HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/10/07 - Agenda Packet(]TY OF
RANC}0 CUCArv10NrA
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Lion's Park Community Center
9161 Base Line Road
October 7, 1981
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The dead-
line for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and
thrid Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's office receives all such items.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
A. Pledge of Allegiance.
B. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_ and Schlosser_
C. Approval of Minutes: September 2, September 16, and September 22, 1981.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A. Historical Commission: Tuesday, October 13, 7:07 p.m.; Lion's Park
Community Center.
B. Etiwanda Specific Plan Meeting: Tuesday, October 13, 6:00 p.m.;
Etiwanda Intermediate School, Community Room, 6925 Etiwanda Avenue.
C. Proclamation: White Care Week, October 11 -17, 1981.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR.
The following Consent Calendar items are exoected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without
discussion.
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -10 -7 in the amount of 1
$202,134.86.
b. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Mark K. and Michael 4
F. Valenti, Tummy Buster (formerly the Grinder Haven).
for on -sale beer and wire eating place.
c. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Elks Lodge No, 5
2570, 12481 Base Line Road for club license.
d, Forward claim by Fred and Lillian Hoffhines to City Attorney 6
for handling.
e. Release of Bonds and Notices of Completion:
City Council Agenda -2- October 7, 1981
-DR 79 -64: located at 11811 and 11899 8th Street. 8
Owner: Wagner Insulation Company.
Release of Improvement Security Instrument $12,200
-Tract 9567: located at the northwest corner of Highland 8
and Hermosa. Owner: Lewis Homes.
Accept Maintenance Bond (road) $ 7,800
Release Faithful Performance Bond (road) 156,000
Release Monumentation Bond 3,350
-Tract 9420: located north of Banyan and west of Hellman 8
Owner: Prado Woods, Corp.
Release Monumentation Bond $ 860
-Tract 9436: located on the east side of Haven at 9
Victoria. Owner: Crismar Development Corp.
Accept Maintenance Bond (road) $ 5,300
Release Faithful Performance Bond (road) 106,000
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -143 10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW
79 -64, TRACT 9567, AND TRACT 9436 AND AUTHORI-
ZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR
THE WORK.
f. Intent to Vacate 7th Street. Recommend that Council approve 16
the Resolution of Intention to vacate 7th Street located
between the San Bernardino Flood Control Easement and
Center Avenue as requested by Lord -Shobe Construction, Inc.
and set public hearing date for November 4, 1981.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -144 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO VACATE 7TH STREET BETWEEN THE SAN
BERNARDINO FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT AND CENTER
AVENUE AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V -013 ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
g. Approval of Storm Drain Reimbursement Agreement with Crismar 21
Homes /Chevron Construction Co. Reimbursement for installa-
tion of street and storm drain improvements on Archibald
Avenue in conjunction with Tracts 9637 and 9638.
City Council Agenda -3- October 7, 1981
h. Pedestrian Safety Grant. Approval of Agreement with 26
Office of Traffic Safety for grant to perform pedestrian
safety grant study.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -153 27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
ACCEPTANCE OF A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANT FROM
THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY.
i. Pavement Marking Demonstration Program. Recommend that 41
Council authorize staff to make application to the Federal
Highway Administration for a Pavement Marking Demonstration
Grant. Funds are available to apply centerline stiping,
edgeline striping, and raised pavement markers to selected
local streets.
j. Authorization to Seek Bids for Miscellaneous Drainage 43
Improvements. Recommend authorization to advertise contract
to install minor suidance drains and catch basins on Amethyst,
Beryl, Archibald, and Sapphire Street.
k. Acceptance of Tract 11045 -1, Improvement Agreement and 44
Improvement Security - Westland Venture. Recommend that
Council accept the improvement agreement and improvement
security for Tract 11045 -1 located at the northwest corner
of Hidden Farm Road and Haven Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -145 45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 10045 -1.
1. Acceptance of Tract 11350, Bonds and Agreements - Lesney 47
Development Co. Recommend that Council accept the subject
tract, bonds and agreement located at the northwest corner
of Base Line and Hermosa.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -146 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350.
m. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien 61
Agreement for Tract 11350 - Lesney Development Co.
Recommend that Council accept the Real Property Improvement
Contract and Lien Agreement for Tract 11350 for a median
island on Base Line. The subject tract is located at
the northwest corner of Base Line and Hermosa,
City Council Agenda -4- October 7, 1981
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -147 62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN
AGREEMENT FROM LESNEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
SIGN THE SAME.
n. Intent to Order Annexation No. 6 to Landscape Maintenance 67
District No. 1 for Tracts 11350 and 10045 -1.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -148 68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION
NO. 6 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
(TRACT NO. 10045 -1 AND TRACT 11350).
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -149 73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LAND-
SCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS
ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIS-
TRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND
PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO.
(TRACT 10045 -1 AND TRACT 11350).
o. Award of city -wide Emergency Street Repair, Clean -up and 75
Supplementary Maintenance Annual Contract. Staff recommends
that Laird Construction be awarded the contract as the lowest
bidder at $39,319.73.
p. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security 79
for Director Review No. 81 -05 - Ameron. Recommended that
Council accept the Improvement Agreement and Improvement
Security for Director Review No, 81.05, located at the south-
west corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -150 80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -05.
City Council Agenda -5- October 7, 1981
q. Authorization to Seek Bids for Street Sweeping Contract. 86
It is recommended that Council authorize staff to seek
bids for street sweeping service.
r. Deletion of Inactive Fund Accounts. The Capital Impprove-
87
ment Fund (No. 40) and City Facilities Fund (No. 49) need
to be deleted. Both funds are currently inactive, and are
in reality, duplication of other funds currently being used.
s. Interfund Transfer. It is recommended by the City Engineer
88
that $300,000 be transferred from the Storm Drain Fund to
the Special Assessment District Fund for the purpose of
proceeding with projects related to the 79 -1 Special
Assessment District. The $300,000 would be a no- interest
loan and when assessments are received by the City Assess-
ment District, the loan will be repaid.
t. Budget Transfer. It is requested that Council authorize
89
the transfer of funds from the Community Services budget
to the Administration budget. This is because of the
transfer of the Adminsitrative Analyst from the Community
Services Department to Administration.
u. Resolution Naming Individuals Who Will Be Allowed
90
to Sign Small Claims Court Documents Relating to Business
Licenses. It is recommended that Council approve the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -154 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO SIGN SMALL
CLAIMS COURT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO BUSINESS
LICENSES.
v. Set Public Hearing Date of November 4, 1981 for:
Environmental Assessment and Planned Development No.
81 -04 (TT 11935) - Elite Development. A request for a
change of zone from R -3 to R- 3 /P.D. for a planned develop-
ment of 132 condominium units on 6.05 acres of land located
on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill -
APN 208 - 241 -11.
w. Set Public Hearing Date of November 4, 1981 for:
Environmental Assessment and Planned Development No.
81 -06 (TT 11144) - T d M Builders. A request for a change
of zone from A -1 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned develop-
ment of 62 townhouse units on 5.4 acres of land on the west
side of Vineyard Avenue, north of Arrow Route - APN 208 -211-
25 and 26.
City Council Agenda -6- October 7, 1981
x. Set Public Hearing Date of October 21, 1981 for:
Environmental Assessment for Zone Change No. 81 -01 -
Lawlor. A request to change the zone from R -1 -14 acre
to R -1- 20,000 to be consistent with the zoning to the
west. This area is a portion of Tentative Tract No.
10210. The balance of the tract is zoned for the intended
use.
y. Set Public Hearing Date of November 4 and November 18, 91
1981 for: Allocation of additional Revenue Sharing Funds.
z. Acceptance of Carnelian Street Storm Drain Construction 92
Project. Recommend that Council accept as complete the
Carnelian Street Storm Drain construction project and pass
a resolution authorizing the city engineer to file a
Notice of Completion.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -155 93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION FROM
CARNELIAN CHANNEL TO DEMENS CHANNEL AND AUTHORI-
ZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WORK AND FINAL PAYMENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVLEOPMENT NO. 80 -12 97
TT T 11663) - MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. A total
development of 393 townhouses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone,
located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side of
Church, west side of Ramona - APN 1077- 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08
and 1077 - 631 -03.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council
continue the public hearing to October 21, 1981.
B. ORDERING ANNEXATION NO. 4 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 99
NO. 1 FOR TRACT 0 AN956 D —TRACT 95A4 -I - DEER CREEK ANO
WILLIAM LYON COMPANY, Item had been continued from the
September 16, 1981 meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -141 100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 4 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR
TRACT NO. 10569 AND TRACT NO. 9584 -1.
City Council Agenda -7- October 7, 1981
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 - 108
LEWIS. A proposed change of zone from R -1 (single
family residential) to R -1- 20,000 (single family resi-
dential 20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) on 52 acres of land
located on the south side of Summit Avenue between Etiwanda
and East Avenues - APN 225 - 181 -04 through 09, 26, and 43.
ORDINANCE NO. 156 (first reading) 119
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 225 -181 -4 THROUGH
9, 26, AND 43 FROM R -1 TO R -1- 20,000 LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN
ETIWAND.4 AND EAST AVENUES.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04 120
(TT 11614) - DEVELOPMENT GROUP. A change of zone from
R -1 and R -1 -5 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned development
of 80 single family attached units on 10.1 acres of land
generally located on the west side of Ramona at Monte Vista
Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -05, 06, and 16.
ORDINANCE NO. 157 (first reading) _ 122
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -05, 06, 16
FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
TO R- 3 /P.D. (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL /PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE HEST SIDE
OF RAMONA AT MONTE VISTA AVENUE.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -03 - DAON. 153
A proposed change in zone from M- 2 (general manufacturing)
to C -2 (general business commercial) on 18 acres of land
located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven - APN
208- 622 -01.
ORDINANCE NO. 158 (first reading) 155
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208 - 622 -01 GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AND
ARROW, FROM M -2 TO C -2.
City Council Agenda -8- October 7, 1981
F. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE PREPARA- 164
TION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11933. A 185 single family
planned development on 95. acres of land located on
Hermosa Avenue north of Hillside.
G. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE RETIREMENT PROGRAM (PERS). 202
ORDINANCE NO. 155 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM. '
H. ORDERING ANNEXATION NO. 5 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 206
DISTRICT N0, 1 FOR TRACT 9638. It is recommended
that Council approve the annexation of Tract 9638 to
the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -151 207
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 5 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR
TRACT NO. 9638.
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
A. UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Staff 214
report by Jack Lam.
Request by Elementary School Districts to provide an
uniform SB -201 school fee of $1100 per unit for single
family homes with two bedrooms or more and all multi-
family and mobile homes to be one -half that amount.
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING LACK OF NECESSITY 224
0 FORM PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE. Staff report by Jack Lam.
RESOLUTION N0, 81 -152 227
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING LACK OF NECESSITY
TO FORM A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
City Council Agenda -9- October 7, 1981
C. ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE TO REVIEW PROPOSED REDEVELOP- 229
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -156 230
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING
TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOP-
MENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA TO
CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
D. COUNTY REVENUE MORTGAGE BOND ISSUE. Staff report by Jack 231
Lam.
An Agreement with County of San Bernardino to participate
in the second AB 1355 Revenue Mortgage Bond Issue,
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -157 233
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUANCE OF COUNTY OF SAN
BARNARDINO HOUSING FINANCE REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE
B, PURSUANT TO THE HOME FINANCE REVENUE BOND
PROGRAM.
E. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT PRIORITY, Staff report by 244
L oyd HUbbs.
Prioritization for undergrounding overhead utility lines
under Rule 20 of the Public Utilities Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -158 245
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PRIORITIZED LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ACTIVE UNDERGROUNDING
PROGRAM.
F. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE FOR PUBLIC- PRIVATE SECTOR 261
COALITION. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the city council
designate a representative to serve for the city on the
public - private coalition, Membership is limited to a
city council representative, a chamber of commerce repre-
sentative, and a third representative selected by these
two.
City Council Agenda -10- October 7, 1981
G. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT 265
POLICIES OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -158
265
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AN
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE RATE OF RETURN.
N. RE UEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO ASSIST IN FUNDING OF 267
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MIN FESTIVAL 81.
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS.
7. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting will adjourn to a Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Meeting immediately following the Council meeting.
in the Lion's fart community center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wecnescay, mer
7, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D.
Schlosser.
Present were Councilmen: James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur
H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Ted
Hopson; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack
Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community
Services Director, Bill Holley.
Approval of Minutes; Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the
minutes of September 2, 1981; September 16, 1981; and September 22, 1981. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
a. Mayor Schlosser presented a Proclamation to Jim Campbell of the Cucamonga Lion's
Club setting October 11 through October 17 as White Cane Week in Rancho Cucamonga.
b. Mayor Schlosser read a letter which was being sent to Mrs. Martinez over his
signature on behalf of the City Council expressing sympathy in the loss of her
husband. Mr. Martinez was a Califoruia'.;ighway Patrol Officer who had been killed
while on duty, and a resident of Rancho Cucamonga.
c. Councilman Mikels stated he had attended the SANBAG meeting this morning. The
Board accepted the population estimates study by the William Lawrence Company as
the SANBAG input to SCAG for the SCAG '82 Population Forecast.
Some of the provisions of SB -215, the transportation finance bill which recently
was passed and signed into law, were disclosed at the SANBAG meeting. Essentially
there will be a split in the increased gas tax between the State and local governments
with one cent going to the State and one cent to local governments. This year they
are going to transfer money from the highway account to the local jurisdictions in
an amount nearly equivalent to the amount generated by the one cent tax which will
not take effect until January 1983.
Also, a resolution was unanimously approved by SANBAG and will be sent to the
California Transportation Commission endorsing an increase in the Foothill Freeway
protection funds account to $1 million.
d. Mr. Wasserman requested that Consent Calendar items "k ", "1 ", and "m" be removed
from the agenda.
e. City Attorney requested that Counciladjourn its meeting to an Executive Session
regarding some pending litigation.
f. Mr. Wasserman introduced two new city employees: Richard Marks, Senior Planner:
and Frank Dreckman,Assistant Planner, whose assignment will be to work on the
Etiwanda Specific Plan,
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -10 -7 in the amount of $202,134.86.
b. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Mark K. and Michael F. Valenti,
Tummy Buster (formerly the Grinder Haven) for on -sale beer and wine eating place
license.
e. Release of Bonds and .ces of _i .on:
-DR 79 -64: located at 11811 and 11899 8th Street.
Owner: Wagner Insulation
Company.
Release cf Improvement Security Instrument
$12,200
-Tract 9567: located at the northwest corner of
Highland and Hermosa. 3wner:
Lewis Homes.
