142 -5
202 - 661 -37
201 -142 -6
202- 661 -38
201 -142 -7
202 - 661 -¢a
201 -142 -8
202 - 661 -40
201 -142 -9
202- 661 -41
201 - 142 -30
202 - 661 -42
201 - 142 -11
202- 661 -43
201 - 142 -12
202- 661 -44
201 - 142 -13
202 - 661 -45
201- 142 -14
202 - 661 -46
201 - 142 -15
202 - 661 -47
201 - 142 -16
202 - 661•,48
•
IG
I -'7
1077- 061 -57
1077- 061 -58
1077 - 061 -59
1077 - 061 -60
1077- 061 -61
1077 - 061 -62
1077 - 061 -63
1077 - 061 -64
1077- 061 -65
1077- 061 -66
Landscape Maintenance
District 81
E 43.00
b 43.00
•
TRACT 9472
TRACT 9480
202 -581 -1
202- 681 -49
1077- 061 -13
202 -691 -2
202 - 631 -50
1077- 061 -14
202 -681 -3
202- 681,51
1077 - 061 -15
202 -681 -4
202- 681 -52
1077- 061 -16
202 -681 -5
202 - 681 -53
1077- 061 -17
202 -681 -6
202- 681 -54
1077- 061 -18
202 -681 -7
202 - 681 -55
1077 - 061 -19
202 -691 -8
202- 681 -56
1077- 061 -20
202 -681 -9
202- 681 -57
1077- 061 -21
202 - 631 -10
202- 681 -58
1077- 061 -22
202 - 681 -11
202 - 681 -59
1077- 061 -23
202- 681 -12
202 - 681 -60
202 - 681 -13
1077- 061 -25
202 - 681 -14
1077- 061 -26
202- 681 -15
1077- 061 -27
202- 681 -16
1077 - 061 -28
202- 681 -17
1077 - 061 -29
202 - 681 -13
1077- 061 -30
202- 661 -19
1077- 061 -31
202- 681 -20
1077 - 061 -32
202 - 681 -21
1077 - 061 -33
202 681 -22
1077- 061 -34
202- 681 -23
1077- 061 -35
1077- 061 -36
•
202 - 681 -24
1077 - 061 -37
202 - 681 -25
1077 - 01 -38
202 - 631 -26
1077- 0661 -39
202 - 681 -27
1077- 061 -40
202 - 681 -28
1077- 061 -41
2 02 - 681 -29
1077- 061 -42
202 - 691 -30
202- 681 -31
1071- Ob1 -43
202- 681 -32
1077- 061 -44
202 - 681 -33
1077- 061 -45
202 - 681 -34
1077- 061 -46
202 - 681 -35
1077- 061 -47
202 - 681 -36
1077 - 061 -48
202- 681 -37
1077- 061 -49
202 - 681 -38
1077 - 061 -50
202- 681 -39
1077 - 061 -51
202- 681 -40
1077- 061 -52
202 - 681 -41
1077- 061 -53
202 - 681 -42
1077- 061 -54
202- 601 -43
1077- 061 -55
202 - 681 -44
1077- 061 -56
202- 681 -45
202- 681 -46
202 - 681 -47
202- 681 -48
is
I -'7
1077- 061 -57
1077- 061 -58
1077 - 061 -59
1077 - 061 -60
1077- 061 -61
1077 - 061 -62
1077 - 061 -63
1077 - 061 -64
1077- 061 -65
1077- 061 -66
Landscape Maintenance District $1
$ 43.00
E 43.00
TRACT 9 76
TP,.4CT` 92—
1062- 211 -24
1062 -621.3
1062- 211 -25
1062-621-4,
1062- 211 -26
1062 -621 -5
1062- 211 -27
1062 -621 -6
1062 - 211 -28
1062 -621 -7
1062- 211 -29
1062 -621 -8
1062- 211 -30
1062 -621 -9
1062 - 211 -31
1062 - 621 -10
1062 - 211 -32
1062 - 621 -11
1062 - 211 -33
1062 - 621 -12
1062- 211 -34
1062- 621 -13
1062 - 211 -35
1062- 621 -14
1062 - 211 -36
1062 - 621 -15
1062 - 211 -37
1062 - 621 -16
201- 055 -21
1062- 621 -17
201 - 055 -22
1062- 621 -18
201- 055 -23
1062- 621 -19
201- 055 -24
1062- 621 -20
1062 - 621 -21
201- 055 -28
1062 - 621 -22
201- 055 -29
1062 - 621 -23
201 - 055 -30
1062 - 621 -24
201- 055 -31
1062 - 621 -25
201 - 055 -32
1062 - 621 -26
201 - 055 -33
1062- 621 -27
201- 055 -34
1062 - 621 -28
1062 - 621 -29
201 - 055 -38
1062- 621 -30
1062- 621 -31
201 - 055 -a3
1062 - 621 -32
201- 055 -44
1062- 621 -33
201 - 055 -45
1062- 621 -34
201- 055 -46
1062- 621 -35
201 - 055 -47
1062- 621 -36
201- 055 -48
1062- 621 -37
1062 - 621 -38
1062 - 621 -39
1062 - 621 -40
1062- 621 -41
1062 - 621 -12
1062 - 621 -43
1062 - 621 -44
1062- 621 -45
1062 - 621 -46
1062 - 621 -47
1062- 621 -48
1062- 621 -49
1062- 621 -50
1062 - 621 -51
1062 - 621 -52
1062 - 621 -53
1062 - 621 -54
1062 - 621 -55
1062- 621 -56
1062 - 621 -57
1062- 621 -58
1062 - 621 -59
1062- 621 -60
1062- 621 -61
1062- 621 -62
1062- 621 -63
1062 - 621 -64
1062 - 621 -65
1062 - 621 -66
1062- 621 -67
1062 - 621 -68
1062 - 621 -69
1062- 621 -70
1052 - 621 -71
9�
$ 43.00 1 43.
56
RACT RA
201 -055 -3
202- 671 -33
201 -055 -4
202- 671 -34
201 -055 -5
202 - 671 -35
201 -055 -6
202- 671 -36
201 -055 -7
202- 671 -37
202- 671 -38
201 - 055 -11
202- 671 -39
201 - 055 -12
202- 671 -40
201- 055 -13
202 - 671 -41
201 - 055 -14
202- 671 -42
201- 055 -15
202- 671 -43
201 - 055 -16
202- 671 -44
201 - 055 -17
202- 671 -45
201 - 055 -18
202 - 671 -46
201- 055 -19
202- 671 -47
201- 055 -20
202 - 671 -48
201- 055 -21
202- 671 -49
201 - 055 -22
202- 671 -50
201- 055 -23
202- 671 -51
201- 055 -24
202 - 671 -52
202- 671 -53
201- 055 -28
202 -67M
201- 055 -29
202 -67
201 - 055 -30
202- 671 -56
201- 055 -31
202 - 671 -57
201 - 055 -32
202- 671 -58
201 - 055 -33
202- 671 -59
201- 055 -34
202- 671 -60
202- 671 -61
201 - 055 -38
202- 671 -62
202 - 671 -63
201 - 055 -a3
202 - 671 -64
201- 055 -44
202- 671 -65
201 - 055 -45
202- 671 -66
201- 055 -46
202- 671 -67
201 - 055 -47
202- 671 -68
201- 055 -48
202 - 671 -69
202- 671 -70
202- 671 -71
202 - 671 -72
202- 671 -73
•
0
n
J
19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer
C�a70,ti^
C6
�>
wz I
SUBJECT: Approval of the Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the
Proposed Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
This report presents the Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the
proposed Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain Improvements for City Council
approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State
Guidelines, the attached document has been prepared to permit construction of
the above mentioned improvements.
The firm of Bill Mann & Associates is nearing completion of the design plans
for the Storm Drain Improvements.
It is Engineering Staff's findings that the proposed project will not create a
significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, recommend
adoption - of said environmental assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution approving
the environmental assessment and issuance of a Negative Declaration for the
proposed Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain Improvements.
Resp,gctfully subr)itted,
Attachments
��
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION •
1. Brief Description of Project:
Approval of the Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the Proposed
Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
2. Name and Address of Applicant:
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
3. Pursuaot to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above
project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. An
Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
4. Minutes of such decision and the Initial Study prepared by the City
of Rancho Cucamonga are on file in the Engineering Division of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. •
5. This decision may be appealed to the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal and filing fee must be received
by the City Council no later than 5:00 pm fourteen (14) calendar
days from the date of the ,
6. This Negative Declaration is subject to the implementation of mitigatingt
measures (if any) as listed on the attachments. .,
DATED August 3, 1983
Ili
CITY ENGINEER
Appendix C
N
• APPENDIX D
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: _ X Secretary for Resources FROM: (Public Agency) 1
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 amity of Rancho Cucamonga
5aaramento, California 93814 _Fnnineerino Division l
or P.O. Box 807
V county Clerk
County of SAN riERNARDINO
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: Filing, of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152
of the Public Resources Code.
BeeLrjl �S�treet - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain Improvement Plan
Project Title
Lloyd B. Hubbs (714) )89 -1851
State Ciear;nynouse Number contact Person Telephone Numoer
(If submitted to Clearinghouse)
Hellman Avenue at Monte Vista Street; then Northwesterly along the existing
tt t hland f nu h e t the North on B rv7 S r n
v, oleet Location Highland Avenue
Combined Dine and open channel storm drain designed to alleviate localized
Project Uesr tpton
drainage problems between Beryl Street and Hellman Avenue
• This is to advise that the City of Rancho Luc amonaa �I
Lead Agency or Responsible Agency
has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project will, X will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. _ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
x A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
The MR. or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be '
examined at:
9340 Base line Road Rancho Cuc ^monga CA 91730
frity 9a llj
3. Mitigation measure, were, X_ were not, made a condition of the approval
of the project. —
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was, x was not, adopted for
this project.
Date Reserved for Filing
Signature
City Fngineer
Title v
105
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To to completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(lW days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed pro.!--t.
•
PROJECT TITLE: Beryl Street - Hell;�yn_ lv. , u,. Storm Drain 0
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Ci¢amnnna._
9320 C Base Line Road P.O. Box 807, Ranrhn Cnramnnga., ralifornia
- 77730- .- 85
NAXE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Llo d Hobbs, Cit of Rancho CUCam09 a
9320 C Base Line Road, P.O. Box BO , Ranc o ucamonga California 9 7
(714) 989 -1851
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Street to highland Avenue.
LISP OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
_ Standard Encroachment Permit - State of Cali `ornia Department
of Transportation.
I -1
) l 1
e
•
•
PROTECT DESCRIPTIC::
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Combined pipe and open Channel storm drain
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDING$, IF ANY: C 9 A..Ps of }act area
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
Is the Project part of a .lar,ler project, one of a series
of cunu: itive actions, which although individually small,
may as a whol,: have significant environmental impact?
Yes. The conteniplated project is a very small part of a Comprehensive
Storm Drain Master Plan. Subsequent phases of the master plan will be
environmentally assessed as those phases are implemented.
)1
I -2
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO •
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)°.
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 12
_ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardot:s materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YF.s answers above: Construction of a
channel will necessitate removal of 12 eucalyptus re— es fFa�ar
IMPORTANT: If the proj °ct involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page. N/A
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishes
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evauuation can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date July 5, 1983 Signature DU'),' C4
Title Assistant Civil Engineer
I -3
I)11
RESIM, 11TIAL CONSTP,i1CTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planninc Division in order to aid in assessina the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: N/A
Specific Location of Project:_
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
•Date proposed to
beer. construction:
4. Earliest date of
occnvancv:
Modal
and °- of Tentative
S. Ded_'on .s Price Rance
9
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHAS° 4 TO ^.AL
T_4
.3
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY •
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE: July 5, 1983
APPLICANT; City of Rancho Cucamonga
FILING DATE: August 3, 1983 LOG NUMBER: 45 -50 -69
PROJECT: Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain
Hellman Avenue at Monte Vista Street; Existing Wash Northwest of
PROJECT LOCATION:aforeme tin d t Ct' Rev 1 c reat between 19th
Street and Highland Avenue
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
I11-,
0.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
in
•
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes
X
. geologic relationships?
_
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
X
burial of the soil?
_
C. Chance in t000eraphy or ground surface
X
'
cont.vt intervals?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
X
of any unique geologic or physical features?
C. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
X X
site conditons?
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
X �_
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
X
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
X
use of any mineral resource?
-- _
2. Ilydrologv. Will the proposal have significant
•
results in:
I11-,
0.
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
YES MAYBE
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
•
channels?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
X
body of water?
X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality?
_
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity?
h. The reduction in the amount of water other-
•
wise available for public warmer supplies?
I. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
A. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources?
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or
Interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
r.. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, aff,cting air movement, moisture
or temeorr.ture?
4. Biota
FIo Y.,. W01 tho proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the rharnc.tm'istirs of species,
including diversity, distribution, or n "mhOr
of anv species of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of anv unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
1) i
YES MAYBE
NO
— _
�L
X
X
—
X
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production?
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant result=
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
of any species of animals?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rate
or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
.,lldlife habitat?
S. Population. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. ;.,ill the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
b. -Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
6. Socio- Economic Factors, Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional socio- economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and property
values?
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project benefie'aries, i.e., buyers,
tax payers or project users?
7, lan <1 Use Ind Planning Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
b. A conflict with any deaignatiom;, objnctives,
policies, or adopted plans of cry governmental
entities?
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non - consumptive
recreational opportunities ?�!
YES MAYBE NO
_ X
i
X
Ji
X
X
X
X
•
W71
YES MAYBE
NO
8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant
•
results in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
X
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction?
c, Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand fzr new parking?
X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion systems? _
X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and /or goods?
X
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic? _
X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
�(
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
•
significant results in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and /or historical resources?
10. Health Safety, and NuisancL Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
g
C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
sabstancen in the event of an accident?
g
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people. to such
orcanism ,? —
]L
e. Increase in existing noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentinlly dangerous
nolsc levels ?.
g, The creation of objectionable odors.' --
i
h. An increase in light nr glare?
W71
YES MAYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
'
resuits in:
•
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
X
C. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
X
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, cr
alterations to the following:
a. Electric power?
X
b. Natural or packaged gas?
X
c. Communications system=_?
X
d. Water supply? _
X
e. Wastewater facilities? ,_
X
f. Flood control structures? X
_
g. Solid Waste facilities? ,_
,�
•
h. Fire protection?
i. Police protection?
J. Schools?
)i
k. Parks or other recreational facilities'
1. fiaintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
m. Other governmental services? �_
)L
17. Energv` and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
h ve a significant results in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?
IL
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
X
sources of energy?
C. An increase in the demand for development of
now sources of energy? __
X—
•
d. An Increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non - renewable Eons of energy, when feasible
X
renewable sources of energy are available? _—
YES MAYBE W
— e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
X
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? _
X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
sh..rt -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
,
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future).
X
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
.
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
X
and probable future projects).
_
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
II. D13CCSS ION OF Eh ^✓IRT^ EHTAL EVAtUATinv (i.e., of affirmative
answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation
measures).
.y! I
III. DETERMINATION
On the basis of thin initial evaluation:
Ex I I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect •
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLIRATION will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLIRATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
envirnment, and an ENVIRONNENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date July 5, 1983
Signature
Assistant Assistant Civil Engineer
Title
•
1jA�
• PART 11 - INITIAL STUDY
1.
b. Soil displacement and compaction will take place
within the existing wash area as the proposed
rectangular channel is constructed.
c. Minor changes in ground surface contour intervals
will take place within the existing wash area as the
proposed rectangular channel is constructed.
f. Upon construction of the proposed rectangular
channel, erosion siltation or deposition upon City
streets will be greatly reduced if not entirely
eliminated.
2.
b. Construction of the proposed rectangular channel will
reduce absorption rates and stabilize the drainage
patterns withinthe existing wash area.
f. Construction of the proposed rectangular channel will
reduce the amount of water percolation within the
• existing wash area.
g. A reduction in the quantity of water for any
groundwater table existent within the existing wash
will take place upon the construction of the proposed
rectangular channel.
h. rhere may be a reduction in the amount of water
availabe for local public supplies when the proposed
concrete rectangular channel is constructed.
i. Exposure of people to water related hazards may exist
should these persons make their way within controlled
access to the proposed retangular channel. Exposure
could be mitigated by regular patrolling of the
proposed channel, warning signs, and placement of a
chain- linked fence.
5.
a. The growth rate of human population adjacent to the
existing wash area may increase once the construction
of the proposed rectangular channel stabilizes
drainage_ patterns within said wash.
b. Construction of the proposed rectangular channel will
stabilize drainage patterns in the existing wash area
and may provide adjacent property owners an
opportunity for expansion of their existing housing
or land use.
10.
a. Stabilization of the existing wash area with the 40 construction of the proposed rectangular channel will
provide an increase in the adjacent land values.
b. Project costs are equitably distributed among project
beneficiaries through a per acreage storm drain fee.
b. Reconstruction of an existing street (Beryl Street)
at the north end of the proposed rectangular channel
will be required. Possible construction of a new
street adjacent to the east side of the proposed
rectangular channel may be required if the adjacent
private properties develop and no vehicular traffic
is available otherwise.
e. Local noise levels will increase during the
construction of the proposed rectangular channel.
These noise levels can be mitigated by restricting
the hours of operation of heavy equipment and the
installation of noise attenuators on said equipment.
12.
f. Construction of underground storm drain pipes in
Hellman Avenue south of the proposed rectangular •
channel will be required to remove a major portionof
surface storm waters. Said storm drain pipes will be
installed when funds become available.
1. Maintenance of the proposed rectangular channel and
its appurtenaces will be required subsequent to their
construction.
14.
c. The construction of the proposed rectangular channel
is a very small part of a Comprehensive Storm Drain
Master Plan. The drainage system proposed in the
master plan would construct drains primarily within
street rights of way or in natural drainage
channels. This fact severly limits the impacts to
primarily beneficial effects related to reduction of
hazards to life and property from the impacts of
flooding. The Plan itself does not construct
facilities or directly impact the physical
environment. These impacts would occur at the time
project is implemented. Further environmental
analysis will then be completed.
C,
J
JLit
RESOLUTION NO. *
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE DF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE.PROPOSED BERYL STREET - HELLMAN AVENUE
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
reviewed all available input concerning the proposed Beryl Street - Hellman
Avenue Storm Drain Improvements; and
WHEREAS, said improvements require an Environmental Assessment; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rxnrhn rucamonga does
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
approves the Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Negative
Declaration for the proposed Beryl Street - Hellman Avenue Storm Drain
Improvements.
• SECTION 2: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of
Determination pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City C er
Jon D, Mi a s, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 1Y6 -0) cw" 3, ( y 8-3
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION F OF SECTION
3.36.010 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF "OPERATOR" FOR
PURPOSES OF TILE ADMISSIONS TAX.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Subsection F of Section 3.36.010 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amer,ded to read as follows:
"F. OPERATOR: 'operator' includes any person,
association, firm, or corporation owning, operating,
conducting, directing, managing, or controlling, alone
or in conjunction with any other person or as an inde-
pendent contractor, any event or portion thereof which
is subject to any tax imposed by any provision of this
Chapter."
and in all other respects, Section 3.36.010 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code shall remain the same.
. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at
]east once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation,
published in tSe City of Ontario, California, and circul-.ted in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of
1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
•
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 3, 1983
City "Cc.1cil and City Managcr
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Long Range Major Street and Drainage Program
I .
��qq �iK.An1p1`,
r'
1977
Attached for adoption is a Resolution approving the Long Range Major Street
and Drainage Program. This program covers a 10 to 15 year period with
provisions for annual review as a part of the normal budgetary process.
The program has been reviewed by both the Planning and Advisory Commissions
and has been recommended for approval by both bodies.
A more detailed description i� included in the attached Planning Commission
Memo.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the Resolution approving the Long Range
Major Street and Drainage Program Priorities conformance with the
recommendation of the Planning and Advisory Commissions.
Respectfully submi ed,
LBH as
Attachments
q7�J
-- c
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1983 fig,
jL
T0: Planning Commission u
FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 1983 -84 CAPITAL BUDGET, LONG RANGE MAJOR STREET AND DRAINAGE
PROGRAM
Attached for review is the 1983 -84 Capital Improvement Budget and long
range streets and drainage C,.yital Improvement Program. This program
follows a somewhat different format than our previous long range program
in that it merges the drainage projects with the street improvement
project. This format evolves from the fact that our major remaining
street deficiencies are related to the major water carrying streets of
Hermosa /Turner, Hellman and Beryl. The previous Five Year Plan is
attached for your information.
The heart of the plan is therefore three major program elements broken
into sub - projects. These major elements are:
1 - Hermosa - Turner Improvement Program $4,500,000
2 - Lower Hellman Avenue Improvement Program $2,500,000
3 - Upper Hellman -Beryl Improvement Program 54,300,000
Interspersed within these programs are various other projects of varying
priority which will likely require attention. Also included are annual
allocation for residential and arterial resurfacing and preventative
maintenance to improve and protect streets which will require attention
in the future.
The basic program priorities follow the adopted storm drain priorities
and are designated as key projects to be funded if Measure "W" is
successful.
Revenue projections are summarized below:
ANNUAL
REVENUES
Gas Tax $775,000
Article 8 S.B. 325 400,000
System Development Fund 400,000
Storm Drain Fund 300000
0uu
C, ?
C t
Memo to Planning Commission
Re: Street and Drainage Improvements
July 13, 1983
ROUTINE EXPENDITURES
Routine Maintenance $1,000,000
Fund Available 875,000
FIVE YEAR TOTAL $4,375,000
Depending on the growth rate over the next five years and supplemental
revenues in the form of grant, red_velopment and assessment funds
progress through the Hermosa /Turner Impicv—ment program could be
expected. With the passage of Measure "W" the full program could likely
be completed over the ten year time frame.