Accept Maintenance Bond (road)
$ 7,800
Release Faithful Performance Bond (road)
156,000
Release Monumentation Bond
3,350
-Tract 9420: located north of Banyan and west of
Hellman. Owner: Prado
Woods, Corp.
Release Monumentation Bond
$ 860.
-Tract 9436: located on the east side of Haven
at Victoria. Owner: Crismar
Development Corp.
Accept Maintenance Bond (road)
$ 5,300
Release Faithful Performance Bond (road)
106,000
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -143
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 79 -64, TRACT 9567,
AND TRACT 9436 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK.
f. Intent to Vacate 7th Street. Recommend that Council approve the Resolution
of Intention to vacate 7th Street located between the San Bernardino Flood Control
Easement and Center Avenue as requested by Lord -Shobe Construction, Inc. and set
public hearing date for November 4, 1981.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -144
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO VACATE 7TH STREET BETWEEN THE SAN
BERNARDINO FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT AND CENTER
AVENUE AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V -013 ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
g. Approval of Storm Drain Reimbursement Agreement with Crismar Homes /Chevron
Contruction Co. Reimbursement for installation of street and storm drain improve-
ments on Archibald Avenue in conjunction with Tracts 9637 and 9638.
h. Pedestrian Safety Grant. Approval of Agreement with Office of Traffic Safety
for grant to perform pedestrian safety grant study.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTANCE
OF A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANT FROM THE OFFICE OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY.
1. Pavement Marking Demonstration Program. Recommend that Council authorize staff
to make application to the Federal Highway Administration for a Pavement Marking
Demonstration Grant. Funds are available to apply certerlire striping, edgeline
striping, and raised pavement markers to selected local streets.
NreC }eeel -Yen Care - -': ieeeewreni4- tMet�aunel' e}_ �ePi- ahe- iwowvamawiagcaamawa -awd
# meeevement- srentity-€ ee- TtaeE-}} B4;-}-} eeai edai- iha- wasehwuac- cocwac- oE- Riddaw
Fenn- Read- end- Neven- Awewue. Removed from the Consent Calendar.
RESOLUTION -NO-- 81-}45 (removed)
R- RE9BttfTFON�F- TNE�iTl '�?gBNEib�}F- 'PHS- 6F4'F -9F
RANCNB-EHEAHBRBA;-EAtiPORRtA--APPRBViN6-R4PR6V£-
MEMS'- ABREEMIIiT- ANB-RfPRBY@4ER'f- SE8F3Ri�; - ANB -FFNAb
MAP -BP- TRACT -NO -- }0845 - }-
t---ACCeptartce-of- Tract- ttS50 -- Bonds- artd- fgreementa-- besney- Beveievmen!- 6e. - -Re-
commertd-t hat -eaenctt - accept- the -spb }act- traet7- bench- �d- egreemea!- }eeeled -el -the
norrlrtaesr -corner - of- Base -tine- and- Hermosa. Removed from the Consent Calendar
RE90bHTfON- N0- -01-146 (removed)
A- RESBt0Tf0N- BP- YHR- EiYY-00RN8iE- BP- Tti£- £i�-6P
RANexe-eHeAMeHRA;-eAbfFORNIA;-APPReVING-R(PROV£-
MENT-AOREEMENT;- IMPROVEMENT- SEeBRITV;- ANO-FINAL
MAP- OT-TRAeT- Ne,-ff950-
m:-- Arreprante- ot- Reai -Fropetty-Imorovement- Contraet- and- t4en- Agreemen!- €er -Wreet
ii990-s - tesney- 9eveiopment -Co: -- Recommend - that- Eenne #3- ae<enr- lhe- Ree }- Preeerly
Imprpvement-Cpntratt- and -tten- Agreement -fprTtact -8359- far- a- med#en- #e#end -ee
base- ttne- - -Yhe- subject- tratt- fa- ixated-at- the- norlfiveaC- rerner- e€- £eee -b #ne -end
ttetmnsm. Removed from the Consent Calendar.
RE90tHTf9H-HO:- 03 -14i- (removed)
A- itE90EH' LEAN- OP- TH £- EiTY- EOeNEib- OF- I'N£- 6iT'4 -BF
RANEii�EOP. AMON6A ;- EAb!£ORNiA;- A66£P4'IN6- A-REA6
PttOPERTY- iilPi cevf3fEt +T- eefcFSAe4- AN�i�EeN- ASR£FNHNT
f+ it9N- iE3NEY- OENEtOPMEW£- e9l�A[iY- ANB- #N41i0RI3iNS -3'NE
MA�tetr, ENE- e��c- etsstc- T�slsx- �H£- s,�MS,
n. Intent to Order Annexation No. 6 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
for Tracts 11350 and 10045 -1.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -148
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION
NO. 6 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PUR-
SUANT TO THE LANDCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (TRACT 10045 -1 AND TRACT 11350).
o. Award of city -wide Emergency Street Repair, Clean -up and Sunnlementary
Maintenance Annual Contract. Staff reeo ends that Laird Construction be
awarded the contract as the lowest bidder at $39,319.73.
p. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director
Review No. 81 -05 - Ameron. Recommended that Council accent the Improvement
Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review No. 81 -05, located at
the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -150
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE-
MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR
REVIEW N0. 81 -05.
Ci -, Ai r
active and are,in reality, duplication of other funds currently being used.
s. Interfund Transfer. It is recommended by the City Engineer that $300,000 be
transferred from the Storm Drain Fund to the Special Assessment District Fund for
the purpose of proceeding with projects related to the 79 -1 Special Assessment
District. The $300,000 would be a no- interest loan and when assessments are
received by the City Assessment District, the loan will be repaid.
t. Budget Transfer. It is requested that Council authorize the transfer of
funds from the Community Services budget to the Administration budget. This is
because of the transfer of the Administrative Analyst from the Community Services
Department to Administration.
U. Resolution Naming Individuals Who Will Be Allowed to Sign Small Claims Court
Documents relating to Business Licenses. It is recommended that Council approve
the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -154
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING THOSE INDI-
VIDUALS WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO SIGN SMALL CLAIMS
COURT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSES.
v. Set Public Hearing Date of November 4, 1981 for: Environmental Assessment and
Planned Development No. 81 -04 (TT 11935) - Elite Development. A reauest for a
change of zone from R -3 to R- 3 /P.D. for a planned development of 132 condominium
units on 6.05 acres of land located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of
Foothill - APN 208- 241 -11.
w. Sat Public Hearing Date of November 4, 1981 for: Environmental Assessment and
Planned Development No. 81 -06 (TT 11144) - T b M Builders. A reauest for a change
of zone from A -1 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned development of 62 townhouse units
on 5.4 acres of land on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, north of Arrow Route -
APN 208- 211 -25 and 26.
x. Set Public Hearing Date of 6eeeber- 2 }7- }984 (changed by Council to November 4,
1981) for: Environmental Assessment for Zone Change No. 81 -01 - Lawlor. A
request to change the zone from R -1 -14 acre to R -1- 20,000 to be consistent with
the zoning to the west. This area is a portion of Tentative Tract No. 10210. The
balance of the tract is zoned for the intended use.
y. Set Public Hearing Date of November 4 and November 18, 1981 for: Allocation of
additional Revenue Sharing Funds.
z. Acceptance of Carnelian Street Storm Drain Construction Project. Recommend
that Council accept as complete the Carnelian Street Storm Drain construction
project and pass a resolution authorizing the city engineer to file a Notice of
Completion.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -155
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
CARNELIAN STREET STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION FROM
CARNELIAN CHANNEL TO DE4ENS CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING
THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
ANY) FINAL PAYMENT.
40 acres in the R -2 zone, located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side
of Church, west side of Ramona - APN 1077 - 341 -01, 1077- 133 -08 and 1077 - 631 -03.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to continue this item to the October
219 1981 meeting as requested by the anDlicant.
Mayor Schlosser asked if there was anyone present just for this item. There was
no response.
Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
report was
presented by Lloyd Hubbs.
Mr. Hubbs stated that since the last meeting staff had met with developers of
Deer Creek. Some changes had been suggested which were as follows:
1. Assessments normally take effect immediately. However, there was a Potential
that there would be assessments on the oroperty prior to any construction.
In order to mitigate the concern, there was a provision added to the
Resolution which states that assessments will not be levied until 60% of
the tract had been occupied.
2. In developments where a homeowners association would be maintaining the
parkway areas that would be included in the assessment district, it was
felt that there should be some provision to give credit for that maintenance.
This change is reflected in the Engineer's Report.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
-Tony Zenz, representing Deer Creek Company. They were the petitioners who
had previously opposed the action. He stated that they had received the
proper mailed notice. On behalf of the builder, William Grigsby, they are
approving the staff's recommendation for the formation of the assessment
district. It was their request, however, that the Engineer's Report be
made a part of the Resolution.
-Roy Schauben, Deer Creek Association treasurer. Exnressed opposition to this
tax. Felt it vas in opposition to the desires of the people when they passed
Proposition 13.
There being no further public response, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Mikels asked what the approximate Percentage of decrease in assessment
that would otherwise have been levied. Mr. Hubbs said they had not calculated this
yet, but they would apply whatever the rate was (approximately 30 cent per square
foot) times the square footage of the area; then decrease the assessments by that
amount.
Mr. Zenz pointed out that this assessment would be on top of the present assess-
ment that the new homeowers would be paying.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to approve and adopt Resolution
No. 81 -141 and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
City Clerk Wasserman read title of Resolution No. 81 -141.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -141
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK
IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 4 TO LAND-
SCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR TRACT
NO. 10569 AND TRACT NO. 9548 -1.
..81 .,_ _ 09, 26, 43.
Sack Lam presented by staff report. He stated that the item had been before
Council previously at which time Council approved the tentative tract.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to waive the entire reading of
Ordinance No. 156. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk Wasserman read
title of Ordinance No. 156.
ORDINANCE NO. 156 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 225 -181 -4 THROUGH 9, 26, AND 43 FROM
R -1 TO R- 1- 20,000 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the negative declaration
and to set October 21 for second reading and adoption. Motion carried unanimously
5 -0.
4D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04 (TT 11614) - DEVELOP-
MENT GROUP. A change of zone from R -1 to R -1 -5 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned
development of 80 single family attached units on 10.1 acres of land generally
located on the west side of Ramona at Monte Vista Avenue - APN 202- 181 -05, 06,
and 16.
Staff report was presented by Michael Vairin, Associate Planner.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive entire reading of Ordinance
No. 157. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Deputy City Clerk Authelet read the
title of Ordinance No. 157.
ORDINANCE NO. 157 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 3 /P.D. (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA AT MONTE VISTA
AVENUE.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was:
-Tom Vtman, of the Development Group. He encouraged Council to approve
the zone change request.
There being no further oublic response, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo-to aonrove the negative declaration
and to set October 21 for second reading and adoption. Motion carried unanimously
5 -0.
ORDINANCE NO. 158 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 208 - 622 -01 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AND ARROW, FROM M -2 TO C -2.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading. Motion
carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Schlosser set October 21 for second reading and adoption.
u7»s a rot single camriy olannea aeveiopmenc on yD.o acres or Lana located
on Hermosa Avenue north of Hillside. Mr. Lam presented the staff report.
Mr. Lam requested that the item be continued for at least two weeks in order
that an investigation be done regarding some drainage problems.
Mayor Schlosser reminded Council that he would be out of town on the 21st of
October and recommended that this be postponed until the November 4th meeting.
Mr. Scott, developer of the project, said they would agree to the postponement
to November 4.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to continue the item to November
4, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
4G. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE RETIREMENT PROGRAM (PEAS).
City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 155.
ORDINANCE NO. 155 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of
Ordinance No. 155. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve and adoot Ordinance
No. 155. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
A
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -151
ordering the work for the landscape maintenance district and to waive the entire
reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title
of Resolution No. 81 -151.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -151
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK
IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 5 TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR TRACT NO. 9638.
Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened with all members
of Council and staff present.
5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS.
5A. UNIFOR.M SCHOOL FEES FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Staff report by Jack Lam.
Mr. Lam stated the school districts were requesting that the fee be uniform for all
the school districts and that the fees be adjusted to reflect the current cost for
interim facilities which they recommend as $1100 or $550 for multi - family units or
mobile homes with two bedrooms or more.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council were:
- Sharon Romero asked why the multi - family units were one half the amount.
Mr. Lam stated that staff had done a survey and found consistently that
mobile homes and multi - family units produced one half the amount of children
as single family units. We have agreements with the school districts that
when this situation changes then changes in the ordinance would be introduced
to reflect such changes.
-Ken Willis, Building Industry Association, stated they neither opposed or
endorsed the fee, but they did appreciate the fact that there was a good deal
of candor by the city staff and school districts in establishing the fee.
He said basically the fee which is proposed would cover inflationary costs
as they understand them.
Mr. Willis did state that they have not had the privilege of reading the
required annual statements of collections and expenditures of the fees. He
requested that they receive copies of these reports.
Mr. Willis also asked Whether or not the Alta Loma District received its
Phase III grant monies from the State Allocation Board under the LeRov Green
School Purchase Act. If so, on what date. Also, has the Chaffey High School
District received an indication as to what date they may receive such funds
from the same Board and under the same law.
Al to _ II to _ pl
specifications for the Hermosa School. If they meet the State requirements
as far as priority points, they should have the plans and specifications ready
and go to bid about March 1982. The school should be completed and readv to
move into September 1983.
There being no further public consents, Mayor Schlosser closed the nublic Dortion
of the meeting.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to direct staff to draft an ordinance
to reflect the recommended uniform school fees. Motion carried unanimously by the
following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Valombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
5B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM PROJECT
AREA COMMITTEE. Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
Mr. Wasserman stated the primary reason we feel a Project Area Committee is not
necessary is that the area does not involve any relocations since it is essentially
vacant land.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. There being no response,
the public portion was closed.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -152
concurring with the lack of necessity to form a Project Area Committee and to
waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk Wasserman
read title of Resolution No. 81 -152.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -152
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING LACK OF NECESSITY TO
FORM A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE RANCHO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
5C. ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE TO REVIEW PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Staff report by Jack Lam.
Mr. Lam recommended that Council adopt Resolution No. 81 -156 which establishes
the date of December 2, 1981 for a joint meeting with the City Council and the
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. There being none, he closed
the public portion of the meeting.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -156
establishing December 2, 1981 for a joint meeting with the Redevelonment Agency
and to waive the entire reading of the resolution. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
City Clerk Wasserman read the title.
.IC ra
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
5D. COUNTY REVENUE MORTGAGE BOND ISSUE. Staff report by Jack Lam.
He said the County was now undertaking its second issue of AB -1355 revenue mortgage bond
program. The program was to provide mortgage loans at less than the prevailing
interest rates with a focus on first -time homebuyers in the County. The city had
participated in the initial program last year.