The program was submitted to the Advisory Commission and adoption of the
proposed program was recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution recommending approval of 0e 1983 -84 Program for Community
Improvements and Long Range Major Street and Drainage Program priorities
• and finding consistency with the General Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
L40yd S. Hobbs
City Engineer
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 83 -89
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION 40
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 1983 -84 PROGRAM FOR
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS AND LONG RANGE MAJOR STREET AND
DRAINAGE PROGRAM PRIORITIES
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of July, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission held a meeting to consider the attached proposed Capital
Improvements Programs; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission concurs in the
recommended program as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the proposed program conforms to the elements of the General
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission hereby:
SECTION 1: Find that the attached Capital Improvement Programs are
in conformance with the General Plan of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 2: Recommends approval of the attached proposed Capital
Improvement's Programs to the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga for its
adoption. •
SECTION 3: Further recommends that said program be reviewed and
updated ono annual basis as a part of the City budgetary process.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 1983.
PLANNINGOMMISSIO "FT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: eill,
A
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, JUAREZ, REMPEL I
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: rOMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL
•
C C
• LONG RANGE
MAJOR STREET & DRAINAGE
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
1.
RESIDENTIAL STREET RESTORATION
Programmed $50,000 Annually
$250,000
2.
ARTERIAL - COLLECTOR RESURFACING AND
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Programmed $100,000 Annually
$500,000
3.
BASE LINE ROAD - LAYTON TO ARCHIBALD
$60,000
Widening
4.
HILLSIDE RD. - MALACHITE TO ARCHIBALD
$100,000
Widening, Reconstruction and Drainage
*Potential for inclusion in Alta Loma
Channel Assessme ^t District
5.
VICTORIA AVENUE - ETIWANDA TO EAST
$50,000
Reconstruction, Resurfacing
• 6.
HERMOSA- TURNER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Turner Ave. Storm Drain, Deer Creek
$1,300,000
thru Foothill Blvd. Intersection
including widening and appurtenant
drainage facilities
Turner Storm Drain Widening and
$1,200,000
Reconstruction, Foothill to Base Line Rd.
Turner Avenue Widening and Drainage
$400,000
Eighth Street to 76th Street
Includes rail crossing improvement
Hermosa Storm Drain Extension
$1,200,000
Base Line Road to North of 19th St.
Including Base Line widening South
side Cambridge to Kinlock, Lateral drain
East on Base Line to Ramona. Improvement
of rail crossing at P.E. tracks
Widening and Reconstruction of Hermosa
$400,000
Drain up Ramona to P.E. tracks
Improve rail crossing
Reconstruct Ramona from Base Line to
Nineteenth Street
SUB -TOTAL
$4,500,000
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
� C
ETIWANDA RECONSTRUCTION
$220,000
HAVEN AVENUE
•
RESURFACING
$50,000
LOWER HELLMAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Storm Drain, Street Widening and
$1,200,000
Reconstruction, widening drainage and
signal at the AT & SF Railroad -
Cucamonga Creek to Nintn Street
Lateral Drains & Street Reconstruction
$300,000
Eighth Street, Vineyard to Archibald
Storm Drain, Street Reconstruction
$1,000,000
North to Foothill Boulevard
SUB -TOTAL
$2,500,000
UPPER HELLMAN -BERYL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Reconstruct Cucamonga Storm Drain
$1,500,000
Cucamonga Creek to Amethyst
Widen and Improve Hellman
$1,500,000
P.E. Railroad crossing
Construct Storm Drain in Hellman
from Cucamonga Storm Drain to North
•
of 19th Street, Street Reconstruction
Construct Amethyst Drain
$300,000
from Cucamonga Storm Drain North
Reconstruct Street
Construct Beryl Storm Drain
51,000,000
from Alta Loma Park to Rancho Wash
and Demen 2 Basin, Reconstruct street
Widen Lemon to Beryl
SUB -TOTAL
$4,300,000
HERMOSA AVENUE BANYAN TO N/0 HILLSIDE
590,000
Resurfacing, Reconstruction
HILLSIDE ROAD - ARCHIBALD TO HAVEN
$75,000
ARROW ROUTE - ARCHIBALD TO TURNER
$150,000
Widen and Reconstruct
ARCHIBALD AVENUE - 19TH TO HIGHLAND
$75,000
Realign and Widen at Freeway Right of Way
CARNELIAN AVENUE - BASE LINE TO VIVERO $20,000 •
Minor Widening and Resurfacing
I�"
C C
• TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITIES
BUDGETED
Foothill Blvd. & Hellman Avenue
Carnelian Avenue & Lemon Avenue
Nineteenth Street & Archibald Avenue
Grove Ave. at Ninth, Arrow Route, San Bernardino Road
Foothill Boulevard at Vineyard & Archibald, Modification
PROGRAM
PRIORITY
LOCATION
ESTIMATE
1.
Foothill @ Turner Ave.
$35,000
2.
Vineyard Ave. @ Ninth St.
S70,000
3.
Haven Ave. @ Fouth St.
$35,000
4.
Archibald Ave. @ Sixth St.
$70,000
5.
Base Line Rd. @ Beryl Ave.
570,000
• 6.
Nineteenth St, @ Hellman Ave.
535,000
i.
Nineteenth St. @ Beryl Ave.
$35,000
B.
Nineteenth St. @ Sapphire St.
$35,000
9.
Nineteenth St. @ Hermosa Ave.
S70,000
10.
Base Line Road @ Hermosa Ave.
$70,000
11.
Arrow Rte. @ Hellman Ave.
$70,000
12.
Arrow Rte. @ Turner Ave.
510,000
� 7�7
. .........
-4 YEAR
ST?CE: AN' 7v=,
11:1hi—d A,-, I. -atj,
110,
435,
1 ('3
NS dr
Id I.... f
A-- 1. Hillsid.,
- nanlu
3 60.090
R—d Creek 10 W,,t
50•CT0
Ci, Li-.it. vtdlRtna and
6
Archft4ld A—, - Fourth
Lt.. Road x...
ArO,!`aId A, ,,, end F.ullh SIl,.l J,,I
$ 40"00
Grnelian Street And Lemon Avenue .!goal
]0,000
fm ul la ttan
•
9
A,—, E,j.A.j,.
It 301coo
10
Le-on Avenue - Her-, tn Camilla,
351000
It
El— Ltle R..d - 1-15 1. Elt—d. Al—,
$100,000
.idl,,, ... ........... I.. and era lnage
aT
Cxove Ave, - Elgl¢h , r_,hLLI, Wd..I,,
$750,000
e._ c!anzl
13.
ArcSVba LI and 19 0
35,000
tion
14.
Church S,, - A,Otl,aId m Ilellman,
35,000
.,d
15.
Ea a, AvIr"Pe - HIOIand Av.... to S,jt,
$ 50.000
I
Ill.
Fltw—f, A..: P,hill a Z,,
re,rr-i,
$20,1,vo
17
HAvl.l All—lov - Hight.,nd t,• W14, re sur(acing
$ 1 no. 1,10
18,
Bacr I, bar Nn.ul , ,
"'d Rl S'", traffic cLznll
S an''on,
I
f,,lial",
le,
V :nlvn of R -111h 511,11. tr,ffl, aIRnal
s 80.000
20.
Arrhil,fll xnj 9 ,, rr,... E - %j,j
$ ......
ST.IF.-� AND 77AFFIC
DT-6V EVENT F-M^vV1
Cant In",d)
r.lor!Zv
21
Turner
and roothill - vWlninl, al.lilaZe
and $350,000
alpv is
22,
sm, JlJlnagc and vid—in
23
t9lb Street
" 6-11 Hel
1,.ffin S200,000
nalalla[i.n
MT
Si. 79010 On
� r
PROG?L'df FOP.
MLIFL:liTy I`:PROVEMENTS
15183 - 84 .
PROO211( TITLES
Archibald .4v,n.e
Hell-,,nu Avenue
Carnelian Beautification
Baseline Beautification
Fourth Street and Archibald
Sidewalks
i
PRCCR.tit DESCRIPT:0:l
Resurface and reconstruction from Fourth St.
to Baseline Road.
Widen and reconsturct San Be mardino Road
to Southern Pacific Railroad
Landscape and irrigation of Carnelian from
Baseline to hillside
Landscape and improve Baseline Rd. from
vest City limit to Carnelian Street
Traffic signal installation
From Baseline Road to Alta Loma iwws
High School
PRGCVX! CO S7, $1,200,820
FL'S 01'C SCCRC:(S)FAU, Bcautification
CDL'G (Jobs Bill) S.B. 821
4 :) i,
c
FROG Z'z TITLES
Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Ave
Baseline Road
Grove Avenue
Baker Avenue_
Vineyard
East Avenue
lligh Land Avanue
lxe -An Avanue
Archibald Avenue
Arvthysr Avanue
49
Fr.CGRM FOR
COC!1':iT•f IhIFRCC Ei; °1:TS
1,83 - 94
c
FRCGRldt DESCBIFT.C:;
Widen, drainage and traffic signals
Widen, reconstruction and resurface Baseline
Rd. from Teak Way to Ivy Lane.
Etiwanda Ave. to I -15, reconstruct and
improve drainage �-
Resurface from Garnet to Carnelian
SigqM�1
Modernize R. R. crossing signal, widen Grove
from Eighth St. to Foothill Blvd.
At Alta Loma Basin; widen and realign
Resurface between Grove and Archibald
Resurface between Hellman and Archibald
Resurface between Hellman and Archibald
Reconsturction and resurfacing between
Grove and Archibald 1t
Rcourfece between Bth St, and Foothill
Resurface between Carnelian and Baseline
Reconstruction from Highland Ave. to Summit
Resurface between Hermosa and the Alta Loma
Channel
Resurface GGII' east of Hermosa to Havea Ave.
Resurface between Lemon and Banyan
11,;urfacu and reconstruction between
Yinetecnth Ind lt,nvan
F.'.f6RMl COST i (next page)
SCLRCE(S) Gas Tax, SB 125, Systems
i 7-7
Hermosa
•
Arrow Route
Chruch Street
San hernardinn Road
Ninth Street
Baker Avenue_
Vineyard
East Avenue
lligh Land Avanue
lxe -An Avanue
Archibald Avenue
Arvthysr Avanue
49
Fr.CGRM FOR
COC!1':iT•f IhIFRCC Ei; °1:TS
1,83 - 94
c
FRCGRldt DESCBIFT.C:;
Widen, drainage and traffic signals
Widen, reconstruction and resurface Baseline
Rd. from Teak Way to Ivy Lane.
Etiwanda Ave. to I -15, reconstruct and
improve drainage �-
Resurface from Garnet to Carnelian
SigqM�1
Modernize R. R. crossing signal, widen Grove
from Eighth St. to Foothill Blvd.
At Alta Loma Basin; widen and realign
Resurface between Grove and Archibald
Resurface between Hellman and Archibald
Resurface between Hellman and Archibald
Reconsturction and resurfacing between
Grove and Archibald 1t
Rcourfece between Bth St, and Foothill
Resurface between Carnelian and Baseline
Reconstruction from Highland Ave. to Summit
Resurface between Hermosa and the Alta Loma
Channel
Resurface GGII' east of Hermosa to Havea Ave.
Resurface between Lemon and Banyan
11,;urfacu and reconstruction between
Yinetecnth Ind lt,nvan
F.'.f6RMl COST i (next page)
SCLRCE(S) Gas Tax, SB 125, Systems
i 7-7
PROCR;.M rOR
CC:__ ^j:;IT'i IMPRDPEME1;TS
1933 - 94
PRO:7= TITLES PRCGkAM DESC31?TIC71
Carnelian and Lemon
Traffic signal installation
19th and Archibald
Traffic signal installation
Foothill Blvd. at Archibald and
Vineyard
Traffic signal modifications
Baseline Rd. 6 Vineyard Avenue
Traffic signals
Alley reconstruction
s/o Foothill, Malachite to Ramona, n/o Arrow,
Avenida Leon to Hellman Ave., e/o Hellman,
Baseline to La Mesa, e/o Archibald, Devon
to Hampshire
Residential street resurfacing
Garnet, Agate, Roberds n/o Baseline Rd.
Malachite, Leucite, Alusmen, Jadeite, Devon
to Hampshire ,
Sapphire Street sidewalks
Various locations, Banyan to Hillside
COST $2 ,+91,144
Cas Tax, SB 3 25, Systo,
Develop -ent Fund
ICC5:.,'! TITLES
Alta Lon, Channel
Beryl - He' ,,,n storm drain
Minor drainage ir..proverents
Fee reirburserents
Harness - Turner stern drain
Day Crock
P CC:vti! FOR
CC ?:!L':lIT'i
1483 - 84
PRCC nAi! D`cSC3 iG'T: C:7
Contribution to Assessment District B? -C.
Alta Loma Basin to Almond St.
}iellman to Alta Lena Park
various locations
various
Foothill Blvd. to Alfa Loma basins - design
Design studys
i'B PdJP. \N CCCT4 $677,671 --
'l.'SOISC SC?,CL(S) Drainage Fund
RESOLUTION NO. * S?.1 1/-
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LONG RANGE MAJOR STREET
DRAINAGE PROGRAM PRIORITIES
WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of August, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga City
Council held a meeting to consider the attached proposed Lona Range Major
Street and Drainage Program Priorities; and
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission concurs in the
rerommended program as proposed, and has found it in conformance with the
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga City
Council hereby:
SECTION 1: Approves the attached Long Range Street and Drainage
Program Priorities.
SECTION 2: Directs the implementation of said Program on a priority
basis as funds become available.
SECTION 3: Further directs that said program be reviewed as a
• minimum on an aannual basis to evaluated progress and priorities.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of August, 1983.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
LJ
Jon D. Mi a s, Mayor
)IM
r
C
LONG RANGE
MAJOR STREET & DRAINAGE
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
C
P
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
1.
RESIDENTIAL STREET RESTORATION
Programmed $50,000 Annually
$250,000
2.
ARTERIAL - COLLECTOR RESURFACING AND
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Programmed $100,000 Annually
$500,000
3.
BASE LINE ROAD - LAYTON TO ARCHIBALD
$60,000
Widening
4.
HILLSIDE RD. - MALACHITE TO ARCHIBALD
5100,000
Widening, Reconstruction and Drainage
*Potential for inclusion in Alta Loma
Channel Assessment District
5.
VICTORIA AVENUE - ETIWANDA TO EAST
$50,000
Reconstruction, Resurfacing
6.
HERMOSA- TURNER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Turner Ave. Storm Drain, Deer Creek
$1,300,000
•
thru Foothill Blvd. Intersection
including widening and appurtenant
drainage facilities
Turner Storm Drain Widening and
$1,200,000
Reconstruction, Foothill to Base Line Rd.
Turner Avenue Widening and Drainage
$400,000
Eighth Street to 26th Street
Includes rail crossing improvement
Hermosa Storm Drain Extension
51,200,000
Base Line Road to North of 19th St.
Including Base Line widening South
side Cambridge to Kinlock, Lateral drain
East on Base Line to Ramona. Improvement
of rail crossing at P.E. tracks
Widening and Reconstruction of Hermosa
$400,000
Drain up Ramona to P.E. tracks
Improve rail crossing
Reconstruct Ramona from Base Line to
Nineteenth Street
SUB -TOTAL
$4,5002000
•
( t
• 7.
ETIWANDA RECONSTRUCTION
$220,000
3.
HAVEN AVENUE RESURFACING
$50,000
9.
LOWER HELLMAN AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Storm Drain, Street Widening and
$1,200,000
Reconstruction, widening drainage and
signal at the AT & SF Railroad -
Cucamonga Creek to Ninth Street
Lateral Brains & Street Reconstruction
$300,000
Eighth Street, Vineyard to Archibald
Storm Drain, Street Reconstruction
$1,000,000
North to Foothill Boulevard
SUB -TOTAL
$2,500,000
10.
UPPER HELLMAN -BERYL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Reconstruct Cucamonga Storm Drain
$1,500,000
Cucamonga Creek to Amethyst
Widen and Improve Hellman
$1,500,000
•
P.E. Railroad crossing
Construct Storm Drain in Hellman
from Cucamonga Storm Drain to North
of 19th Street, Street Reconstruction
Construct Amethyst Drain
$300,000
from Cucamonga Storm Drain North
n Street
Construct Beryl Storm Drain
51,000,000
from Alta Loma Park to Rancho Wash
and Demen 2 Basin, Reconstruct street
Widen Lemon to Beryl
SUB -TOTAL
$4300,000
11.
HERMOSA AVENUE BANYAN TO N/0 HILLSIDE
$90,000
Resurfacing, Reconstruction
12.
HILLSIDE ROAD - ARCHIBALD TO HAVEN
$75,000
13,
ARROW ROUTE - ARCHIBALD TO TURNER
$150,000
Widen and Reconstruct
14.
ARCHIBALD AVENUE - 19TH TO HIGHLAND
$75,000
Realign and Widen at Freeway Right of Way
15.
CARNELIAN AVENUE - BASE LINE TO VIVERO
$20,000
Minor Widening and Resurfacing
%( 1,`)
14
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITIES
C
•
BUDGETED
Foothill Blvd. & Hellman Avenue
Carnelian Avenue & Lemon Avenue `
Nineteenth Street & Archibald Avenue
Grove Ave. at Ninth, Arrow Route, San Bernardino Road
Foothill Boulevard at Vineyard & Archibald, Modification
PROGRAM PRIORITY
I U'3
LOCATION
ESTIMATE
1.
Foothill @ Turner Ave.
$35,000
2.
Vineyard Ave. @ Ninth St.
$70.000
3.
Haven Ave. @ Fouth St.
$35,000
4.
Archibald Ave. @ Sixth St.
$70,000
5.
Base Line Rd. @ Beryl Ave,
510,000
6.
Nineteenth St. @ Hellman Ave.
$35,000 •
7,
Nineteenth St, @ Beryl Ave.
$35,000
B.
Nineteenth St. @ Sapphire St.
$35,000
9.
Nineteenth St @ Hermosa Ave.
$70,000
i0.
Base Line Road @ Hermosa Ave.
$70,000
11,
Arrow Rte. @ Hellman Ave.
$70,000
12.
Arrow Rte. @ Turner Ave.
$70,000
I U'3
STAFF REPORT�?�"
DATE: August 3, 1983 r
TO: City Council and City Manager
1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Hellman Avenue Improvement Program
In order to fit an extremely narrow approval and construction window for the
subject project, it is necessary to receive and award bids on August 3. An
earlier advertising date could not be obtained from HUD, State law requires a
two week advertisement period and we are attempti,�g to complete base paving at
Cucamonga Junior High School prior to September 5 opening of school.
Given these constraints, it was unavoidable that we present the final bid
results at the time of your meeting on August 3. At that time we will explain
the results and present a recommendation for award.
Resp ectfully pee t�tted,
r� G
LBH:jaa
.1
Illy-
• M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney
DATE: July 14, 1983
RE: Resolution Making Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
Applicable to Judicial Review of Administrative Decis-
ions the City Had Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.5.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, a copy of which
is attached for information, imposes a ninety (90)-day statute
of limit,.tions on any court proceeding in administrative man-
damus to attack a final administrative decision of the City.
• Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 is applicable to
a local agency only if the governing board of the local agency
provides for its applicablility by ordinance or by resolution.
If Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 is not made ap-
plicable, there are some categories of administrative determin-
ations that would remain open to attack for several years.
Accordingly, we recommend that the enclosed Resolution
be presented to the City Council, for action.
RED:sgg
Enclosures
r 1
�J
G ^ — -.,4
_ �v
• RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.6 APPLICABLE TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS THE
CITY HAD PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 1094.5.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali-
fornia, resolves, determines and orders as follows:
The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
shall apply to the judicial review, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section IC94.5, of any decision by the City Council
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, or of any commis-
sion, board, officer or agent of said CiLy.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of
1983, by the following vote:
AYES:
. NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
city
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
—City, Attoune `
—18
S 1094.5 SPECIAL PRO( tlron'cS P.,
Note 378
x. ri,l,,,., „' ^. In. A
1:
m'.1:,1
11 ��•.1,
., .. ..r. \l.
else ?li IC: r'.rl la "c .', lu. :i r'.ULI
Lr
L'a�..
r.
•'d.ii _I. rlln.l L i r.
I'n • n r u z m r
1
o-u�- I;p...,.•,ru;•'I- ,.,.,•�.r •.: :¢r..l.,
r.
Ia,.
.. i,ur
L,.... ,L..'n:,. . .
..
.
n: ".:nnl ,.rr e. ih r•nv Lrt In'. r:.....
,n
rl:,' =.
on..n.:n
:x !...sera: n..
ri ,nvxbru.: rr 1, u.ir p..a,nr
ere
,r. r �•'
+r..
rnmm.., ren....
Lr.......: e.• \er' „i.,.r• r Ilr:'_i 1..:.
r'.,cl
a „a
e rr.i rJx:
v.... .,:,
I'nr A
ri
I r r”
i'r +•'r farm 'en II II I..,
cis
rve
erll d t r
fI
\v.
.rI
I Ia.I
\ .I11'n
tun r on 1
F 1094.6. Judicial recie\v; derision, of local agencies; poiura:
filing; lime, record; derision and parlp define::: r.
divance or re olulion
sal .ludiriel Ievira of any derision of a local ngenry, otiu••' to
school thstri<'I. its the Corm local agenr� is definers in Section -,,...
the Gmvrnmrnl Cody, rn' of any commission. boons, offtrrl n:.:l.:..
Ihercof, muy be had pursmint to Section 1f1!fLa of this In,, r
the petition fm' writ of mnndnte Pursuant In such season is f
within the dote innits specified in this section.
110 Any such petilion shill he file" not loner than th�!"!N
follmeln, the dale on whirls the rierislon becomes final. if this• I
p on l,lon for rt•r'nnsider:nlnn of the derision in cm apphrn Llr, r.