Mr. Don Newcome, from the County Office of Community Develonment, was present to
answer any questions by Council.
Mavor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the public
portion of the meeting was closed.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to approve Resolution No. 81 -157
and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk Wasser-
man read the title of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -157
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A CO-
OPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN
CONNECTION WITH ISSUANCE OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
HOUSING FINANCE REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE E, PURSUANT TO
THE HOME FINANCE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM.
5E. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT PRIORITY. Staff report by Lloyd Hobbs.
Mr. Hobbs stated that prioritization for undergrounding of overhead utility lines
would be under Rule 20 of the Public Utilities Commission. Rule 20 makes funds
available to out such overhead utilities underground.
Richard Coca of the Engineering Department presented slides depicting the newer lines
which were on the priority list to be put underground.
Sharon Romero, member of the Advisory Commission, requested that the item be taken
to the Advisory Commission before Council decision.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the public
portion of the meeting was closed.
Councilman Frost stated that he concurred with the 'acommendation that this be
sent to the Advisory Commission. One issue which ..e Commission could discuss is
whether we would want to require a hookup fee to existing residences for such
cosmetic changes to the city.
Councilman Mikels concurred in the Advisory Commission taking a look at this. Also,
if staff could develop some projections based on the revised revenue outlook to see
if there isn't some way these costs could be mitigated,
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to refer to the Advisory Commission
and direct staff to look into ways to spread the assessment based on our other
revenues rather than on the home owner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
I Inc ., a c __ ov a rent .ve, son a :rd re-
presentative selected by these two.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to nominate the Mayor, Phillip
Schlosser, to serve on this Committee. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to nominate Mayor Pro Tem, Arthur
Bridge, to serve as an alternate. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
5G. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
Mr. Wasserman stated that the proposed resolution urges the Public Employees'
Retirement System to analyze its investment policies. He said that PENS has
not been putting their investments in high yield short term investments such
as treasury bills. Many of their investments are in the 3 to 6 percent. We
are requesting along with other cities and the League of California Cities
that PERS take a look at their investment Policies and to have a detailed
indeptendent analysis conducted of such policies.
Councilman Frost stated that the Citrus Belt Division adopted a similar
resolution at their last meeting.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the
public portion of the meeting was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. 81-158
and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk
Wasserman read the title.
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -158
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AN
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE RATE OF RETURN.
5H. REQUEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO ASSIST IN FUNDING OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WINE FESTIVAL 1981.
Michael Jauron, General Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, presented the request
and answered questions.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the recommended loan
of $6,000 to the Chamber of Commerce for the necessary expenses related to the
Rancho Cucamonga Wine Festival, to authorize the mayor and city clerk to sign
the agreement as presented, and to authorize the funds be transferred from the
unappropriated reserves into the general fund. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
as a starting point su ject to m %nor retinemem: and aaj, as to
starting from scratch.
Jack Lam stated in his conversations with residents that there is a great deal of
concern that this is another major rehash of items which have been discussed before.
He said there seems to be a major blockage in moving ahead and we would probably
move ahead better if there was a solid understanding that the specific Pl:.n process
is one that must be consistent with the adopted general Plan. This is not to be a
wholesale chucking of the General Plan.
Councilman Frost requested that both he and Jack receive some firm Council direction.
Mayor Schlosser said he had attended the meeting last evening. What the people
wanted was something specific -- something they could Point to and discuss.
Councilman Bridge stated he had attended the two other meetings. He said this had
been very slow in moving ahead. He felt very strongly that the professional planners
on staff must come forward with some imaginative options to develop that community.
He said he sat during the meetings frustrated as do the residents and land owners
since none know about planning and how to develop that community to its full potential.
We do know it must be consistent with the general plan.
Councilman Mikels concurred. He said to focus the discussion, the people needed
concrete alternatives, and that the money was budgeted for the staff for the project',
they are the professional staff to provide this kind of information to the committee
Councilman Bridge encouraged Council whenever possible to sit in on these meetings
6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Mr. Hobson said he had nothing except to request an
executive session to discuss pending litigation.
7. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to a
Redevelopment meeting. following the Redevelooment meeting, Council to adjourn
to an executive session not to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Meeting
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
l.P ttrCl�
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk
Ip 9667 CITY OF RANCHO COCA +ONGA
WARR A WEN R V[L E N D 0 R N A M E
01393 R 8150 13 5TA 8 FDEJUALIZAf1.^.
01394 9490 TATE OD GK EOUALIZATIO
8 Ilg5 2610 DAILY AFPDRT
396 2650 DAILY REPORT
01397 1200 DANK OF AMERICA
01393 913009 A yL1E
9 SAN THTEECO ECONOMIC OE
3t4D1 9250 UFLI- FAPGO 7WUSTEF
01402 2307 CITY -CTY PLANNING COMM
01401 8315 SAN CC PROBATI
01404 9330 WEST BONO MARSHALLN
OI405 9313 SAN BR40NO CC EMPLOY C
U 1406 4650 OLENDALJ FEDERAL SAVING
!17 AIF OFF IF SUPPLY
i�
oil "r9 465
_ 014311 9313
01431 771
07401 441
07751 000C
_0T7698 195:
i 0791l{{5 V81
-iM01913 I1I
0?B19 Y0V01
87827820 DOC
OT92 00;
v X71 a SO,
07oz? 023
ev° i °c
u7°iu 9
{ OT 831 3
0T °32 . t3
= FIR �� 8
$
4. 07gg@°366 Z20 PC
IX 839 ...231
9:i 239
V
AGENCY
[KEMENY S
L D
(ANIONIC DE
ION HEALT
REM M S'14 TENS
YSL PAINT
EDISON
RENTS ,1
NnENT - '•
NN NT ...- .,__.-
NM NT
K C KEY
SUPPLY - •p-
qRq TNelreR
UNDRI
A1 Y ULYNT GSA
0.DWARE -
C LAURA
RING
TAX ASSOC
RC HEY. MARK
OTT�INO CO
WARRANT RECONCILIATION
MARp JOJ -NAL
DATE REFERENCE
10/07/91
DISCOUNT NET
< v
15�).•V
S O. vo
9.2 P, 2.a,1
0
L.t1
1,420. 11
2.00
t S.on
4.zo
650.00
210 98
96.00
53.00
77.22
35.00
44.21
1.90
500.00
1119 00
5 :00
75.00
40.110
126.23
349.70
506.90
Ira:
311.74
14.95
PAGE
IN,
j
1
I
I
Il
I i
I
1
I
14�
I
I
I
I�
I '
I
i
I
I ..
. 1
I
I �.
fC
R961
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMwRCA
WARRANT
RECONCILIATION
WARR
R YEN 9 V E N D 0 R N A M E
WARR
Ot NA1
DTE
Ricl
E
1TA44
21144 AFRNAROINO CO ASSES
17/07/41
0$AN
CC
p)SMSE
1]3,,
2525 R OOK COMPANYP
10 /07 /Pl
0�11T
"In ODOR 2
8i
Iclorlql
11"41
2515 CMONOAp CO W ER DIST
10/07/91
r
07RLV
2595 CUCAMONGA` PRINNpTTNC
1l0 /OT /8l
11115p,
161 RJLLLEAS1 NGHCORE INC
`11151
.1691;
;641 O HE, WALDE.Y
10�00t%8l
T
Sf
11 P
254 DsILY REPORT
1,51
la /n71A1
I�
)690 OAY ALAN M9 N
40611 FFHCFA
IO /Di /9l
a /AS6
CR AFT OF UPLAND I
t0 /07 /8t
P
0!657
4130 FOOTHILL LAWNMHWFA SERV
10/01/91
31056
7H5a
4410 FERNANDF7 SHANNON
4415 H0AB5 HH,NJ4
!0/01/91
10/07/81
u /ef,p
4416 ED 0.,275. STAf TF
lC /OTFRI
ni;iz
❑YL
4495 rpS I =Quin
19107/di
T
0]564
ENE�TH1,01c
45495 GE.4 RA
SFR`C`VICESCPU8L S
10/07/8t
*
`5L`
07667
4821 M01 gRTEE- MANKSE DISTAIBUTIO
!{0101%93
17 °58
4910 HAY ES RELOtNS. GARY
10/07/9!
i
7 ^19
490( HOLLFY Re - PETTY CASH
10/01/61
19
rtl TO
9
07871
4915 .DLLIJ,AY ROCK C4 INC
494(1 MCMEAS TREE S'JR.FRY
30/07181
10107 /91
..
111672
4975 S M HOYT LUMBER CO -
10 /07 /e1
0!913
49905 NUB CONSTRUCTION SPEC
10/07/81
07814
5025 NY AT1 ISLANUTA
10/07/81
01875
5110 IBM
10 /01 /9t
OTAT6
5t3O INLAND EMPIRQQ TURF SUPP --
10 /07/81
-
M
0/A7.
75 INTL CITY MC. ASSOC
10107/01
475 TB
L11O )INS EXXON SERVICE
10/07/61
' `.05.1119
6536 KrW`R, LYNpA
10197181
Or310
6118 KRUSI, JOAN
{0101 /Bl
.:.
• +il.
6410 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC
10 /117 /9I
q T991
6728 LEE. EDGAR
10/07/61
110.11
6783 LINVILLE- S AND ER ON-MOppN
0 /117 /el
17!'x4
6795 LOL KW 000 ENG L URVEYIN
10107/BI
�.
f1, `+S
bd5l LOS ANG.LFS TIMFS
t0 /07/e1
D TC9n
6915 LOWES PPRER TOOLS
10 /n71At
nlre'
7110 MMASC M99(M5ERS111
l
�`r
LLP
7140 NItAU0n 1PErLRp11
{0107/81
r
+9
MC 1Y EAT
10%01%01
ClB90
7291 MC ALISTER ARTHUR
IG
07991
7294 MC M4 ii TER- AR0.
t0 %a7 /81
111892
7160 MOOEPN ALL YS INC
10 /01 /8 l
1799 1520
119809 7610
)7900 7670
7719
•;T9�2
77;6
117991 7775
879071 7395
05 7990
1711
')7906 7BI9
0]901 78:0
nm3 3991
117909 RC T5
:910 Adis
I;' nivil a as
11••13
Noll A15n 9159
.7115 P�6i
r i
" 11
_ 191 8111
10/07/81
DISCOUNT NET 55
A1214,.00
157.97
I
31
11
2.
R.
11
e1
3:
11
PAGE 2 I +
n
�r
in
t1
�n
I�M
M1
�r
�r
r
�9R
�T
i�
II
/
60.
ri^
- -- - -
- - - - - - - -
R867 CITY
OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WARRANT
RECONCILIATION
30 /OT /3I I
PAGE !
r
NARR 4
YEN I V E N 0 0 R N A N E
�1
pAiE
aEFENEnGE
DISCbUNT -_ NET-
O 9
0949
834�3
10/T1 AF.RRNA0. INp CCDU4TV
S5E4EN OAY AUTO PARTS
/ T/p
10I T /E4
-
� _ _ ..
` 0 :44
- - ., ••�`ui :.t
r
11920
03}�
83 5
SIGNAL MAINTJpNANCE
JA
12/07/41
699e.40
Q
019)1
8361
poIEGO RDtARY BROOM
l0 /0] /el
451.92
I
01,122
01923
VC III
VO11)
VppMDOP N0. 0/390
VENOOR NO. 8390
10201/01
l0 /0]!61
a'
079/4
01125
Vail
8390
VEYJ?a NO. 039p
SD UTHFRM CALIF FOTS2N
0 107/el
40/07/81 .,
55.479.56
1792(.
,195
SBUTHFRN CALL GASH C
0/07/81
40/07/81
6T.Z4 "
1
p"
01927
9!929
8410
8415
5 UTHWEST CONCRET.: PROD
PARKLETTS
I0107181
2Q2.39
1 8.37
G
�p
019.9
07930
8402
B4 P.4
PILL CC4TT RDL SPLY C MP
T GEOC,GE PRESS
I0 /01 /9l
10/01/81
3 7 39
07931
VOID
VEN OCR N . 8525
l0 /OT /81
_
A'
.'
OT93'
O)433f
8525
8535
S5TATT[ONER C RP
SULL IVAN f. R06ERT
10707/8
10/01/81
13 9.62
34.00
01914
8540
SSSUN TELCGRAM
10/07/81
8.00
r
11935
1TV36
0542
8544
SUN S5H NE METAL PRODUCTS
SUPnj NTENDENT DOCUMENT
10/07/81
40/07/81
7.84
1y 6.00
`
07v 36
M1,65
SERMINAL MENTAL$ INC
10/07/81
.109.00
07939
9085
TUN R$ NC
LO /07/81
1.139.86
07940
H946
U pp SYSTEM
p
I A
07941
9125
VANLVY INTL TRUCK
0/01/9
1 1
60
35.4
119M13
T'+A4
+Z DO
42 ID
NA$$FR HAW. AIIPF9 M
Wf$T RIO UN4 t1D MAY
10/97/S
IUTOT /P4
60.00
165 .09
AV
01945
v199
NE T PUBLISH INC. CC
IO /DT /,l
90. IO
Ali
JT444
93,7
Nf TERN RUCK CO
l0 /U7 /61
- 1.711.06
117947
1)940
9390
9515
WESTpRN HIGHWAY PR000CT
Wit M$ PRINTING D
10 /0718
40707/61
2.230.07
103.80
8<
019 }9
9535
WINGATE AIR CONDI {ICNIN
LO /07 /0/l
40.64
:941
1991
SCRO% CORP
3010> /Pl
'- R80.04 "
L�360.00
'
1T95Z
999)
YUKCOIN DISPOSAL SERVICE
1'111311834
019,1
VD 10
FINAL TOTALS
1NOT /Rl
1396A
2650
DALY pEPORT -
9/09/81
9
P
FINAL
TOTALS 202.134.60
^
'1
IN
1
fOr
�r
It
COPY...... »b_ ...... ... ..
AFRICAHON FOR ALCOHOLIC RVERAGE LICENSE, I. WILTS) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO
Top: 0.pnlm m .I Mmbelk bere,e9e Conrad RECEIPT IP3NO
IT lso S,,. Ben �im 0. 9.1. Beer A Wins, GEOGRAPHICAL -- --
iM uM.nrpned M.eby.ppba ••— ••,•,•,�"'a r COOL
. .•�» � Lt1a6 PSAOe o.m +caa__.
f n », dxv.Md m I.E.- .<. - - I,—d
}. NNAEIS) OF APHICANT(S)
Applied under Sep. }A(NA
3. }YPf151 Of iRAN$ACTION($� FEE TIC
1IA1,Y M, BAP1 i. i michle1 F. _____.TYPE
. r LR s'm.m
. AmRUl lu
190.80
y l Nu 1 eu,ine„ O,Ir 20
m..