Sion of art ' statuht charter, nr I l le, for Ihr purpose: of do, I
the dartsion is final nn Inc date it Is mode•. If Ihoro Is such
for roronsidrrn inn. the do, h inn is firma for the purposes of Ihl- •
lion illicit the rspir;d ion of ihr penurl dluimf which suit re(otn 11"
lion call be sowrhl. prov'idrd, that If re,'onsidet';ttlon is suurlti I11'
run to am'surh provision the do( slon Is final for the purposes of 1..
section ott Iho (I to that )o,,on iderhtmn is rrierted.
Iri Tho rump loic rrrnrd of the pl'oreerlings shall br pralolr- d
the hood urrnrp nr ila mono i9nml• br.nr'rl. ef(Irrr, or uer•m ah'
nmrio Ill,, dortsi'm rind shill hr• d,rHwwrl to the petninnrr v,Ohm
daps aflor hr has food a vvrnn'n request Ihareonr. The to, 1A m;rn
nmp rrrr rner (into the petitioner Inc nrtllnl rosin ill' n'0111rl'ih1n:
othervuar jm.pai'in, ihr• record, Sgrh remd shall inclndr Ow I•
s(rild of the, pin...... nqs, ill plendnigs, all anti s and mdets. l'r
pruposerl rle(onin b.% ;I he:nvlR oftwer• the final docision, ill aoni:I'
71
r.
It
Ir
\t'
PI
u'i
P(;
go'
so
p
in;
At
S”.
ear
c
In qrr
e.n,r
I. In
se l,e
Ir.
o,
Vrxr.lr.
Silo
o:
Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6
exhibits, all reje(led exhibits in the possession of the ball agency or
its commission, board, officer. or agent. all written evidence, and any
other papers in the ease.
((It If the petitioner files it request for the record as specified in
subdivision Ic) within 10 days after the date the decision becomesfi-
nal as provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a petition
Pursuant to Section 1091.5 may he filed shall be ext"nded to not later
than the 301h day following the date on which the record is either
po sonally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec-
ord, if he has one.
let As used in this section, decision means adjudicator), admin-
istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis-
missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application
to` -' a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire-
ment benefit or allowance.
(O In making a final decision as defined In subdivision (e), the
local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within
\which judicial review must besought is governed by this section.
As used in this , lbdi\ision, "party" means an officer or em-
plovee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person
\chose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a
Permit a' lil-cnse has been denied; or a person whose application for
a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied.
(g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the
governing board thereof adorn . "-r: ordinance or resolution making this
section applicable If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the
provisions of this section shall prevail aver any conflicting provision
ill any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter.
rAddrd by suu..lrli, r. zsn, 1.. rsl. ; 1.:
Forms
' Fre U'rvl'. I'nllflnnln I'nrle Fr�nrin, !'iIJ I`rocr:lurr.
^^ Library Reference
lul J..::.:el ��me T" nn:l I'I. ninr, e,LK 1'uhir .\dnI ICl rdrh+ Itn:Le,,, recd
s' Notes of Decisioln
r I' Eanan rtwn Inl zd m..... lirr, remrtliev p I 1 p, %Liu mpL:anrn, n -0urum= Loa rd
11nd ulI Lde nlro j :br.rnrulr
Ill nL• r u. " r ern•I 111n ru:.r l
1, I, In 9en cal 1 n n.:lr n:WUnl.l ml r
_ 1111•r lI I�N11t1:..1:1 . \rl Irlil r ri rl n r:
n•I 61. IAII I, r ml fn ,.I lmmy v of Iu,uAnlr In r Ill yrl r :uorr
1. b•i.11nd •.. . ud reul•ry I
ulvl:� II 11gI e•:nanrnl. ad „n., :q, nl1.n. .AmuJrrrV1d
•' , I••wlruc. : mIA. r I: Iu1.11 LI 1 1 'I �IIn•:
ItP er1"11:eu: vn Jaunt ..I 111 nua1ll19.1 1 I1179 I Ldl 1'u Lllrlr.r�721,Av Ic.A.C11 .r1.
675
M/
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney
DAT-z: June 28, 1983
RE: "Picture Arcades ".
Enclosed is a draft of an Ordinance regulating the inter-
for dcsi,, of "picture arcades ". This type of ordinance has
been upheld by appeals courts, both in California and in the fed-
eral system. Note that the Ordinance is "content neutral ". This
is required in order to avoid running afoul of the First Amend-
ment protection of freedom of speech.
• Please call me if you have any questions concerning the
enclosed. If the proposed ordinance meets with your approval,
the same should be placed on the appropriate City Council agenda.
RED:sgg
Enclosure
I
JU j
{�
ORDINANCE N0. _;L
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 9.12
THERETO TO REGULATE THE INTERIOR DESIGN OF PIC-
TURE. ARCADES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali-
fornia, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 9.12 thereto to read
as follows:
"Chapter 9.12
"PICTURE ARCADES
"Sections:
119.12.010 Def- nitions.
• "9.12.020 Interior design requirements.
"9.12.030 Violations - misdemeanors.
119.12.040 Existing picture arcades - compliance
date.
"9.12.010 Definitions.
"A. As used in this chapter, 'picture arcade' shall
mean any place to which the public is admitted wherein one
(1) or more coin- or slug - operated, or electrically, elec-
tronically or mechanically controlled still or motion pic-
ture machines or projectors are maintained to show still
or motion pictures to five (S) or fewer persons per ma-
chine at any one time.
"B. As used in this chapter, the phrase 'motion pic-
ture ' shall include video tape and television.
"9.12_020 interior design requirements. No person,
either as owner or lessee, cr as employee, agent, partner,
director, or officer of owner or lessee, shall operate or
maintain any picture arcade unless the entire interior of
such premises wherein the still or motion pictures are
viewed is visible upon entrance to such premises. No par-
tially or fully enclosed booths or partially or fully con-
cealed booths shall be maintained,
"9.12_.030 Violations - misdemeanors. Any person
violating any of tthe provisions of Section 9- 12.020 of
-I- ir'-
this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. i
"9.12.040 Existing picture arcades - compliance
date. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chap-
ter, picture arcades which were lawfully in existence in
the City on June 1, 1983, shall have until December 31,
1983, to be brought into compliance with the interior de-
sign requirements of Section 9.12.020 of this Code, ".
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the
City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after
its passage, at least once in The DaiZf Report, a newspaper of
general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, California,
and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this _ day of
1983, by the following vote:
AYES:
ATTEST:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
i city Att exn y`''
-2- l/� I
0 M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, City Attorney
DATE: June 21, 1983
RE: Ordinance Amending Subsection A5 of Section 5.04.290 of
the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
J
Pursuant to your recent request, enclosed please find the
proposed Ordinance amending subsection A5 of Section 5.04.790.
RED:Sjo
Enclosure
•
I��2
• N=
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
M�MrJaO n. JI II(eIn
e --,—."
Charlee J. Ruqurl It Jamen C. Frnnt
Richard 11. Oahl Phillip U. g6los.er
July 27, 1983
Mary Ellingwood, President
Board of Realtors
217 East "A" Street
Upland, California 91786
Dear Mary:
On June 27th Lauren Wasserman sent you a letter stating that an
ordinance amending the business license tax for brokers would be
heard on July 6th. The ordinance was not before Council at that
. time. However, it will be on the Agenda for the City Council meeting
of Wednesday, August 3rd.
if you have any questions or wish to discuss the ordinance further,
pl P.ase tall.
Sincerely,
I'
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
BA:ba
enclosure - ordinance
�I
J
9320 RASE. LISP ROA11. SUITE C • PORT OFF] CE 11OX P07 - RASCIIn CCCAAOVC A. CA I.IFnRKIA 91730 • (7111989.1 AS
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
.aew,J.. D. )likely
choney J. Ituyaet II James C. Treat
Riehard M. Dahl Phillip D. sehl...er
191:- r
June 27, 1983
Board of Realtors
217 East "A" Street
Upland, California 91786
Attention: Mary Ellingwood, President
Dear Mary:
The attached amendment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga business license
ordinance was prepared as a result of the concerns expressed by the
Board of Realtors.
The primary purpose of the amendment is to specifically exclude indivi- •
dual sales representatives from the requirement to have a business license.
The trade. -off is that brokers will be required to pay business license taxes
on all sales made within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, After many dis-
cussions with realtors and brokers, it was our view that the gross receipts
taxes were more applicable to brokers than to individual sales representa-
tives.
If you have any problems with the ordinance amendment, or if you want to
discuss it, please contact me. We have scheduled the amendment for City
Council consideration on Wednesday, July 6, 1983.
Sincerely,^
.Lauren M. Wasserman
City "tanager
I.MW:boa
attach.
cc: City Council
•
131
9320 HASP.LIXE ROAD. SUITE. C. POST OFFICE DOX 807 • R,8RCRO CUCAMWIOA, CALIF0111,1A 91730 • (710989-1851
ORDINANCE NO.��
• AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SUBSECTION 45 OF SECTION
5.04.290 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF GROSS RECEIPTS
01' REAL ESTATE 'BROKERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECT10N 1: Subsection AS of Section 5.04.290 of the Rancho
Cuc,,,,,omla Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"5. In the case of real estate brokers maintair.iro_
an office within the city, all real estate commissions
will be included when reporting the gross receipts of
the business except such portion of gross receipts re-
flecting sales made of real property out of the city
where the outside sales are required to be reported and
Uusiness license paid thereon to another community. In
the case of real estate brokers maintaining an office
within the city, gross receipts shall not be reduced
• because of any compensation paid, directly or indirectly,
to a real estate sales person licensed under such broker.
In the case of real estate brokers not maintaining an
office within the city only real estate salesmen's com-
missions from sales of real property within the city
shall be reported as gross receipts. ",
anel in all other. respects, Section 5.04.290 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code shall remain the same.
SECTION 2: Section 1 of this Ordinance shall become effective
on the thirtieth day following the adoption of this Ordinance, or
on j.,naary 1, 1981, whichever is later.
Si:C:1'I O[I 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk ah„11 ntto st to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the
sang; to be p;;bli ^hod within fifteen (15) days after its passage,
at ]cost. onrc in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circula-
tion, ,ul,lishod in tho City of Ontat.o, California, and circulated
in tilt, City of Rancho Cucamonga.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of
AYES:
ABSEZ;
AESI:;:T:
ATTEST: MAYOR
CITY CLFRR ✓
�h
•
E
CITY OF RANChO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date; July 28, 1983
To: City Council and City Manager
From: Historic Preservation Commission
By; Mary Whitney, Administrative Secretary
Community Services Department
Subject: Christmas House (a.k.a. H.D. Cousins House)
�<:n.tivc
vs' v
a
At the July 7 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Commission
discussed the status of the Christmas House.
On a motion by ronmissioner Arner, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and
unanimously carried, the Historic Preservation Commission requested Council he
notified that the Commission re- affirms their recommendation that Council
consider designating the Christmas House a City Historic Landmark.
Staff Comment:
ordinance 70 -C, ropy attached reads, in part, as follows
...it shall be unlawful for any person to carry out
or cause to be carried out a material change on a
proposed landmark until final action of City Council,
denying the proposed designation, is taken."
Therefore, until Council action is taken, whether to approve or deny the
designation recommendation, it is, 'in effect', protected as a Landmark.
If further information can be provided, please contact the Commission members
or '_`he Community Services Department staff.
/'IW
cc: Historic Preservation Commission
file /Christmas House
r
L
OROINANCL NO. 70 -C,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUGX'R)NCA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10 OF ORDINN: ^C
NO. 70 AY ADDING. SUB- SECTION (h) THERETO TO
PROHIBIT UATCRL\L CHANCES ON PROPOSED LANDMARKS
UNTIL FINAL. ACTION BY TUC CITY COUNCIL.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
doo+ ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 10 of Ordinance NO. 70 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga is hereby amended by adding sub- section (h) thereto to
read as follows:
"(h) Except as otherwise provided
in Section 16 of this Ordinance, it shall
be unlawful for any person to carry out
or cause to be carried out a material
change on a proposed landmark until final
action of the City Council, denying the
proposed designation, is taken."
SECTION 2: The Maynr shall sign this Ordinance and the
City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at
least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation,
poblishod in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1980.
AVES: Schlosser, Y,ikels, Palonibo, Bridge, and Frost.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
f
FosV
Jame C• ?roc. , or
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
K7 /
0
u
•
10 cc
ail' �ff8t IH�®
ONE League of California Cities CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ON ADMINISTRATION
Sacramento, California
Tune 24, 1983 JUL s- AM 718191101U1121112t3A518
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Dear Citv Official:
The most important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Session at
which time the membership takes action on conference resolutions. It is especially
important during these times of uncertainty for California cities to take the initiative in
developing positive programs for the future. Annual Conference resolutions will guide
cities and the League in our effort to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of
local government within this state. All cities should be represented at the Business
Session on Wednesday morning, October 5 at 10:00 a.m. in the San Francisco Hilton Hotel.
'To expedite this important policy- making meeting, each City Council should designate a
voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Session. The
Longue Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting
municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by
. the City Council on the enclosed "voting delegate form.-
If the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is
expected that one of these officials will he designated as the voting delegate. However, if
the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be
"represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting
delegate or alternate.
Please forward the enclosed "voting delegate form" to the Sacramento office of the
League at the earliest possible time, so that the proper records may be established for the
Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card in the League
Registration Area, California Room, Ballroom Leval, San Francisco Hilton Hotel.
If It beCCmea necessary for the voting delegate and the designated alternate to leave the
Conference, the card may be transferred to another official from the same city, providing
the transfer has been cleared with the Credentials CommitA:e, which will be responsible
for dislrihuting voting cards.
It is suggested that the Mayor and all Council Members from a given city try to Sit
together nt the Business Session so that, it amendments are considered, there may be an
exchange of points of view end a consensus arrived at before the city's vote is cast.
Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate form" as soon as possible will
be appreciated.
Don Benninghoven
Executive Director
nl
Att
Attachment over ...
J
OONFENENCE AFGIStRAT,ON OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOeTHt HN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
Note n "IF ONT REA "eler 1.111 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO 95614 1w WILar"m BLVD �uITF eas Los ANGELES soon
lob all WQ (9161 444.5]90 2131 621 X931
`J
•
.
Important Dates for Annual Conference Resolution
July 1 - Sept. 9
— Cities designate Voting Delegate and Alternate, return form to League
August 19
— Deadline for submitting Resolutions to the League Office
Sept. 13
— Annual Conference Resolution distributed to all cities
Se,).. 13 - Oct. 2
— City officials consider Resolutions and, where needed, city councils
take action on Resolutions
Oct. 2 -5
— Voting Delegates pick up voting card (California Room, San Francisco
Hilton)
Oct. 2
— Policy Committees hold Hearings on Resolutions (San Francisco Hilton
dt Hyatt Union Square)
Oct. 4
— General Resolution Committee Hearing (San Francisco Hilton Hotel)
Oct. 5
— General Assembly (San Francisco Hilton Hotel)
`J
•
``(`t " °`�y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO
�•. �r CITY OF RAN6HO CUCAMONGA
.t,,. AUMINISTRn71CN
JUL 11 IiI6
71818101II11211A8j4A6
CI TIEP.N'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON: HISTORICAL COMMISSION
NAME BEATRICE (TRIX) T. SCHAFF
ADDRESS_ 8442 CAMINO SUR, RED HILL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA 91730
PHONE 714- 982 -6350 OCCUPATION RETIRED TEACHER
EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees)
MASTERS DEGREE
Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If so, please
list. NO
• Why are you interested in this position? —I am third generation Rancho
Cucamonuan presently writing a book on Rancho Cucamonga history.
What do you consider to be your major qualifications? I have lived
in Rancho Cucxn n�a all my life. I have studied and taught the history of the
area. Our family home is the oldest in Red Hill.
REFERENCES:
1. Mr. H. E. Johnson, Active member of State 6 local hist. societies
2. Mr:_Ebv Chrael, long time rnsidon L, active in hist. societies
3. (:onncl Ilia 1, I:i chntd UdhI, friend, knows of my work.
Plc,110 attach, a written statoment containing any additional infor-
mation you frel would bo useful to the City Council.
)V
ec W�ll�u� t
l
F41STOF99CEROX807 • HAR4'111 7CS'CA)IONOA.CAI,IFIIIINIA91700 • (71119M949S1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
L
77
19i]
CITIZEN'S APPLICATION TO SERVE ON:
NAME
ADDRESS
rHONS 7
EDUCATION: (list highest year completed and all degrees)
J'
1 7
Are there any workday evenings you could not meet? If -so, please
list
why are you interested in this position?
what do you consider to be your major qualifications?
REFERENCES:
1. }12
2.
1.
Plcase attach a written statement containing a�8il Y�''ari:n0 � cnEor-
motion you feel would br usntul to the City Cot r RANCHO CUCAMONG
A'MINISTRnTIoN A
JUL 19 1%3
AM 4P 819110191121112181Qi5 H
1CrJ t
POSTOk1'ICEIIO2807 4 R: 1N('ll(1fCl'A3171NOA.CALIFORNIA 91710 (71419804131
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA_MONGA
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1983
Cl,3CAA40
t� 7
P
O
T0: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
I
FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager
RE: Status of Recruitment /Authorized -Fro n PositlolTs
As you will recall, the City Council elected to freeze vacant authorized
positions until resolution of the State budget. However, staff was directed
to continue recruitment for these vacant positions. The following represents
a list of vacant positions currently under recruitment and their status.
Position
1 Vacancies
Status
Associate Civil Engineer
(1)
Eligibility
List Established
Maintenance Worker
(2)
Examination
held 7 -29 -83
Building Inspector
(1)
Eligibility
List Established
Account Clerk
(1)
No status
Clerk Typist /Receptionist
(1)
Eligibility
List Established
Assistant Planner
(1)
No status -
RDA funded
With no resolution of the State budget in sight for the next month or possibly
into October, these positions could remain vacant an additional three
months. This will place an extreme burden on the workload of the affected
departments. In the Engineering Department particularly, the Associate Civil
Engineer and Maintenance Worker positions represent a key element in their
ability to function at a minimal level. The Associate Civil is a "project
manager" position which will be a key element in the success of the City's $5
million plus capital improvement program for FY 83 -84. Additionally, the two
Maintenance Worker vacanciee in the Maintenance Division represent 20% of the
City's Maintenance ere. and are vacant at a time of year when maintenance
projects are normally at a peak lave!. Additionally, the Associate Civil and
Maintenance Worker positions are budgeted to a great extent by gas tax funds
which are not impacted by the "great unknown" in Sacramento, nor do they
represent a burden on the General Fund. At a minimum, consideration should be
given to filling the Associate Civil and Maintenance Worker positions as soon
as possible to address our immediate and long range needs. Also, with
recruitments at or near completion for both these positions, we are in danger
of losing the better candidates to other cities recruiting like positions.
Continued....
Similar arguments could be made for the Building Inspector vacancy. The
tremendous increase in building activity is no sacra anT -iFe city's ability
to maintain an adequate level of building inspection will be extremely limited
as long as this vacancy exists.
The City's highest volume of building valuation since incorporation was $46
million. Since January of 1983, the City has experienced $51 million in
building valuation excluding the Foothill Law and Justice Center.
Construction of Terra Vista and Victoria will soon begin, which will place an
additional burden on inspector services. The current building inspector
vacancy represents a reduction of 25% of the inspection work force at a time
when building valuation and building inspections are at their highest levels
in the City's history since incorporation. Serious consideration should be
given to fund this position. Although this position is General Fund
supported, building and safety services are a major revenue contributor when
compared to other General Fund positions.
The assistant planner position, recently vacated with the resignation of Linda
Gagne' u— is stunded Oy the Redevelopment Agency and not the General Fund. Staff
would recommend filling this position because it represents no affect on the
current budget unknown.
The Community Development clerk typist /receptionist position became vacant
through a recent probationary termination of Sandra Walker. This position is
a key one in funneling incoming Community Development calla to the proper
department., Our recent phone survey found that 70% of the City's incoming
calls were handled by Community Development, which clarifies the importance of
this position, with this critical clerical vacancy, coupled with vacation
absences, the Community Development Department's secretarial staff is
seriouslvl_ red in handling the large amount of clerical work.
The account-clerk vacancy has been created by the resignation of Connie Snead,
who has accepted a position in the Ontario Finance Department effective August
15, 1963• Currently one account clerk vacancy already exists in the Finance
Department and is yet to be filled. An additional vacancy is an unacceptable
burden at this time.
Realistically, the above mentioned argument needs to be balanced against the
total needs of the community. However, the vacant positions of greatest
critical need, i.e., Associate Civil, Maintenance Worker, and Building
Inspector, etc., should be given immediate consideration. Filling these
positions will allow the city to function at a minimal level of service and
insure completion of an ambitious capital improvement program which is funded
primarily by restricted gas tax fund. It will also allow the City to appoint
the most qualified applicants from existing eligibility lists to fill these
positions that have long and short range implications on City services.
JR:mk
$373,679 Building Permits
235,228 Plan Checks
94,967 Planning Fees
500,534 Engineering Fees
12,143 Printed Material Fees
167,000 Redevelopment Agency
60,000 Community Development Block Grant
$1,443,551
Building and Safety )
Engineering ) Budgets so far: $1,332,018
Planning )
Does not include: Overhead from special funds
Special bond issue revenues
More than $400,000 gas tax transfer
over and above public works budget
S
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1983
TO: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager
RE: Status of Recruitment /Authorized- Frozen Positions
ce
� Ids
ir; I
As you will recall, the City Council elected to freeze vacant authorized
positions until resolution of the State budget. However, staff was directed
to continue recruitment for these vacant positions. The following represents
a list of vacant positions currently under recruitment and their status.