A 1�BUetor_ _ -
s. TCarex�erneer em��,ee,,..N„mb., .na Sven �n I � _
SM »nett —19th
41};w 9'1730 RuT Her}lexd no'.. _ . _ I.TAI I s ! .
v 0 6 80
r 6. II Prtmnev L<em•d, j ] Are P—,,, In:e
A'E2(80". .6} 826/) sb.. Ty cry ).n,
Too
e u Add— (A dF from 51 -K—be na S :eer
I Cr s, 3aiRLo n cueemongae. CA 91701 n•7-o:
o. e..ey....., been .,o,d d. lel,l to H,r... y." e.e: —1.1.d any .r rbo pro..,.n. el rv. a«b.C<
e.v.na° anrwl All .r rt9.I.u. ^. n n.. o•pn,h. :r p.r
I1. Erplo YES n.w.r rn Hem. 9 cr TO n. n+ Falr b• cl --d p.T nr mry opphlcn-
E}, A,,[,. 1 q v lni II.. -1 •e9er mpl.yed o, role rN p:c � jt 4nr nrI IM u I (,u nv
_ Ibi rb_n• 1e .11 n lelme ar ... er p. n be Iola ., •.1 rrr pn T—1 cl rF. AI <. (+I • C and An
u STATE or uufaRNIA C-- .1 Berven'flno D.I. 9/16/11
zz
IA APoCANi
SIGN HERE
APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR
iS. STATE OF CAU,OPNIA c—,
...w. .........n ... _.. n...,..., n... e....e..v n. n.... _.....p
lA Nrorn•^r o^I leentr.v•'n.... ,. .s � M o.w.l }•Sign. �:r(rr .l l^e n••n, nn ,. ..�... .en ir. �•r lfl l't. v. NU+rF•:•�)
G:^„
D.vo T'o,T Inv TAi, I brr, 1'.r. 11:F...... Irc(lnhr
r, RAvca,Y V.n ^n. /lo Jl
fl .,.,., COP E<un'IEn
(I R.n—i Fnn d P.id W oar. 11 . Re<eipr H.
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
DATE September 28, 1981 �„�u„
FROM Thomas Wickum, Captain PHONE t
Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Office ,)
TO Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT Record Check on Applicant(s) Requesting Alcohol Beverage License
A Criminal History record check and California Drivers History
check has been completed on the following applicant(s).
VALENTI, Michael Frank:
1. Criminal History check was completed with negative
results.
2. California Drivers History completed with negative
results.
VALENTI, Mary Katherine
1. Criminal History check slows applicant involved in
a vehicle accident 5 -31 -80 and a victim of obscene
phone calls.
2. California Drivers History check shows applicant
was cited for 22350, Excessive Speed.
If you have any questions regarding these record checks, please
feel free to contact me.
tI
MXTi s,.. 1177 F .�
CLET 00000 RCSP 00047
09/21/81 14.38.43
FR3M CLETS:
DATE:09-2'- 8!*TIME:14:41*
MATCHED ON:*L /N *F /M* MI* Z
DL/NO:P0463301 *B/D:11 -24 -46 *NAME :VALENTI MARY KATHERINE4
ADDR AS OF 1!- 21- 78:6228 QUARTZ ALTA LOMA 9 O1*AKA:TALLON MARY
KATHERINE*
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
SEX:FEMALE*HT:5-02*OT: 130 *EYES :BLU*HAIR:BROUM *OTH /ADDR AS OF
I0-16- 74:12726 CYPRESS AVE CHINO a
I, IC /ISS:11- 21- 78*EXP /00:82*CLASS:3
LATEST APP:
OL TYPE:RENEUAL 3 *APP /DATE: 11-21 -78x OFFICE: UP0BATES:
LICENSE STATUS:
VALID*
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:
NONE
CONVICTIONS;
1 VIOL /DT CONV /DT SEC /VIOL DKT /NO FINE DISP COURT VEH /LIC
01 -15-80 02 -28 -80 22350 VC C75295 025 B 19475 796YBZ
FAILURES TO APPEAR:
NONE
ACCIDENTS+
NONE
END
CLET 00000 RCSP "00
09121/81 14.40.00
FROM CLETS:
DATE:09-21- 81 *TIME0 4:42*
MATCHED ON:*L /N *F /N* MI* Z
DL/ NU: K0966320 *B /D:12- 27- 46 »NAME:VALENTI
MICHAEL FRANK*
ADDR AS OF 12-22- 78:6228 QUARTZ AVE ALTA
LOMA 91701»
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
S SEX: MALE* HT: 5- 05 *UT:180*EYES:BLU *HAIR:BROYN*OTH /ADDR AS OF
12-24 - 74:12726 CYPRESS AVE CHINO
LIC /ISS:12- 22- 78 *EXP /BD:82 *CLASS:3 x
LATEST APP:
DL TYPE:RENEUAL 3 +APP /DATE; 12 -22 -78 +OFFICE:
UPL *BATES;
LICENSE STATUS:
VALID*
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:
NONE
CONVICTIONS:
NI
NONE
/� V
FAILURES TO APPEAR:
NONE
�t
ACCIDENTS:
\
NONE
END
CLET 00000 RCSP 00047
09/21/81 14.38.43
FR3M CLETS:
DATE:09-2'- 8!*TIME:14:41*
MATCHED ON:*L /N *F /M* MI* Z
DL/NO:P0463301 *B/D:11 -24 -46 *NAME :VALENTI MARY KATHERINE4
ADDR AS OF 1!- 21- 78:6228 QUARTZ ALTA LOMA 9 O1*AKA:TALLON MARY
KATHERINE*
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
SEX:FEMALE*HT:5-02*OT: 130 *EYES :BLU*HAIR:BROUM *OTH /ADDR AS OF
I0-16- 74:12726 CYPRESS AVE CHINO a
I, IC /ISS:11- 21- 78*EXP /00:82*CLASS:3
LATEST APP:
OL TYPE:RENEUAL 3 *APP /DATE: 11-21 -78x OFFICE: UP0BATES:
LICENSE STATUS:
VALID*
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:
NONE
CONVICTIONS;
1 VIOL /DT CONV /DT SEC /VIOL DKT /NO FINE DISP COURT VEH /LIC
01 -15-80 02 -28 -80 22350 VC C75295 025 B 19475 796YBZ
FAILURES TO APPEAR:
NONE
ACCIDENTS+
NONE
END
GONE I DENT I AL 114F 0RMA I 10 N : AC ( USS PR()HADJ i I- D VNL.F.SS AU I 110RIZLD By 1. Aw,C:'(. .10,;
S. B. S. O.
PERSON SUMMARY
Fl,LSP()NVF--
LAST
FIRST
M DDLE
VALENTE
iMARY
SbJ VJ:C
OTH
ID WFA
(. I I
D/L F'0046330 CA
DR DAIS.
SDJ
INCIDENT
AGE 34 DOB
112446 FBI
1041,662 11 o.�,5iEio
0
VLm..L. A(:(:[
III
SS*
1696769 11 0520141
V
PC 6'.)3M
WT
NAP( :'t
HAIR
API
LY
MARKS
WARRANT
TYPE DATE AGCY B(.)()K
DATE QlARGL
F.I.
AREA
W—FILE
AKA
PCC)m
DL DR I'00K PF " f'lm' , H.'Il I'l-'i wAill, J,
w 1- i 'I I - I r J 71 F P F r Lq !-1 3 INDEX PIF4 Df IAIIL P[ ') UPI) PI e., Pi I/ljPD URIW
D539D3 ** To LIERM, S046P FROM LIf RIM. MAS;EAR 14
DATE.:: 09/21/61 I Iml Q1 06.215
THE CMI DATA BASES HAVE DEEM RLST(.)RED fl) BOTH JNwU.IRY AND PPDA:F . 'il 0 1 W',". 00•00wi
6r u/ .w.r�Arrrrw rll rry'rr 0. Xrr Wnn Itirr rHr x..�_. x r .,... n... ., -r.
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC LEVERAGE LICENSES)
Te: Depnnmem el AlF.h.1i N .... a. ConNFI
QIS OSn.e, .< .no
Svnvm.mv, Calif. 95814
:nn,mHO[111re1p0
FA. u°dwayn<d A ... by vW.Jw
Ikmrer derv;bed yr Win-
1. WFE(5) OF LICEN9(5)
FILE NO.
CLU9 LICRRax
Applied undo &c. ZNAI
ER'nb. Der': 1,111,1
FEE NO.
GEOOPAPNICoAl
CODE Sb O
'-
timed
3. NAME(5) Of APPUCANT(5)
Temp. P..mn
ER'Obe Dore
' - Slke LOQ90 #2570
3, TYPES) OF TRANSACTIONISI
FEE
LIC.
TYPE
Bxnited IDller - Jack Schaffer
RLTE
S
363.00
51
In7a1 Snizha - Chuck HnvenB
A. Nerve °f L °an...
8anchm "CLAmenOa Lodge #2570_
S. Le I-n °1 Rmines.- Number vnd Srr..I LT 20
- -,' 12481 Baaellne Rd. l
-
G, ..d Z ,C d. Ceunly
Raneha CecamanOa 91786 SAS. -BB90
RECEIPT NO. 22FJ2 9 TOTAL
S
363.00
-6. 'I Pr<mif<. Li<en.ed, '..A :G uel Z.
L. Mmbn9 Add, I, (IT nfiffv'nl Irom 5)- Nvmb<r and SI, p.mr "M1 +1
P.O_ Box 66t,_Raneho- CUea�AI�a�CA _9�6____ Prml. -_
^9. N^re yov .... been wn.iae l of ° felony? TO. Nv.e 1^ er n-I. ed vny of rbe pro.ilmll °E IN. All.Wi<
Lmerage Cvmr°I An yr nquleNem °f IFe Depvlmem per
mn, le IN. AW
1L Erplvi^ v "YES" emw<, p iu.,'Vp 70 on an °n°<Fmenr nFkF rh,Ill be deem.d P-1 of IM, vppbmrv^n
- 12. HNI Ih r aq.< . (°I rA°r .nYLZ apr Amyl°yeI .-.1. F<e .rd pn -Al Fe. °II Me qunG(m I of 1 A<l e, and
_(bl IFe nM1e ally _rolm °e1 -p o be lelnr<d any_ol rM1e pro al IFe AlmM1el'i< 6e. . Cn_, .°I Arr
- � Ym� °
13 STATE Of CALIFORNIA a v(< = i¢nonly nl SAM Bernardltlm'
S..
In 3
..................»�0n.
e.-.....
u. SIGN H1NTBlk: Lyr1/n�/�- #3570
• SIGN HFAE IEBYI /'/'L LW LI � iq r_.S- "L•a y'I. m
HeA /f^ .. .... .._.... ..._.. .... .....
- -- APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR - - - -�-
15. STATE OF CAIIMMIA C°vnry °I
16 N_:._- II<,_ �: ., o..u•V_5:9n: :eltl of lJ <_.. ._.. ne �.. ...r= P- nlne...rl..
19. lacelien N-IN., and Slree, City and Zip Code C7
no No W,wBdmp Tbi, I.Inr: F., pgmnmrnit'm Only - -- -- - -' - --
Ane,A.d: ❑ Rem.drd ,;c.,
_.
1 ❑ Pidx<inrY
[7 .. _.._ .... .. r.. .. .. .:. COPIES NAILED -
fl Pnn.nl he of In:d r Oa.,.
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
DATE September 28, 1981 u „�w„r31
FROM Thomas Wickum, Captain PHONE /
Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Office
TO Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBJECT Record Check on Applicant(s) Requesting Alcohol Beverage License
A Criminal History check and California Drivers History
check has been completed on the following applicant(s).
NEWBERRY, Harry William;
1. Criminal History check was completed with negative
results.
2. California Drivers History check shows applicant
involved in traffic accident 5- 23 -80.
If you have any questions regarding these record checks, please
feel free to contact me.
T tog
12.1%7 oao n «. 1n7 ,
• G,
CLET 00000 RCSP 00031
09/18/01 09.25.39
FROM CLETS:
DATE:09- 18- BIATIME:09:25*
OL/NU:D0938220*8 /0:08-13- 38 *NAME:NEUDERRY HARRY UILLIAM JR*
ADDR AS OF 08- 16- 79:1334 U FOOTHILL 12 E UPLAND 91786*
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
SEX: MALE* HT: 6- 01*UT: 180 *EYES:BRN *HAIR:BROUN *OTH /ADUR AS OF
08-0- 16:8045 3RD AVE HESPERIA *
LIC /ISS:08- 16- 79*EXP /BD:83 *CLAS9:3 >'
LATEST APP:
14 TYPE:RENEUAL 3 +APP /DATE: 08-16 -79 *OFFICE: UPL *BATES:
LICENSE STATUS:
VALID*
DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:
NONE
CONVICTIONS:
NONE
FAILURES TO APPEAR:
NONE
ACCIDENTS:
DATE LOCATION VEH LIC REPORT NO FR CASE NO
05.23 -80 MONTEREY 021LVX 27061000014 05 23 00369
END
CLET 00000 RCSP 00032
J9r18101 09.26.55
FROM CLETS:
RE: OHA.CAO360011.N0/NEIIBERRY,HAR
SEARCH ON LAST- NAME,FIRST-NAME.SEX
PLUS M I -DOB -RAC REVEALS
NO HIT - AUTOMATED SYSTEM
LNV
CLET 00000 RCSP 00640
09/18/81 09.45.34
FROM CLETS:
2L01
.3
CA0360011
NO ARREST RECORD OR NO ARREST RECORD MEETING
FBI DISSEMINATION CRITERIA FOR PUR /C, E, OR R
IN NCIC FOR NAM /NEUBERRY,HARRY 0
hi
el Q/
CLAIM AGAINST
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 14
11 Of RAKW CQCWWA'
AOMINISTRATM
DATE: September 25, 1981 SEP 25 198t
py
TO: City of Rancho Cucamonga 81gInIlll�liF�Is141�
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 905 and 910 of the
Governmant Code of the State of California, demand is hereby
made against the treasury of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in the
County of San Bernardino, California, in the amount of $500,000.00.
In support of said claim, the following information is submitted:
1. NAME OF CLAIMANTS: Fred and Lillian Hoffhines.
2. ADDRESS OF CLAIMANTS: 1540 13th Street, Imperial Beach,
California 92032.
3. ADDRESS TO WHICH CLAIMANTS DESIRE NOTICE TO BE MAILED (If
different from Item 2): BELOUD AND MANNERINO,
9330 Baseline Road, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91701 -5897.
4. NAME OF LEGAL OWNER OF DAAAGED PROPERTY UPON WHICH CLAIM!
IS BASED: Not Applicable.
5. NAME OF REGISTERED OWNER OF DAMAGED PROPERTY UPON WHICH
CLAIM IS BASED: Not Applicable.