Position
/ Yacancien
Status
Associate Civil Engineer
(1)
Eligibility
List
Established
Maintenance Worker
(2)
Examination
held
7 -29 -83
Building Inspector
(1)
Eligibility
List
Established
Account Clerk
(1)
No status
Clerk Typist /Receptionist
(1)
Eligibility
List
Established
Assistant Planner
(1)
No status -
FDA
funded
With no resolution of the State budget in sight for the next month or possibly
into October, these positions could remain vacant an additional three
months. This will place an extreme burden on the workload of the affected
departments. In the Engineering Department particularly, the Associate Civil
Engineer and Maintenance Worker positions represent a key element In their
ability to function at a minimal level. The Associate Civil is a "project
manager" position which will be a key element in the success of the City's $5
million plus capital improvement program for FY 83 -84. Additionally, the two
Maintenance Worker vacancies in the Maintenance Division represent 20% of the
City's Maintenance crew and are vacant at a time of year when maintenance
projects are normally at a peak level. Additionally, the Associate Civil and
Maintenance Worker positions are budgeted to a great extent by gas tax funds
which are not impacted by the "great unknown" in Sacramento, nor do they
represent a burden on the General Fund. At a minimum, consideration should be
given to filling the Associate Civil and Maintenance Worker positions as soon
as possible to addreas our immediate and long range needs. Also, with
reeruitmenta at or near completion for both these positions, we are in danger
of losing the better candidates to other cities recruiting like positions.
Continued....
Similar arguments could be made for the Building Inspector vacancy. The
tremendous increase in building activity is no s-e—cre7t an -tKe city's ability
to maintain an adequate level of building inspection will be extremely limited
as long as this vacancy exists.
The City's highest volume of building valuation since incorporat o
million. Since January of 1983, the City has experienced 951 illion in
building valuation excluding the Foothill Law and Justice Center.
Construction of Terra Vista and Victoria will soon begin, which will plane an
additional burden on inspector services. The cur�enr. building inspector
vacancy represents a reduction of 25% of the inspection work force at a time
when building valuation and building inspections are at their highest levels
in the City's history since incorporation. Serious consideration should be
given to fund this position. Although this position is General Fund
supported, building and safety services are a major revenue contributor when
compared to other General Fund positions.
The assistant planner position, recently vacated with the resignation of Linda
Gagne' is funded by the Redevelopment Agency and not the General Fund. Staff
would recommend filling this position because it represents no affect on the
current budget unknown.
The Community Development clerk typist /receptionist position became vacant
through a recent probationary termination of Sandra Walker. This position is
a key one in funneling incoming Community Development calls to the proper
department. Our recent phone survey found that 73% of the City's incoming
calls were handled by Community Development, which clarifies the importance of
this position. With this critical clerical vacancy, coupled with vacation
absences, the Community Development Department's secretarial staff is
seriously hampered in handling the large amount of clerical work.
The account clerk vacancy has been created by the resignation of Connie Snead,
who has accepted a position in the Ontario Finance Department effective August
15, 1983. Currently one account clerk vacancy already exists in the Finance
Department and is yet to be filled. An additional vacancy is an unacneptable
burden at this time.
Realistically, the above mentioned argument needs to be balanced against the
totei needs of the community. However, the vacant positions of greatest
critical need, i.e., Associate Civil, Maintenance Worker, and Building
Inspector, etc., should be given immediate consideration. Filling these
positions will allow the city to function at a minimal level of service and
insure completion of an ambitious capital improvement program which is funded
primarily by restricted gas tax fund. It will also allow the City to appoint
the most qualified applicants from existing eligibility lists to fill these
positions that have long and short range implications on City services.
JH:mk
v
✓ TQ �
� p�wae -j46� o ,
�m �N
oc
n rmv nv. n � nrn rrn nr rn � n.rnwrn
STAFF REPORT
�'�
. r,
DATE: August 3, 1983 F'
TO: City Council and City Manager 1917
FROM. Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Construction of the Hellman Avenue
Improvements
Bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on August 3, 1983 from four bidders for
the above reference construction project. An Engineer's estimate of
$650,000.00 was prepared by L. D. King and Cucamonga County Water
District. The total bid amounts are as follows:
Alternate A Alternate 8
Matich Corporation $566,771.00 $518,146.00
Riverside Construction $619,080.15 $568,024.15
1_.ird f_.nnOrnrtinn L647.126;18 $568,150.38
E. L. Yeager $840,248.50 $789,670.00
A summary of each bid proposal is attached for your review.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the contract (Alternate A) be awarded to Match
Corporation as the lowest, qualified bidder on this project for the bid
amount of $566,771.00 and authorize funding of the full contract amount
plus a 10% contingency.
Respectfully submit d,
LBH:BC'
Attachment
CITY OF RMCHO CUCMIONGA
SURKAAY OF PROPOSALS OPENED
PRO.iECT: MaI Iola. iNh i
DATE: August
3, 1983
LOCATION: Hellman,
from 665
feet south of Foothill to
500 feet south
of Base
Line
CONTRACT NO.
06 -25 -62
Nat I
Corpus[]-
Laird Cans tract lon
Riverside tort.
E.L.
Yeager
ITEMS
QUANTITIES
BID
AMOUNT
BID
MOUNT
BID
AMOUNT
BID
AMOUNT
1)
Traffic Control
Lump km
L.:..
3,7W.00
L.S.
6,600.00
L.S.
4,700.00
L.S.
15,WO.W
2)
Clearing /Grubting
Lump Sum
L.S.
15, 000. CO
L.S.
5,600.00
LS.
91700.00
1.5.
21. OW. 00
31
Remove exist. Pavement
Lump Son
L.S.
27,500.00
L.S.
28,800.00
L.S.
24,672.00
L.S.
100,000.00
4)
Remove concrete all
Lump Sun
L.S.
4,720.00
L.S.
10,350.00
L.S.
11,544.00
L.S.
20,800.00
5)
Remove concrete channels
Lump Sun
L.S.
14,000.00
L.S.
19,000.00
L.S.
4,S50.00
L.S.
15,000.00
6)
Unclass, excavation
Lump Saco
L.S.
23,500.00
L.S.
15,200.00
L.S.
56,100.00
L.S.
70,000.00
6A)
Aggregate Base
4600 Tons
6.00
27,600.01)
6.70
30,820.00
7.15
32,890.00
6.75
31,050.00
7)
A.C. Over lz 9(Var sable]
1171 Tons
24.00
28,104.0
23.94
28,033.74
25.75
30,153.25
27.50
32,202.50
8)
0.5' A.C.
6992 Tans
24.00
167,808.00
26.72
186,626.24
25.75
180.044.00
27.50
192,280.00
9)
RCB Culvert
230 L.F.
130.00
29,900.00
124.00
28,520.00
125.00
2B, 750.W
150.00
34,500.00
10)
Inlet catch basin
2 Each
15,000.00
30,003.00
16,300.00
32,600.00
15,300.00
32,60D.W
19,000.00
38,000.00
11)
Outlet Catch East.
2 Each
13,500.00
21,000.00
14,000.00
28,000.00
14,100.00
28,200.00
16,000.00
32,000.00
12)
Modified conc.curb(outlet)
I Each
5, OW.W
5, OW .00
4,500.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
5,200.00
0,200.00
13)
16" PCC Curb, 24" gutter
128 L.F.
9.00
1,152.00
9.60
1,228 W
10.00
1,280.00
11.75
1,501.W
14)
1- PCC curb, 24' gutter
3204 L.F.
8.00
25,632.00
8.00
25,632.00
9.00
28,836.00
9.75
31,239.00
15)
16 -12" Curb, 24• gutter
85 L.F.
9.00
165.00
9.10
773.50
9.55
811.15
12.00
1,020.00
16)
12' -8" curb, 24" gutter
110 L.F.
8.00
880.00
7.40
814.00
8.65
951.50
10.00
1,100.0
17)
4• PCC sldevalk
25500 S.F.
1.00
25,500.00
1.17
29,835.00
1.26
32,110.00
1.35
34,425.00
13)
1- ?CC driveway
1665 S.F.
2.40
3,996.00
2.90
4,828.50
1.90
3,163.50
2.50
4,162.50
19)
3- asphalt concrete
155 L.F.
5.00
775.00
3.30
511.50
1.65
255.75
5.00
115.00
201
8' PVC, Sch_ 40
15 L.F.
20.00
300.00
16.50
247.50
14.00
210.00
20.00
300.00
21)
Plug ends, box culverts
Lump Sum
L.S.
5,000.30
L.S.
16,500.00
L.S.
10,200.0
L.S.
9,000.00
22)
Remove debris, b.� culvertLomp
Sum
L.S.
3,000.00
L.S.
13,200.00
L.S.
3,000.00
L.S.
20, 000.W
I
Bid Summary, Page 2
Hellman Improvement ProJec[
MNEtA Corporation
Lairdl Cpnaiructlon
Rivers Idle CmsL
E.L.-Yeager
Bid
!mount
Bid
Miount
Bid
Amount
Bid
Amount
23)
2' min. cone. splash all
820
L.F.
17.00
13,940.00
16.50
13,530.00
16.80
13,776.00
15.00
12,300.00
24)
Rem. 6 Relocate signing
Lung Sum
L.S.
1,240.00
L.S.
1,300.00
L.S.
6W.W
L.S.
6, OW.W
25)
10" PVC pipe, Sidi. 40
32
L.F.
22.00
704.00
16.50
528.00
16.50
528.00
25.00
000.00
26)
Remove 1" AC pavement
1970
S.F.
0.90
1,773.00
1.111
2,167.00
0.55
1,083.50
1.20
2, 364.W
27)
3" A.C. dr......
280
S.F.
3.00
840.00
I.W
280.00
1.05
294.00
6.50
1, 820.W
23)
Side.eik tree yell
22
Each
70.W
1, 540.W
71.50
1,573.00
44.W
968.00
50.W
1,IW.W
29)
6" PCC curb behind sdwlk
1971
,_F.
6.00
11,826.W
6.20
12,220.20
2.40
4,730.40
3.50
6.898.50
30)
PCC cross Batter b spndrl
1744
S.F.
3.W
5.232.W
2.60
4,534.40
3.10
5,406.40
3.50
6, 104.W
Jill
8" PCC curt, 24• g.U[ r
168
i.. F.
7_00
1, 176.W
7.10
1,192.80
9.45
1,587.60
9.50
1, 596.W
32)
6" PCC curb only
140
L.F.
9.W
1, 260.W
IO.W
1, 400.W
6.60
924.00
5.5D
770.00
33)
variable 8" to 12 curb
123
L.F.
6.W
738.00
7.40
910.20
4.W
492.00
1.W
861.W
34)
12" PCC curb only
40
L.F.
6.25
250.W
7.10
284.W
4.00
160.00
10.25
410.W
35)
Var 16 " -9" curb, 24" gtr.
110
L.F.
9.00
990.00
8.20
902.00
9.15
1,006.50
10.W
1, 100.W
36)
Ad3ust manhole
16
Each
260.W
4, 160.W
275.W
4,400.00
220.00
3,520.W
250.00
4, OW.W
37)
Adjust water vilve
10
Each
25.00
250.00
55.00
550.00
55.00
550.W
175.00
1,750.00
38)
Relocate /adjust water meter 4
tach
100.00
4W W
165.00
660.00
110.00
440.00
450.00
1,600.00
39)
Remove PCC sidewalk
2650
S.F.