6. DATE ALLEGED DAMAGE OCCURRED: July 8, 1981.
7. PLACE WHERE ALLEGED DAMAGE OCCURRED: intersection of
Beryl and Banyon Streets, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
County of San Bernardino, California.
8. TIME OF DAY OR NIGHT DAMAGE OCCURRED: Approximately
3:45 p.m.
9. PUBLIC PROPERTY AND /OR PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES
ALLEGED TO BE AT FAULT: City of Rancho Cucamonga, in
the County of San Bernardino, California.
10. MANNER IN WHICH DAMAGES OCCURRED AND NATURE, EXTENT AND
AMOUNT OF INJURY OR DAb1AGE CLAIM, TOGETHER WITH BASIS OF
COMPUTATION THEREOF:
The Damages occurred when, due to the unsafe
construction, design and maintenance of the
intersection comprising the location of the
accident, the vehicle in which the Claimants
were passengers was struck by another vehicle
driven by Laren A. Williams, causing the
injuries set forth below. Said damages
occurred by reason of she ,.usofe condition of
public property in that the intersection has
certain visibility defects obstructing the
driver's ability to see and be seen. As a
result of said accident, Claimants sustained
severe personal injuries, the present extent
of which is unknown. As a result of said
injuries, Claimants are entitled to an award
of $500,000.00
The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, states: That
the above claim and the items as therein set out are true and
correct; that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and
that the amount therein is justly due these claimants, and
that the same was presented withi4OO days after the last
item thereof has accrued. ( 1 /
DATED: September 25, 1981 BEDQWj,AND I)A.NNERIP0
BY
s fbr Claimants
-2-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager b�C
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Enginee - 1e7
SUBJECT: Consent Calendar, Release of Bonds and Notices of Completion
DR -79 -64 - Located at 11811 and 11899 8th Street
OWNER: Wagner Insulation Co.
11811 8th Street
Rancho Cuamonga, Ca. 91730
Release of Improvement Security Instrument $12,200.00
The road improvements for Director Review 79 -64 have been constructed in
accordance with the road improvement plan and it is recommended that the
City Council accept the improvements and authorize the City Engineer to file
a Notice of Completion .
Tract 9567 - Located at the northwest corner of Highland and Hermosa
O'WNER: Lewis Hones
P. 0. Box 670
Upland, California 91786
Accept Maintenance Bond (Road) $ 7,800.00
Release Faithful Performance Bond (Road) 156,000.00
Release Monumentation Bond 3,350.00
The road improvements for Tract No. 9667 have been constructed in accordance
with the road improvement plans and it is recommended that the City Council
accept the improvements, accept the maintenance bond, release the Faithful
Performance and Monumentation Bonds, and authorize the City Engineer to file
a Notice of Completion.
Tract 9240 - Located north of Banyan and west of Hellman
continued...
OWNER: Prado Woods, Corp.
1156 N. Tustin Avenue
Orange, California 92667
Relc-ase Monumentation Bond $ 860.00
Staff Report
Release of Bonds
October 7, 1981
Page 2
Tract 9436 - Located on the east side of Haven at Victoria
OWNER: Crismar Development Corp.
2120 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90406
Accept Maintenance Bond (Road) S 5,300
Release Faithful Performance Bond (Road) '106,000
The road improvements for Tract 9436 have been constructed in accordance
with the road improvement plans and it is recommended that the City Council
accept the improvements, accept the maintenance bond, release the Faithful
Performance Bond and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion.
LBH:bc
r~
RESOLUTION NO. � - -,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 79 -64, TRACT 9567
AND TRACT 9436 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of street improvements for Director
Review 79 -64, Tract No. 9567 and Tract No. 9436 have been completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying
the work complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted
and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion
with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
0
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF RANCHO C=C IONGA
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
WEN RECORDED :NAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Post Office Bo>t 1807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
I.' The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate
in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which
interest or estate is:
Director Review 79 -64
2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCBHONGA, 9320 -C ea seline Road, Post Office Be.
807, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
3. On the 7th day of octoter , 1981, there was com-
pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of im-
provement set forth in the contract documents for
Director Review 79 -64
4. The name of the original contractor for the work of im-
provement as a whole was Magner Insulation Co.
S. The real property referred to herein is situated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. County of San Bernardino, California,
and is described as follows:
Street Improvements for Director Review 79 -64
The street address of said property isl 11611 6 11899
8th Street
DATED: 39
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a
municipal corporation, Owner
BY:
Mono)
(Title)
I '1'
RECORDING NEOUE5TED BY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Post office Box 807
Poncho Cucamonga, Calif-m"
91730
NH£N RECORDED 1141L TO
CITY CLERK
CITY OF &%NCHO CUCA.NONGA
Post Office BOx'807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
NOTICE OF CO:4PL£TION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. 'The undersigned is an Owner of an interest or estate
in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which
interest Or estate is: Tract No. 9567
2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Baseline Road, Post Office Box
NOT, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
3. On the 7th day of October , 1981, there was com-
pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of im-
provement set forth in the can tract documents for
Tract No. 9567
4. The name of the original contractor for the work of im-
provement as a whole was Lewis HOMMS.
S. The real property referred to herein is situated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California,
and is described as follows:
Tract No. 9567
The street address of said property is: N/A
DATED: , i9
CITY OF NBHCHO CUCANONGA, a
municipal corporation, Owner
BY:
(Name)
(Title)
1°` -1
MAINTENASCE GUARANTEE BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and Lewis Bores of California
Ihereinafter designated as "principal "1 have entered into a
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain
designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated
Sept. 15 1a 81 and idea ti`ied as project Trace !H. 9557
is hereby referred io and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, 'said principal is required under the terms of said
agreement to furnish a bond for maintenance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal, and W. Inamrame
s surety, are held and firnly bound unto the City
o: Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter Called "City"), in the penal sum
of cams ntmvaed Siam IEVdred -- ^S -' - -'— Dollars
1$ 7.805.00 1 lawful of the United states, for the
payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves,
our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and
severally, firmly by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above
bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by,
and well and truly keep and perform the convenants, conditions and
provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made
as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed
at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects
according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and
save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein
stipulated, than this obligation shall become null and void; other-
wise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to
the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs
and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's
fees, incurred by city in successfully enforcing such obligation,
all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, exten-
sion of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement
or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications
accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on
this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change,
extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the
agreement or to the weak or to me specifications.
I5 WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed
by the principal and surety above names, on Septetrler 15 1981
I.i:GIS HUYES of CALIFORNIA
Au [hertxed ARnnt - --
SAFRr.O INSUWJC CCO2ANY OF VaTCA
mee S. 5vsld
ATTV.I9 -FACT
13
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Post Office Bo% 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
WHEN RECORDED NAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RAtiCHO CUCAMONGA
Post Office B e,.'807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate
in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which
interest or estate is:
Tract 9436
2. TC- fill n and n
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Base line F Road, '^Rest - Office ^Be,
�
607, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
3. On the 7th day of October 1981, there was com-
pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of ir.-
provement cat forth in the contract documents for
Tract 9436
4. The name of the original contractor for the work of im-
provement as a whole was Crismar Development Corp.
5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the
City of Rancho CWtamon Ba, County of San Bernardino, California,
and is described as follows:
Tract 9436
The street addrose of said property is: N/A
Gi,EO: , 19 .
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, A
municipal ccrperatlnp. owner
BY
(Title)
I� -1-
'J1flIL'IE "F'�F BO "'0 Bond Ho: 012821
Prom. Amt :S95,00
iMZ5? AS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucnmonga,
State of California, and LMEV)tMiA0ILAN0_DFVF 0P +'FYT L. /CP._ISMA nFF10P.. NT COMI
(hereinafter designated as "principal ") have entered into an ATION
eereement whereby principal agrees to install and coaplebe cer-
tain designated public improvenents, which said agreement,
dated Slulteebe, 26 19 B1 and 'identified as
Project TRACT 9436 Plaintena rice GuaranteeT-
is hersby referred to an trade a Dart hereof: an ,
0HEREAS, said principal is required under the terns of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement, Section 16, guaranteeing all imorovements free of all defects for a
period pf (1) one year after acceptance of the Tract by the City
NOW, THER:FORE, we the principal and COVENFNT MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY , as surety, are he.i.d and
:irmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga ihercinaf ter called
"City "), in the penal s= of ly"JU"F IV! _ _ A." THR[f MON0RE0 --------- - - - - --
------------------------ ___________ Ool lays i5yt. 00�)- awT Eul
coney of t e United S -etas, for the payr..en o we" £ hich sum well and
truly to he made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu-
tors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
precepts.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above
bounded pr i. ^.c
-'Psi, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shell in all things stand to and abide
by, and well apd truly keep and perform the covenants, condi-
tions and provis`_ons in the said agreensot and any alteration
thereof mate as therein provided, on his or their part, to be
kept and carfozmcd at the time and in the manner therein spec-
ified, an<'. in al'_ respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indecnify and save hrrmless City, its officers,
agents and eaployces, as therein stipulated, then this obligqa tion
snail beccre Pell and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in
full force and effect.
As a nart of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
-' -- to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included
costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, all to be Lazed as costs and included in any judgment
rendered.
The :,,rety hereby stipulates and agree: that nv change, ex-
tenaica ,,, ti.-, alteration or addition to t c terns of the
gore iienL or to the work, to be performed thereunder or the spec -
ificationa ncco•:.naaying the came shall in aril -.+iss affecL its
o),) ,Stior.s on Chic boor], and it does hcroby waive vot:ir•e of any
such c!�,•ri,,, ceCVr. -•i un n' himn, nl: m'.i Liar r uddilirn tr; the:
f.�rms of tl:c .grem.^.nt u: to Lh^ wnr): ,, Lo th.• epeci Cie Y.i on .
I:; t: t'fGil S:. V%?I RFOF', thin in rlr,ont hnv. I. ^an duly n. %0c.L.d
by the principal ind rnv!:ty alm'e 'named, on a teLr 22
CH, VNGN LAWI A" Vtt Of%Q;T CO.
-8T'i Crl15i /!4�% 0!VEI. P4i;IT CORP00.1II(N
BY %�i
- 1161!1( _'�OP ,Frp;'if ^n --
CO /V(E,i a{'�Jii ,UAL .I IISU FufIC 0.
BY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Intent to Vacate 7th Street
O�MOh
4Z0 C7.
OI'i z
U
t9 ?7
As a result of planning for building expansion for Royal Creations
at the southwest corner of 7th Street and Center Avenue, its
applicant, Lord -Shobe Constructors,Inc. has requested the City to
vacate a portion of 7th Street between Center Avenue and Deer Creek
Channel right -of -way, which forms the north border of the property.
No improvement exists on this portion of 7th Street, nor is there
any proposal to construct a bridge over Deer Creek for continuation
of 7th Street across the channel. At present, only one large parcel
of vacant land exists on the northside of 7th Street which also has
frontage on Center Avenue.
The Planning Commission at its regular scheduled meeting of August 12,
1981, issued a Negative Declaration for the expansion of Royal
Creations building with a recommendation to the City Council to
vacate the subject street.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution
setting the public hearing on November 4, 1981.
Respectfully sub
-i
LBH:SB:jaa
Attachments
M
RESOLUTION NO. I - 14 y
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE 7TH STREET BETWEEN THE
SAN BERNARDINO FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT AND CENTER AVENUE
AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V -013 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows
SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed
under Sect—io—n—Agr et seq, of the Streets and Highways Code, also known
as the Street Vacation Act of 1941.
SECTION 2: That the City Council hereby declares its
intention to vacate a portion of 7th Street a City street, as shown on
Map No. V -013 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, a legal description
of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a
part hereof.
SECTION 3: That the City !'cmcil hereby fixes Wednesday,
the 4th day of November, 1981, at 7:00 p.m., in the Lion's Park Community
Service Building, located at 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, California,
as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed
vacation for the purpose of its determining whether said City street is
necessary for present or prospective street purposes.
SECTION 4: That the City Street Superintendent shall cause
notices to be posted conspicuously along the line of the street or part
thereof proposed to be vacated at least 10 days before the hearing, not
more than 300 feet apart and not less than three signs shall be posted,
each of which shall have a copy of this resolution on them and shall
have the following title in lettering not less than one inch in height:
"NOTICE OF HEARING TO VACATE STREET ".
SECTION 5: The subject vacation shall be subject to the
reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities or record.
SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the
City Clerk sh1 attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause same
to be published 30 days before the date set for the hearing, at least
once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published
in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October , 1981
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/7
EXHIBIT "A"
7th Street Vacation:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Parcel No. 1
That area bounded by the West line of Center Street, 80.00
feet wide, and the southerly prolongation of the east line of
the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Right of Way,
as shown on Tract 7854 M.B. 100/11 -12, the center line of 7th
Street (Also known as 20th Street per Plat of North Cucamonga,
as Recorded in M.H. 4/8) and a line parallel to the centerline
of 7th Street and 44.00 feet north of said centerline.
Parcel No. 2
That area bounded by the West line of Center Street, 80.00
feet wide, and the northerly prolongation of that certain strip
of land, 100.00 feet wide, as conveyed to the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District by judgment out of the San Bernardino County
Superior Court Case No. 119404, the centerline of 7th Street (also
known as 20th Street per Plat of North Cucamonga, as recorded
in M.B. 4/8) and a line parallel to the centerline of 7th Street
and 44.00 feet south of said centerline.
Parcel No. 3
That area bounded on the north by the South line of Parcel
No. 2 and on the east by the west line of Center Street, 80.00
feet wide, and on the southwest by the arc of the curve concave
to the southwest, having a radius of 20.00 feet, said curve being
tangent to the south line of said Parcel No. 2 and the west line
of Center. Street.
I?
l 3'".3ini7
Reservations and /or Exceptions
Reserve and except a strip of land 25 feet wide lying 10
feet south and 15 feet north of the centerline of said 7th
Street, 88 feet wide (distance measured at right angles
at said centerline) to the Cucamonga County Water District
for public utility services.
)7
nimv n� n A rurvn PIT( I A nenwlP A
Attached for Council approval is a reimbursement agreement for
the installation of a storm drain in Archibald Avenue from
19th Street to Highland Avenue. This work was required in con-
junction with the construction of Tracts 9637 and 9638. Construc-
tion of the drain is currently nearing completion. The
total cost of construction is estimated at $85,407.00. The fees
for the two tracts are $55,750.00. The approximate reimbursement
amount is $30,000.
The attached agreement is the standards reimbursement form approved
as to form by the Council previously. Section 9, 10 and 11 have
been added to complete street reconstruction of failed pavement
south of 19th Street. This work is estimated at $16,000.00 and
was included in this year's capital budget. The payment for street
work will be immediate upon acceptance of the work.
I should note that this is the first reimbursement agreement entered
into by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the Reimbursement Agreement
for Planned Drainage Facilities Construction No. 1 with Crismar/
Chevron.
Respectfully s mitted,
LBH:' a
Attachments
C�I
STAFF REPORT'
lb
yc
1' C
i?
DATE:
October 7, 1981
1977
TO:
City Council and City Manager
FROM:
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Storm Drain Reimbursement 'Fr! ement with
Crismar
Homes Chevron Construction Co
Attached for Council approval is a reimbursement agreement for
the installation of a storm drain in Archibald Avenue from
19th Street to Highland Avenue. This work was required in con-
junction with the construction of Tracts 9637 and 9638. Construc-
tion of the drain is currently nearing completion. The
total cost of construction is estimated at $85,407.00. The fees
for the two tracts are $55,750.00. The approximate reimbursement
amount is $30,000.
The attached agreement is the standards reimbursement form approved
as to form by the Council previously. Section 9, 10 and 11 have
been added to complete street reconstruction of failed pavement
south of 19th Street. This work is estimated at $16,000.00 and
was included in this year's capital budget. The payment for street
work will be immediate upon acceptance of the work.
I should note that this is the first reimbursement agreement entered
into by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the Reimbursement Agreement
for Planned Drainage Facilities Construction No. 1 with Crismar/
Chevron.
Respectfully s mitted,
LBH:' a
Attachments
C�I
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
for
PLANNED DRAINAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION NO. 1
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1981, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO
COCAMONGA, Ca r Drain, A municipal corporation, hereinafter called
"CITY" and CRISMAR HOMES hereinafter called 'DEVELOPER', provides:
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the CITY it is necessary that
planned drainage facilities be constructed for the proper drainaee of
DEVELOPER'S development described as:
Tracts 9637 and 9638 and,
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER, at DEVELOPER's own expense will
install the planned drainage facilities hereinafter described, and,
WHEREAS, the cost of constructing the planned drainage
facilities hereinafter described will exceed the planned drainage
facilities fee, which will be payable with respect to the development
under the provisions of City Ordinance No. 75, and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of City Ordinance No. 75 provides:
"SECTION 8: Construction by Developer and Reimbursement.
Whenever the construction of planned drainage facilities is
necessary for the proper drainage of a subdivision, the City may re-
quire the subdivider to construct such facilities with credit being
given by the City toward any fee payment required by this Ordinance.
If the cost of such construction exceeds the fee which would otherwise
be payable with respect to the subdivision, the City Council may, at
its descre Lion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer.
In the event a reimbursement agreement is entered into, reimbursement
shall he made only after the fee required by this Ordinance is collected
in connection with A subdivision or development on other property in
the area encompassed by the reimbursement boundaries described in the
reimbursement agreement. The basis of reimbursement shall be the
developer's actual cost of construction of the planned drainage facili-
ties. The term of a reimbursement agreement shall not exceed ten (10)
years."
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree As follows:
1. The Developer will, and at Developer's own expense,
furnish all labor, equipment and material, and pay all costs incident
to the installation in accordance with plans and specifications approved
by the City Engineer of the City, the following planned drainage
facilities:
Archibald Avenue storm drain - From 19th Street to
Highland Avenue. Line 2N of the proposed comprehen-
sive storm drain plan.
2. Installation of said planned drainage facilities shall
be completed not later than 6 months after the date of this Agreement.
3. The City Engineer shall inspect and test the planned
drainage facilities at the expense of the Developer, and after any
deficiency discovered by said Engineer has been corrected by Developer,
City shall accept said planned drainage facilities for public use.
1. City shall not be responsible for any loss or damage to
said planned drainage facilities prior to their acceptance by City.
Developer hereby guarantees and warrants said planned drainage facilities
for a period of one (1) year following the completion and acceptance
thereof against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials
furnished.
5. Developer shall protect, indemnify and save harmless
City from and against any and all claims, demands, and causes of
action of any nature whatsoever, and any expense incident to defense
by City of any such demand or action for injury to or death of persons
or loss of or damage to property occurring on Developer's development,
or in any manner growing out of or connected with Developer's construc-
tion, repair and maintenance of the planned drainage facilities described
herein, or in any manner growing out of or connected with any deficiency
in workmanship or material furnished in connection with construction,
maintenance or repair of said planned drainage facilities.
6. City hereby agrees that in consideration of Developer's
installation of said planned drainage facilities. City will not assess
Developer the fee described in Ordinance No. 75 which fee with respect
to Developer's development would otherwise be the sum of $55,750.00
Dollars.
7. For the anoont that the actual ^oxt of :.nstn:cdor. of
said planned drainage facilities exceeds the sum specified in Paragraph
6 hereof, which said excess amount is hereinafter referred to as the
"original reimbursement sum" the City shall reimburse Developer, only
as and when fees are collected under Ordinance No. 75 and only according
to the formula hereinafter described. Amounts to be reimbursed to
Developer shall he determined an follows:
A. Following completion of construction the Developer shall
submit all cost data to the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall
then determine the actual cost of construction, and such determination
shall be final.
B. Annually, at the end of each fiscal year, the City shall
set aside into a "planned drainage reimbursement fund" ten percent
(109) of all fees collected during the fiscal year under the provisions
of Ordinance No. 75.
C. The Developer shall be eligible to share in the planned
drainage reimbursement fund commencing with the fiscal year which ends
following the date on which said planned drainage facilities are
accepted by the City.
D. If the Developer is eligible to share in the planned
drainage reimbursement fund, then not later than two (2) months after
the end of such fiscal year, the City shall pay the Developer, from
the amount set aside in the planned drainage reimbursement fund, a
fractional share thereof determined as follows:
W The numerator shall be the original reimbursement
sum for the Developer and the denominator shall be the total of the
original reimbursement sums for all Developers who are eligible to
share in the planned drainage reimbursement fund for said fiscal year.
123
8. All of Developer's right to reimbursement hereunder
shall cease as of the end of the fiscal year ending ten (10) years
after the fiscal year in which the Developer first became eligible for
reimbursement hereunder, whether or not fully paid.
9. In addition to the installation of the planned drainage
facility as mentioned hereinabove, the developer will construct the
following improvements with plans, specifications and contractor's bid
price approved by the City Engineer:
Archibald Avenue reconstruction from 19th Street to
Highland Avenue to include removal and replacement of
asphalt concrete pavement with asphalt concrete berms
at edges.
". The City Engineer shall inspect the street reconstruc-
tion, and after any deficiency discovered by said Engineer has been
corrected by the contractor, the City shall accept the improvements.
11. Within 21 days from the acceptance of the improvements,
the City shall reimburse the developer the total amount of the street
reconstruction costs.
12. Nothing in this agreement shall entitle Developer to
reimbursement of a sum in excess of the original reimbursement sum.
13. Amounts payable to Developer hereunder shall bear no
interest.
14. Payments may be mailed to Developer at the following
address:
or; smar Homes.'C::e re, C n.;tructi;n C...
2120 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90403
15. Developer may change the mailing address by written
notice delivered to the City Clerk.
16. Rights to reimbursement due under this agreement may be
assigned after written notice to the City by the holder of such
riqhts as shown by the records of the City. Such assignment shall
only be effective only with respect to payments becoming due and
payable more than thirty (30) days after receipt by City of written
notice of such assignment. City shall not be required to divide any
payment to be made hereunder. In the event it appears from the records
of the City that more than one (1) person holds the right to payment
hereunder, the City may deliver the full payment to any one of such
persons and such payment shall be deemed payment to all.
17. As used in this agreement, the term "Ordinance No. 75"
includes any ordinance amending or modifying Ordinance No. 75 and any
ordinance adopted hereafter which covers the same or similar subject
matter and is intended to replace Ordinance No. 75.
18. The City reserves the right to at any time increase or
decrease the fees payable under Ordinance No. 75.
19. if the fee established by Ordinance No. 75 is hereafter
declared invalid or unenforceable, or collection thereof is otherwise
prccludod by law, all Developer's rights to reimbursement hereunder
shall immediately cease and terminate.
s N I
20. This agreement shall be interpreted according to the
laws of the State of California. This document contains the entire
agreement between the parties With respect to the subject matter
hereof. This agreement cannot be modified except by an agreement in
Writing, signed by the party against whom the enforcement of any
waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought. Subject to any
provisions herein to the contrary, this agreement shall in all respects
bind, and inure to the benefit of, the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of each of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement
at Rancho Cucamonga, California, on the day and year first above
written.
ATTEST:
Crcy CCle y-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
My Attorney
9 J
Developer
By
Title
By
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Safety Grant
Attached for Council approval is a resolution of support and
agreement for an Office of Traffic Safety Pedestrian Grant.
As you recall, this item was presented to the Council several
weeks ago. The Council at that time expressed concern with the
program and directed staff to more fully develop the work scope
and attempt to accomplish the program without increased staffing.
The attached program reflects these changes and a detailed work
program with manhour assignments has been included. It should be
pointed out that reference to recruitment has been retained in
the program but this process will be carried out to replace the
recent departure of a part -time traffic aide. This position was
included in the budget for this year and the funds received from
O.T.S. will supplement general funds for this purpose.
The current budget for the program has been reduced by $1,500 to
reflect the removal of mailing of safe route to school maps.
This responsibility will be left to the schools. This further
reduces any implied commitment by the City to continue this practice
in the future. Commitment for the future under the current pro-
posal is to monitor safe pedestrian access. This is a normal
function of the section and will not burden the staff in the future.
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution
and direct staff to complete the necessary agreement to receive
grant funds. //
Resp ctfully`submA ted,
LIIH:j
Attachments
of
RESOLUTION NO. 4 i - 16 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTANCE
OF A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY GRANT FROM THE OFFICE OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY.
WHEREAS, there is a need to develop safe walking routes to
schools in the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, a need exists to identify crossing guard an! school
crosswalk locations; and
WHEREAS, traffic engineering improvements will be needed along
new safe routes to schools; and
WHEREAS, a priority listing fc,r construction of sidewalks is
needed; and
WHEREAS, grant funds are available from the Office of Traffic
Safety to conduct a pedestrian safety study;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga that it approve acceptance of a Pedestrian Safety
grant to perform the above item.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
AK ENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
P
State of California
SAFETY OFFICE USE ONLY
Business and Transportation Agency
SAFE
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
F
Project Number
TRAFFIC SAFETY PRCJECT AGREEMENT
Revision Number
(Under Section 2907, California Vehicle
CuxFOlW1A
CWFORNIA Code, and Section 402(C) of Public law
Date
89 -564 as amended by Public Law 91 -605)
Project Budget Estimate
Fiscal Yr. Amount
FAT. 1 - (To be Cairpleted by Applicant Agency)
—�
1. Project Title
$
Pedestrian Safety - Standard N14
—
TOTAL 6
2. Name of Applicant Agency
4. Project Period
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Month - Day - Year,
12xmcNovember 1, 1981
S. Agency Unit to Handle Project
To [October 31, 1982
Eng ineer ina Division
5. Project Description (Sxmmarize the proposed project plan covering the objectives, method
of procedure, evaluation and end product in approximately 100 words)
This project will develop a pedestrian safety program for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The project will include 1) a review and analysis of existing data and conditions,
2) preparation of a safe routes to school study, 3) preparation of a crossing guard
study, and 4) a listing of priorities for sidewalk construction. An admnistrative
evaluation of the project will be conducted by project personnel after completion
of the grant.
6, Federal Ft-nds Allocated Under this Agreement
Shall Not Exceed 6
7. -„ - e provisions
on a erne r tltute a pare
of is
of
t
A. Project Director
B. Authorizing Official of Applicant Agency
Name Terry Nemec pt?m4x1989 -18
Name Lauren Wasserman Phor*989 -1851
Address 9340 Base Line Road
Address 9320 Base Line Road
P. 0. Box 807
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Signature
Signature
Title Traffic Analyst
Title City Manager
C. Fiscal or Accounting Official
D. Office Authorized to Receive PaYMents
Nam Harry Empey
Hamm City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Base Line Road
Title Finance Director
Address P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
one 714/989 -1851
Project Description Schedule A
feet as 6 Cost Category e
E
Priority and Contributions Schedule A-1
TYeffic L>ata Dummy Schedule
Detailed Budget Schedule B
Non - Duplication Certificate
Time and Cost Estimate Schedule C
Hatch Act and E.O.A. Forms
-1- OTs -F -1 (Rev. 6176)
du
SCHEDULE A
PROJECT MSCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
A. General Characteristics: In November, 1977, the communities of Cucamonga,
Etiwanda, and Alta Loma incorporated to form Rancho Cucamonga, a city encompas-
ing approximately 32 square miles. Prior to recent development, the area was
primarily rural with a large amount of acreage devoted to groves and vineyards.
Rancho Cucamonga is located in southwest San Bernardino County 37 miles east of
Los Angeles and 15 miles west of San Bernardino in the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains. The City, because of lowerland values and proximity to Popul
tion and employment centers of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, has experienced
tremendous growth. The population in 1980 was 54,000 compared with 10,800 in
1960. The City is adjoined on the east, west and south by incorporated cities
similar in characteristics to Rancho Cucamonga, with the San Gabriel Mountains
to the north. The terrain slopes gently towards the mountains with a number of
flood control channels traversing the City from north to south.
B. Streets and Highways: Public roadway mileage within the City is 218 miles. Of
this amount, 212 miles are paved City streets, the remainder are primitive or
unimproved roads.
C. Engineering Department: The Engineering Department consists of the Land
Development, Special Projects, Public Works, Maintenance and Traffic Divisions.
The Engineering Department employs 26 people. The Traffic Division consists
of a full -time Traffic Analyst, and a full -time Engineering Technician. The
focus of the Traffic Division centers around high accident location analysis
and investigations, a traffic control device inventory, radar speed checks,
a traffic count program and transportation planning.
D, Existing Systems: Copies of all reported traffic collisions occurring in
Rancho Cucamonga are received on a regular basis from the Sheriff's Department.
Information regarding time, location and severity of each accident is recorded
on a listing of collisions. An accident pin map is kept for each of three
years indicating the location, severity and time of each collision. The 1981
pin map separates pedestrian and bicycle accidents from other collisions.
Summaries of accident data are received on a quarterly basis from SWITRS.
PROBLEM
As homes have replaced groves and vineyards in the City, numerous traffic control
and pedestrian problems have become evident. Older sections of Rancho Cucamonga
developed many years ago contain streets which are narrow and without sidewalks.
Higher traffic volumes present a potential hazard to pedestrians, especially in
partially developed areas without sidewalks and where roadway widths change often.