0.30
795.30
0.44
1,166.00
1.00
2, 650.W
0.50
I, 325.W
40)
8" A.C. dike
40
L.F.
5.00
200.00
3.30
132.00
1.65
66.00
5.00
200.00
41)
10" vitrified Clay pipe
706
L.F.
20.W
14,120.W
38.00
26,828.W
23.W
16,238.W
37.00
26,122.00
42)
12' :'i Lrified Clay pipe
305
(.F.
25.00
7,625.00
35.90
10,949.50
21.50
6,557.50
36.00
10,980.W
43)
Sever Manholes Modlfied,flat
2
Each
2000.00
4,000.00
1,485.00
2,970.00
1,290.W
2,580.W
1,790.00
3,400.00
44)
Sewer Manhole Modlfied,4.8.
1
Fach
1000.00
1,000.00
960.00
960.00
836.00
836.00
l,OW.W
1,000.00
45)
Sewer Mangles
3
Each
1350.00
4,05D.00
1,280.00
3,840.00
1,100.00
3,300.00
1,400.00
4,200.00
46)
3" C.M.L. b A.C. pipe
120
(.F.
23.00
2,760.W
39.40
4, 728.W
19.W
2,280.W
40.00
4,800.00
47)
10" C.M.L. 6 A.C. pipe
144
L.F.
25.00
3,600.00
59.50
8,568.00
40.00
5,760.00
60.00
8,640.00
k
ES:Ye��
CMSt
' �N0U�1S
p- 'ersl,
_ --
gl0
Page Proler,e
GDOS� yet1M
t =1rd_ —,�
SID
pNOUnS
Ia.ISO.i%>
Y.
8v1 Summ �,pravemen
loran
ration
Ga4° --
WOUNS
N 750?}
'9 \.00'00
\.100 00
Hzt
Matic�
BIC
37
150-00
1.Cip0.00
BMGU6S
}D 681 i0
850.00
x,00
1,000.00
9GO.iA
sl0
5fS.15
\ 600.00
GOO p0
GO
OUPASI,IES
00 6,150'D0
1.6,%0.00
t 025 00
"'.00
......
ISEMi
,50 i.
21.00 900.00
"'02S.00
"1170-00
SA0718.`A
c v'De
M
L . SCl
\ Eacn
g00 "0-30
80 W
820 0 0 W
,,-W
0.65
6t6.
1a3 510"
i
z V
`Eac
L000 } 000.
1 ;
W t
+ae
}
Hl 126.18
53) 8•• Gate asszmoSY
,. R',o + -
0,71100
/OSaES
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
August 1, 1983
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman
City Manager 94
SUBJECT: Frozen Positions
The attached memo concerning the positions frozen by the Council is self
explanatory. The problem we have is that the workload is beginning to
overwhelm our staff.
It is recommended that the Council authorize the filling of these vacant
positions in the following order of priority:
1. Associate Civil Engineer
2. Maintenance Worker (2) - not funded by general fund
3. Building Inspector
4." Clerk Typist Receptionist (not vacant at time Council took
action to freeze positions)
S. Assistant Planner - not funded by qeneral .fund
6. Account Clerk - Finance Department
Jim's memo contains information regardin, the funding of these positions.
However, if you would like additional information, please contact either
me or Jim.
LMW:baa
attach.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1983
TO: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager
RE: Statue of Recruitment, /Authorized- Frozen Positions
As you will recall, the City Council elected to freeze vacant authorized
positions until resolution of the State budget. However, staff was directed
to continue recruitment for thenc vacant positions. The following represents
a list of vacant positions currently under recruitment and their status.
Position
@ Vacancies
Status
• Associate Civil Engineer
(1)
Eligibility
List
Established
Maintenance Worker
(2)
Examination
held
7 -29-83
Building Inspector
0 )
Eligibility
List
Established
Account Clerk
(1)
No status
Clerk Typist /Receptionist
(1)
Eligibility
Liat
Established
Assistant Planner
(1)
No status -
RDA
funded
With no resolution of the State budget in sight for the next month or possibly
into October, these positions could remain vacant an additional three
months. This will place an extreme burden on the workload of the affected
departments. In the Engineering Department particularly, the Associate Civil
Engineer and Maintenance Worker positions represent a key element in their
ability to function at a minimal level. The Associate Civil is a "project
manager" position which will be a key element in the success of the City's $5
million plus capital improvement program for FY 83 -84. Additionally, the two
Maintenance Worker vacancies in the Maintenance Division represent 20% of the
City's Maintenance crew and are vacant at a time of year when maintenance
projects are normally at a peak level. Additionally, the Associate Civil and
Maintenance Worker positions are budgeted to a great extent by gas tax funds
which are not impacted by the "great unknown" in Sacramento, nor do they
represent a burden on the General Fund. At a minimum, consideration should be
given to filling the Associate Civil and Maintenance Worker positions as soon
as possible to address our immediate and long range needs. Also, with
recruitments at or near completion for both these positions, we are in danger
of losing the better candidates to other cities recruiting like positions.
Continued....
Similar arguments could be made for the Building Inspector vacancy. The
tremendous increase in building activity is no secre an a city's ability
to maintain an adequate level of building inspection will be extremely limited
as long as this vacancy exists.
The City's highest volume of building valuation since incorporation was $46
million. Since January of 1983, the City has experienced $51 million in
building valuation excluding the Foothill Law and Justice Center.
Construction of Terra Vista and Victoria will soon begin, which will place an
additional burden on inspector services. The current building inspector
vacancy represents a reduction of 251 of the inspection work force at a time
when building valuation and building inspections are at their highest levels
in the City's history since incorporation. Serious consideration should be
given to fund this position. Although this position is General Fund
supported, building and safety services are a major revenue contributor when
compared to other General Fund positions.
The assistant planner position, recently vacated with the resignation of Linda
Gagne' is funded by the Redevelopment Agency and not the General Fund. Staff
would recommend filling this position because it represents no affect on the
current budget unknown.
The Community Development clerk typist /receptionist position became vacant
through a recent probationary termination of Sandra Walker. This position is
a key one in funneling incoming Community Development calls to the proper
department., Our recent phone survey found that 70% of the City's incoming
calls were handled by Community Development, which clarifies the importance of
this pccition. With this critical clerical vacancy, coupled with vacation
absences, the Community Development Department's secretarial staff is
seriously hampered in handling the large amount of clerical work.
The account clerk vacancy has been created by the resignation of Connie Snead,
who has accepted a position in the Ontario Finance Department effective August
15, 1983• Currently one account clerk vacancy already exists in the Finance
Department and is yet to be filled. An additional vacancy is an unacceptable
burden at this time.
Realistically, the above mentioned argument needs to be balanced against the
total needs of the community. the vacant positions of greatest
critical need, i.e ,j Associate Civil, Mainter,ance Worker, and Building
Inspector, etc., should be given immediate consideration. Filling these
positions will allow the city to function at a minimal level of service and
insure completion of an ambitious capital improvement program which is funded
primarily by restricted gas tax fund. It will also allow the City to appoint
the most qualified applicants from existing eligibility lists to fill these
positions that have long and short range implications on City services.
JR:mk
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 1983
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Richard Cota, Assistant Civil Engineer
^' o
U w R>
1977
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Base Line Road Improvements Overlay (43- 20 -51)
Sealed bids were received August 17, 1983 in the office of the City Clerk and
were publicly opened and read at 10:00 am. Attached is a summary tabulation of
bid proposals received. The Engineering Staff has analyzed the bids and finds
them correct and acceptable.
These improvements include asphaltic concrete (A.C.) overlaying and /or
reconstruction of Base Line Road between Carnelian Street and just east of
Vineyard Avenue.
The Engineering Staff has selected the firm of Fontana Paving, Incorporated as
the lowest responsible bidder at 554,961.00. This bid is 25% below the
Engineer's Estimate of $13,000.00.
Considering that the bid advertisement preceeded the actual overlay design by L.
D. King, Inc., due to advertisement and constructon time constraints (Alta Loma
High School schedule and Traffic Signal at Vineyard Avenue schedule), the
Engineering Staff requests authorization to increase the following bid
quantities and corresponding costs to reflect the actual overlay design:
1) 250 tons A.C. at 523.00 /ton = $5,750.00
2) 2,200 L.F. cold plane at 50.57 /L.F.= 1 254.00
Total 37,664.00
Overall costs fcr the subject overlay will be:
Original Bid Proposal 554,961.00
Requested Increase = 7 004.00
SubTotal $61:965:00
10% Contingency = $ 6 196.50
TOTAL = 308, Ib150
continued..........
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Aw +rd of Contract for Base Line Overlay
August 17, 1983
Page 2
RECOMIENDATION
It is recommended that City Council award the contract to Fontana Paving,
Incorporated and authorize execution of the contract at the contract amount plus
the bid quantity increases and 10% for contingencies.
// Respectfully subm ted,
L;/A�C:jaa
Attachment
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS OPENED
PROJECT: Use Line lWireMm[a Asphaltic Concrete Overlay DATE: August 17, 1983
LOCATION: Fran Carnelian Street to 1900 Lineal Feet East CONTRACT NO. 43 -2D -51
Fontana Paving Matich Corp. Liberty Const, Laird Const.
ITEMS QUANTITIES BID AMOUNT BID AMOUNT BID WONT 810 AMOUNT
I) C lea, ing /Grv56i n9 Lump Sum
2) P.C. Paving 1561 Tans
3) Raise saner manhole 3 Each
4) Raise water valve 19 Each
5) Cold Plane - 5- 3949 L.F.
6) Raise rater main 1 Each
7) Raise eater valves 1 Each
8) Raise gas valve I Each
9j A.C. pvmt removal 7990 S.F.
101 C.A.B /C.S.B. 158 Tons
11) Traffic Control Lmnp Sum
L.S.
233.00
125. D0
50.00
.57
125.00
SO. DO;
50.00
1.27
2.50
L.5.
199.77
35,903.00
375.00
950.00
2,250.93
125.00
50.00
50.00
10,147.30
395.00
4,515.00
L.S. 6,100.00
27,00 42,147.00
500.00 1,S00.o0
40.00 760.00
1.00 3,949.00
500.00 500.00
100.00 100.00
300.00 300.00
1.00 7.990.00
21. GO 3,318.00
L.S. 1,100.00
L.S.
25.37
200.00
100.0
1.14
150.OD
100.013
100.00
1.73
8.00
L.S.
6.200.00
39,602.57
600.00
1.900.00
4,501.86
150.00
100.00
100.00
13.822.70
1,264.00
1,200.00
L.S. 2,500.DC
31.60 49,327.6[
300.00 9DO.00
125.00 2,375.0E
.80 3,159.20
300.00 300.0[
125.00 I25.00
125.00 125.Lc
.45 3,595.50
2D.00 3, 160.00
L.S. 4,700.00
TOTALS 51,961.00 67,764.00 69,441.13 70,267.30