Development has brought an influx of families with children into these areas and
the number of school aged children has increased substantially. Pedestrian accidents
have increased over the past three years. In 1978, six accidents occurred compared
with sixteen in IS79 and 12 in 1980. All pedestrians injured in 1980 were
under sixteen years of age. A need to reevaluate school crosswalk and crossing
guard needs and to determine safe walking routes to school is evident. A listing
Of areas without sidewalks needs to be completed to set priorities for construction
of sidewalks which will serve pedestrians of all ages.
OTS -r -1 (Rev. 6/73)
4
SCREDrU A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE PROBLEM
The Traffic Division has been unable to devote sufficient time to the analysis of
assigning priorities to locations in need of sidewalks or to determine safe walking
routes to schools because of other commitments. The primary workload of the
Traffic Division consists of high accident location analysis and investigations,
traffic control device inventories, speed surveys, traffic counts, and transportatior
planning. Pedestrian accidents have been reviewed for a three year period. The
analysis of existing controls (signs, signals, pavement markings) has been partially
completed. Manpower and budgetary constraints prevent any further development of
a pedestrian safety program.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goal of the proposed project is to provide increased safety for peuestrians.
To achieve this, the following objectives will be completed:
I. Develop safe walking routes to the 15 elementary, junior and senior high schools
within the City and identify deficiencies in these routes according to data
collected regarding student residences and detailed engineering information
concerning safety.
2. Identify locations where crossing guards and school crosswalks are needed.
3• Identify and upgrade deficiencies in signing, signals, pavement markinns and
lighting in areas with high pedestrian volumes and along new safe routes to
schools after this information has been obtained,
4. Identify areas where sidewalks are needed and prepare a priority listing for
construction of the sidewalks.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Tasks needed to achieve these objectives will be completed in the project phases
listed below:
Phase 1 - Recruit and Train Project Personnel and Purchase Equipment
11 -1- 1 to 1 -31- 2
Employ person needed to perform the project activities and
provide necessary training and orientation. Prepare specifications
and procure necessary equipment and service,
Phase 2 - Preparation of Safe Routes to School Plan
(2-1-82 to 8-31-82)
Determine safe walking routes to each of the 15 schools in Rancho
Cucamonga. Obtain input from school district personnel regarding
locations where students reside. Prepare safe route to school maps
for each school. Each school will have the responsibility of distri-
buting maps to each home.
OTS -38b (New 6/81)
SCHEDLIE A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase 3 - Determine Sidewalk Needs
(6-1-81 to 9-3o-82)
Areas without sidewalks with high volumes of pedestrians or which are
along routes to schools will be identified. A list of sidewalk needs
will be compiled based on this information. A priority listing will
be completed to incorporate into the City's improvement plan.
Phase 4 - Review and Anal ze Pedestrian Data and Field Conditions
0_1_82 to 10_31_82
Analyze traffic controls (signals, lighting signs, pavement markings)
to determine improvements which will create safe pedestrian routes in
areas where pedestrian walkways did not exist and along new safe routes
to school. Recommend appropriate changes to eliminate potential hazards.
Upgrade signing, pavement markings and pedestrian phases of signals
according to engineering standards.
Phase 5 - Crossing Guard Study
10 -1 -82 to 10-31-82)
Determine need for crossing guards based on safe routes to schools
study, Input from school districts and the Traffic Committee will be
utilized in making decisions,
METHOD OF EVALUATION
The evaluation of this project will be conducted by City personnel. A short term
assessment of the project will compare accomplishments with objectives, will ex-
plain unexpected problems and their effects, and will compare costs and time
requirements with project estimates. A long term administrative evaluation will
involve the insured continuation of the pedestrian safety system. The program will
be monitoredand evaluated after a two year period for overall effectiveness. Where
changes in the system are required, they will be evaluated and reported on in the
evluation study.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
We have considered the continuing operation costs of implementing this program and
it is the intent of this community to continue the pedestrian safety program
developed by this project as a part of the community's ongoing operational activity.
uis -Jab t, ew wtil)
3l
SCHEDULE A -1
Priority Statement - Explain what type of priority this project has in your jurisdiction.
The extreme growth currently being experienced by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has made pedestrian safety a primary area of concern. Families with children
are moving into areas without sidewalks and with inadequate road widths to
accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Based on this need, the proposed
program will receive first level consideration. The project will receive direct
participation by the City Engineer, the Senior Civil Engineer, and the Traffic
Analyst. The City Council is fully committed as demonstrated by the attached
resolution.
Agency Contribution - Explain what services or funds are being contributed by your
agency in support of this project,
Office Space @ $75 /mo
City Engineer (50 hours /year)
Senior Civil Engineer (50 hours /year)
Traffic Analyst (300 hours /year)
Office Furniture
Maintenance and operation of vehicle
Miscellaneous staff support - 10% Grant
Miscellaneous office equipment E supplies
TOTAL CITY CONTRIBUTION
The City of Rancho Cucamonga will contribute all personnel and office costs
necessary to implement the project. The above is an estimate of the cost of
these services, No income will be generated as a result of this project.
C -F-1 (Rev. 6/73)
'7
ESTIMATED
COST
FY1
FY2
TOTAL
T25
75
goo
950
8o
1,030
730
65
795
3,290
285
3,575
80o
0
800
1,100
100
1,200
goo
loo
1,000
475
25
500
9,070
730
9,800
The City of Rancho Cucamonga will contribute all personnel and office costs
necessary to implement the project. The above is an estimate of the cost of
these services, No income will be generated as a result of this project.
C -F-1 (Rev. 6/73)
'7
r
SCHEDULE B
Detailed Budget Estimate
i'A il' - Item 7 IuIjdget Detail PaRe
Fiscal Year Estimates
Total Cost
To Project
FY -1
FY -2
FY -3
FY -4
11 -1 -81
10 -1 -82
A. I',•r�.�,;unl C„n l;, 9-30-82
10-31-82
IMUTIUSJ ANU SALARIES
1 Engineering Technician
(Trainee)
6 mo. $586/mo
3,516
3,516
2 mo. ? $615 /mo;,
1,230
1,230
3 mo. a $658 /rn:;::
1,974
1,974
1 mo. 5658/m
658
658
*step increase
�7;' cost of living
2.64 °,
177
17
194
'Total Personnel Costs
6,897
675
7,572
B. 'Travel Expense
TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY CITY
T,L.IL 'I'r.wnI. Fxpense
-0-
C. Concractual Services
NONE
To v,l Contractual
Servicer;
-0-
OTS -F -1 (Rev 1 -7G)
�3
( SCHEDULE B
Detailed Budget Estimate
I':1k, . - II�in '/ Ii, I,lp.•1' I ",I,iI
C., ..I �'' ;. r. n,V
' i : Y. ;:
'I1 .I.i I
I'Y - I
fY -"
IY -3
1'Y -h
11 -1 -81
10-1 -82
N,,,, I:xl •'�r 4.'. „L, 11.. .,.•Iy
10-31-82
NONE
'i1,lal Ms, Ikr *nd.lbl�
-0-
I..UUInr Direr,t costs
Materials and supplies
(paper, draftinq equipment,
supplies)
800
800
Printing and reproduction
of maps
500
500
'I',,tal Other Direct Costs
1,300
1,300
1, tndirrol Cun V;
TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY CITY
Tutnl rndir, -ct Costs
'I'b'I'A I, BUU6F.1' CSTIMATE
All fL topnri m;
8,197
675
8,872
?I 015 -F -1 (Rev 10 /76)
( SCHEDULE B -1
Buaget Narrative
PERSONNEL COSTS
The City intends to hire an Engineering Technician to conduct the proposed project.
It will be this person's duty to organize, administer, and complete the described e
of work under the supervision of the Traffic Analyst.
The employee benefit rate is broken down as follows:
Workman's Compensation 2.64%
DIRECT COSTS
Printing and reproduction estimates cover the cost of safe routes to school maps.
;.aterials and supplies include a Le Roy lettering set, drafting paper, a drafting
arm, and supplies related to drawing of the naps.
OTS -F -1 (Rev.6 /73)
.S
J
SCBEEUL.E ..
Project -i -:e an' - x?er�i' -__e Schedule
Y
u a
R
w
FISCAL YEAR 1 FISCAL YEAR 2
.ota1
= rc)ec`
o.TC
n a
n.
w m m
F F
o
QTR 1
11 -1 -81 to 12 -31 -81
QTR 2
1 -1 -82 to 3-31 -87
QTR 3
4 -1 -82 co 6 -30 -82
QTR 4
7 -1 -82 to 9-30 -82
QTR 1
10 -1 -82 to10 -31 -82
most
By Task
1
2,001
601
_
__2, 104__
_
2
_
601
f —_
_. 601_
3 _
--
601
1
1.1
3,651
4
- - - - --
-
_-1,330_
675. _
Quarterly
Costs
2,003
f 1,803
1,865
z,526
67s
8,87
Cumulative
Quarterly
Costs
2,003
3,806
5,671
8,207
8,872
(Sev. 6773)
Cl) Population
(2) Roadway Mile^
(3) k Citations for
Moving 7iolaticns
(4) M Accidents
All HV Accidents
Motorcycle
Bicycle
JPedestrian
5) N Victims
Motor Veh. occ.
Motorcyclist /pass.
Bicycli3t /piss.
Pedestrian
Total Victims
see rnetructio,Gc cn
Reverse Side
SCHEL Ir s
0 -Year Traffic Data Summary
City of Rancho Cucamonna in /or County of San Bernardino
-- -
Last Year (1980 )
- - --
Z Yc.: r:: Ap,n (1979 )
- -- - --
3 ?ears Ago (1978 )
T
Ilse Only
54, Do
51,000
48,000
218
208
200
5,476
3,250
Data not complete
Fatal Injury
Fct«1 Injury
Fatal Injur;,,
13 327
9 328
3 153
7 59
1 50
1 47
0 It
0 13
0 0
0 12
2 16
0 6
B 361
6 381
2 220
7 60
1 67
1 0
^
0 12
0 16
0 4
0 16
2 18
0 7
15 469
9 482 —_-
3 - -486
-- -
OTLS -1' -1 (Rev. 11/73)
- wa a yr unarvaav vw�navn via GW++np�,
MEMORANDUMS 9r
DATE: August 18, 1981
isn
TO: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
FROM: Terry Nemer, Traffic Analyst -r6
SUBJECT: Pedestrian Safety Grant
Attached is an outline of the major tasks and the amount of time necessary to
complete a pedestrian safety grant. The number of hours to finish a specific
task are estimates - -sane may take more time, others less. Overall, it should
take approximately 1,000 hours to complete the study.
A pedestrian safety program is an important and integral part of traffic
engineering in a growing city. In 1980, there were fourteen pedestrian acci-
dents. Since January, 1981 six such collisions have occurred. At the begin-
ning of each year we are flooded with requests for crossing guards and safer
routes to school. A sidewalk priority program and a safe route to school
study will make the streets safer for pedestrians, will improve relations with
the public (parents in particular), and will facilitate applications for fund-
ing to build sidewalks.
TN:jaa
Attachments
3s
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WORK SCHEDULE
Safe Routes to Schools
1. Meet with 15 school administrators to explain
project.
TK/ 20
hours
2. Collect data pertaining to student residences
by
TK /TN /
120 hours
block for each school.
3. Determine locations of existing crosswalks and crossing
guards
for each school.
TK / 20
hours
4. Determine locations of existing sidewalks in school areas
and indicate on map.
TK / 40
hours
5. Draw base maps far each school.
X / 160
hours
6. Determine safest walking routes.
TK /TN /
40 hours
7. Meetings with school administrators to review
walking
routes.
TK / 40
hours
8. Prepare final maps.
X / 60
hours
Crossing Guard Study
1. Obtain input from schools. TK / 20 hours
2. Data collection and analysis TK /TN /X / 40 hours
3. Traffic Committee meeting. TN / 6 hours
4. Implement decisions. TN / 8 hours
z
Sidewalk Priorities
1. Locate pedestrian traffic generators including shopping
centers, convenience markets, parks, restaurants, trailer
parks, and bus routes.
TK /X /
80 hours
2. Identify equestrian trails.
TK /X /
10 hours
3. Prepare overlap for above locations and schools.
X / 140
hours
4. Complete manual counts at selected locations during
peak hours.
TK /X /
20 hours
5. Determine sidewalk priorities based on above pedestrian
generators, equestrian trails, and manual counts.
TK /TN /
60 hours
Modify Signal Phasing, Signing and Pavement Markings
1. Check pedestrian phases for each of 21 signals, establish
proper timing, and record information for each signal. TK /TN / 60 hours
2. Upgrade signs and pavement markings for pedestrian and
school crosswalks. TK /TN / 50 hours
TOTAL: 994 hours
�0
nrmv nc n A ATOUn OT TO A MnA1n A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Pavement Marking Demonstration Program
` i n
off; p x
of U z
a
1977
The Federal Highway Administration makes available each year a
designated amount of funds to local agencies to improve standard
on pavement markings. This work can include painting of new
striping, pavement marking as well as the placement of reflectorized
pavement markers. The traffic staff has identified several areas
where additional pavement markings are required and have made
initial contact with CALTRANS on the requirement for grants. The
availability of funding is somewhat questionable at this time but
we have been encouraged to submit our application to be ready when
and if funds become available.
Attached is an initial list of streets to be marked and estimated
costs. The total amounts to $130,000. Under this program funds
will be made available for two years of maintenance at which time
the City will assume permanent maintenance. The program will have
little impact on current maintenance cost but will provide sub-
stantial improvement in deficient pavement markings.
Nearly all surrounding cities have taken advantage of the program
and most notably the City of Upland who just recently completed
significant upgrading.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the Council authorize Staff to proceed with
the grant application. Final agreements to be completed at time of
grant offer.
J
Respectfully subryitted,
l7 I
LBH:blc
Attachments
4(
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARRING DEMONSTRATION
GRANT PROGRAM
STREET IMPROVEMENT COST (Inc. 2 yrs.
maintenance)
Archibald 4th -Lemon
Pavement Markers
49,173.88
Archibald Lemon -CL)
Edgeline 6 Centerline
800.00
(approx.)
Arrow (all)
Pavement Markers
5,631.00
Arrow
Base Line (Hermosa -CL)
Edgeline
Pavement Markers
500.00
6,818.00
( approx.)
Base Line
Carnelian (all)
Edgeline
500.00
(approx.)
Pavement Markers
5,694.00
Carnelian
Edgeline
500.00
(approx.)
Cherry (all.)
Pavement Markers
75.00
(approx.)
Cherry
Edgeline
25.00
(approx.)
East (all)
Edgeline
200.00
(approx.)
Haven (all)
Pavement Markers
36,714.16
Haven
Edgeline
2,000.00
(approx.)
Hellman (all)
Centerline
1,571.70
Hillside (Carnelian - Beryl)
Centerline
198.75
Ramona (as needed)
Edgeline
50.00
(approx.)
Sapphire (all)
Pavement Markers
1,949.50
6th (CL to Haven)
Pavement Markers
791.00
6th (CL to Haven)
Edgeline
100.00
(approx.)
Summit (all)
Pavement Markers
934.50
Summit (all)
Edgeline
150.00
( approx.)
Turner /Hermosa (5th- Banyan)Centerline S Edgeline
2,000.00
(approx.)
Vineyard (Arrow -San
Bernardino Rd)
Pavement Markers
1,757.00
Vineyard (Arrow -San
Bernardino Rd)
Edgeline
100.00
(approx.
Also included (but not listed) are transition markings on streets.
Grant will also pay for sandblasting and upgrading pavement markings
as needed.
,/o2
nTMV "D D A Airrin nl In A T AMA A
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
Ct'p C'
2 � c
a J c
a
Off:
F i
1977
SUBJECT: Authorization to Seek Bids for Miscellaneous
Drainage Improvements
It is requested that Council authorize advertisement of contract
to construct minor drainage facilities at various locations
including Sapphire at Demens Channel, Archibald south of Banyan,
Amethyst south of Highland, Beryl north of 19th Street.
These projects were budgeted for construction this year and will
shortly be ready for bidding.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve
advertisement of construction contract for Rancho Cucamonga
"Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements ".
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:blc
�2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Map, Bonds and Agreement for Tract
No. 10045 -1, Westland Venture Co.
The subject map, located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue
and Hidden Farm Road is submitted by the Westland Venture Co.;
it was tentatively approved by Planning Commission on December 10,
1980 for the division of 18.78 acres into 26 lots.
An agreement and bonds have been submitted in the following
amounts to guarantee the installation of off -site improvements:
Faithful Performance $96,800.00
Labor and Material $48,400.00
Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Union High
School and Alta Loma School Districts.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the acceptance of the bonds and agreement and the
signature of said map.
Respectfully submittteed,
LBH:BK:blc
Attachments
" q
RESOLUTION NO. CI. IU,/J
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 10045 -1
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 10045 -1, consisting of 16
lots, submitted by Westland Venture Subdivider, located on the northwest
corner of Hidden Farm Road and Haven Avenue, has been submitted to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said City as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in
compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of
said City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto;
and,
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content
thereof by the City Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to
execute the certificate thereon an behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clark
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
'1J
TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10045
IN ]N[ COY OP pANCMO OUCANONCI
- " "- "•'� ^'^ COON)Y OP 5AN OERNARWNO
\ [)AIL O /CALWO A
„
.n
I x
�urnpv.rrrxpTr i.. i I .... .. ^,.IV .` . ,�;•••'t..� _ ` � y � jy I :.
,P: "H SSE
—..� i 111 I .. ..: __ . ~' v f n \_ �1 �YL \` ti_� I w�•=.... unn. i.. =m.
i[�-TI .• I I pe•ii
CL
. ..- ...... ..,..............
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE; October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Tract 11350 Bonds and Agreements -
Lesney Development Company
The subject map, located at the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Hermosa Avenue is submitted by Lesney Development
Company; it was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission
on November 26, 1980 for the division of 10 acres into 117 lots
for 114 units of planned development.
An agreement and bonds has been submitted in the following
amounts to guarantee the installation of off -site improvements:
Faithful Performance $420,000.00
Labor and Material $210,000.00
Letters of approval have been received from Chaffey Union High
School and Alta Loma School Districts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the acceptance of bonds and agreements and the signa-
ture of said map.
Re�Pectfully submitted,
t
LBH.J :jaa
Attachments
'f7
RESOLUTION NO. -�•IG1/o
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 11350
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11350, consisting of 117
lots, submitted by Lesney Development Company Subdivider, located at the
northwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue has been submitted
to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider and approved by said
City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California,
and in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said
City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite
to approval of the Final Map of said Tract said Subdivider has offered
the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for approval and execution
by said City, together with good and sufficient improvement security,
and submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for
public use the streets delineated thereon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows:
That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of
said City, the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto;
and,
2. That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content
thereof by the City Attorney; and,
3. That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating
same be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to
execute the certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City C erk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
q1
ov
VP p
FF
HERMOSA
IOWNHOMES'
I. P '..g Curd
Gothic -�� No. 6126
h:argin = 12 - 96 6127
6128
6129
CITY of RANCHO CUCANCNGA
SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEP,ENT AGREEMENT
TRACT NO., 11350
KNOW AEI. FEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into,
in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of Californ
and of the applicable ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a
municipal corporation, by and between said City, hereinafter referred to as the
City, and � LF.SNY pEVB:AP.NF.V2 CO____R_______ _ __
. he rer natter referred to as the Subdivider.
WITNESSETH:
THAT, WHEREAS, said Subdivider desires to subdivide certain real property in said
City as shorn on the previously approved Tentative Nap of Tract Do. _11]50_; and,
WHEREAS, said City has established certain requirements to be met by said Subdivider
as prerequisite to approval of the Final Bap of said Tract by said City;
110'W, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by said City and by said Subdivider as folleas:
1. The Subdivider hereby agrees to construct at Subdivider's expense all improvement:
descri Jed on Page 5 hereof within twenty -four months from the date hereof.
2. This agreement shall on for a period of 12 conchs from the date of the
resolution of the Council of said City approving said Final Nap and this
agreement_ This agreement shall be its default on the day following the second
anniversary date of said approval unless an extension of time has been granted
by said City as hereinafter provided.
3. The Subdivider may request an extension of tine to complete the terms hereof.
Such request shall be submitted to the City in writing not less than
4 weeks before the expiration date hereof, and shall contain a statement
of %iramstances necessitating the extension of time. The City shall have the
right to review the provisions of this agreement, including the construction
standards, cost estimate, and improvement security, and to require adjustments
therein if any substantial change has occurred during the term hereof.
4. If the Subdivider fails or neglects to comply with the provisions of this
agreement, the City shall have the right at any time to cause said provisions
to be met by any lawful means, and thereupon recover from the Subdivider and /or
his surety the full cost and expense inccrred.
5. The Subdivider shall provide metered water service to each lot on said Tract in
accordance with the regulatious, schedules, and fees of the Cucamonga County
Hater District.
6. Utility- Oeposit- Statennnt. Subdivider shall file with the City Engineer, prior
to the co,,arncement of any work to be performed within the areas described by
said map, a written statement signed by Subdivider, and each public utility
corporation involved, to the effect that Subdivider has made the deposit
legally , gnirod by such public utility corporation for the connection of any
and all public utilities to tie supplied by vmh Ce,poration within such
sul.divisiun.
7. The Subdivider shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or removal of
any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with construction of
required improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the tamer of
Such water system.
{
6V
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT 40. 11350 PAGE 2
B. Improvements required to be constructed shall conform to the Standard Drawings
and Standard Specifications of the City, and to the Improvements Plan approved
by and on file in the office of the City Engineer. Said improvements are
tabulated on the Construction and Bond Estimate, hereby incorporated on page 5
hereof, as taken from the improvement plans listed thereon by number. The
Subdivider shall also be responsible for construction of any transitions or
other incidental work beyond the tract boundaries as needed for safety and
proper surface drainage.
9. Construction permits shall be obtained by the Subdivider from the office of the
City Engineer prior to start of work; all regulations listed thereon shall be
observed, with attention given to safety procedures, control of dust, noise, or
other nuisance to the area, and to proper notification of public utilities and
City Departments. Failure to comply with this section shall be subject to the
penalties provided therefor.
10. The Subdivider shall be responsible for removal of all loose rocks and other
debris from public rights -of -way within or adjoining said Tract resulting from
development work relative to said Tract.
11. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to completion.
12. Parkway trees required to be planted shall be planted by the Subdivider after
other improvement work, grading, and cleanup has been completed, Planting
shall be done as provided by ordinance in accordance with the planting diagram
approved by the City Community Development Director in all locations where the
adjoining lot has been completely developed and built upon.
tesxv oavEWPMENT c0. the Subdivider shall be re-
sponsible or ma=nta mng a trees p anc�in good health until . the end of the
guaranteed maintenance period, or for cne year after planting, whichever is
later.
13. The Subdivider is responsible for meeting all conditions established by the
City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, City ordinances, and this agreement
for the Tract, and for the maintenance of all improvements constructed there-
under until the Tract is accepted for maintenance by the City, and no im.
provement security provided herewith shall be released before such acceptance
unless otherwise provided and authorized by the City Council of the City.
14. This agreement shall not terminate until the maintenance guarantee bond here-
inafter described has been released by the City, or until a new agreement
together with the required improvement security has been submitted to the City
by a successor to the Subdivider herein named, and by resolution of the City
Council same has been accepted, and this agreement and the improvement security
therefor has been released.
15. The improvements security to be furnished by the Subdivider with this agreement
shall consist of the followinn, and shall be approved by the City Attorney;
A. A faithful performance guarantee bond assuring completion by the Sub-
divider of all conditions prerequisite to acceptance of the Tract by the
City.
B. A material and labor payment guarantee bond assuring payment in full by
the Subdivider for all materials, services, equipnent rentals, and labor
furnished to the Subdivider in the course of meeting the conditions of
this agreement.
C. A cash deposit with the City to guarantee payment by the Subdivider to the
tract engineer or surveyor whose certificate appears upon the Final Tract
h'ap for the setting of all tract boundary, lot corner, and street center-
line monuments and for furnishing centerline tie notes to the City. The
ar.�ount of the deposit may be any amount certified by the tract engineer or
surveyor as acceptable payment in full; or, if no value is submitted, the
cash bond shall be as shown on the Construction and Bond estimate contained
herein.
J
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TRACT N0. 11350 PAGE 3
Said cash deposit may be refunded as soon as procedure permits after
receipt by the City of the centerline tie notes and written assurance of
payment in full from the tract engineer Or surveyor.
0. The required bands and the principal amounts thereof are set forth on page
4 of this agreement.
16. The Subdivider warrants that the improvements described in this agreement shall
be free from defects in materials and workmanship. Any and all portions of the
improvements found to be defective within one (1) year following the date on
which the improvements are accepted by the City shall be repaired or replaced
by subdivider free of all charges to the City. The Subdivider shall furnish a
maintenance guarantee bond in a sum equal to five percent (S:) of the con-
struction estimate of S20O.00, whichever is greater, to secure the faithful
performance of Subdivider's obligations as described in this paragraph. The
maintenance guarantee bonds shall also secure the faithful performance by the
Subdivider of any obligation of the Subdivider to do specified work with
respect to any parkway maintenance assessment district. Once the improvements
have been accepted and a maintenance guarantee bond has been accepted by the
City, the other improvement security described in this agreement may be released
provided that such release is otherwise authorized by the Subdivision Map Act
and any applicable City Ordinance.
17. That the Developer shall take out and maintain, during the term of this agreement,
such public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect him and
any contractor or subcontractor performing work covered by this agreement from
claims for property damages which may arise because of the nature of the work
or from operations under this agreement, whether such operations be by himself
or by any contractor or subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed
by said persons, even though such damages be not caused by the negligence of
the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor or anyone employed by said
persons. The public liability and property damage insurance shall also
directly protect the City, its officers, agents and employees, as well as the
Developer, his contractors and his subcontractors, and all insurance policies
issued hereunder shall so state. The amounts of such insurance shall be as
follows:
A, Contractor's liability insurance providing bodily injury or death lia-
bility limits of not less than $300,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for
each accident or occurrence, and property damage liability limits of not
less than 5100,000 for each accident or occurrence with an aggregate limit
of $200,000 for claims which nay arise from the operations of the Developer
in the performance of the work herein provided.
B. Automobile liability insurance covering all vehicles used in the per-
formance of this agreement providing bodily injury liability limits of not
less than $200,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident or
occurrence, and property damage liability limits of not less than $50,000
for each accident or occurrence, with an aggregate of not less than $100,000
which may arise from the operations of the Developer or his Contractor in
performing the work provided for herein.
18. That before the execution of this agreement, the Developer shall file with the
City a certificate or certificates of insurance covering the specified insurance.
Each such certificate shall bear an endorsement precluding the cancellations,
or reduction in coverage of any policy evidences by such certificate, before
the expiration of thirty (30) days after the City shall have received notifica-
tion by registered mail from the insurance carrier.
0
IMPROL'EfEIIT AGREEMENT TRACT 10. imo PAGE S
As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to
comply with same, the Subdivider has sulvnitted the below described improvement
security, and has affixed his signature hereto:
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
Description: Principal Amount. $420,000.00
Surety:
Attorney -in -Fact:
Address:
MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT BOND
Description: Principal Amount: $210,000.00
Surety:
Attorney -in -Fact:
Address:
CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTING BOND
Amount stipulated by tract engineer or surveyor:
Mount as shown on Construction and Bond Estimate: $1.000.00
Mount deposited per Cash Receipt No. Date —____ ___
MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND
To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City.
Principal Mount: $21,000.00
as +4444 +aaaaaaaaxaaa :aaaa
IN 'a'ITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly
executed and acknowledged with all formalities required by law on the dates set
forth apposite their signs lures. lX5. DeMEWPMENT M.
Date- _-- . `.1/3h
byu� Subdivider
Rudolph J. mwy. Pr ident
Date _ SY.____._ „__ _________ —• Subdivider
...4444.aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.a +4.44444
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIMONGA, CALIFCRNIA
a municipal corporation
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date
City Attorney
63
CIIY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CONSTRUCTION AND BOND ESTIMATE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
(Attach to "Inspector's Copy ")
DATE: Au FV St 18 19B1 PERM Ii N0, COMPUTED BY: Shfntv Bnze
File Reference Tract 11350 City Drawing No, 430
NOTE: Does not include current fee for writing permit or pavement replacement deposits
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
OLAIT I TY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
$ AMOUNT
P.C.C. Curb - 12" C.F.
1206
L.F.
$7.25
$ 8.743.50
P.C.C. Curb - 8" C.F.
535
L.F.
6.00
3,210.00
A.C. Bern 0200 min)
615
L.F.
4.50
2,767.50
4" P.C.G. Sidewalk
8422
S.F.
1.75
14,738.50
6" Drive Approach
1920
S.F.
2.50
4,800.00
S" P.C.C. Cress Cutter
657
S.F.
3.40
2,233.80
Imported F.nbankeenc
17252
C.Y.
1.50
25,878.00
Preparation of Subgrade
92700
S.F.
.15
13,905.0
Chrushed AS, Base (per inch
thick) 92700
G.Y.
.12
11,124.00
A.C. (over 1300 tons)
2410
Ton
30.00
72,300.00
A.C. D/9 2"
262
S.F.
2.00
524.00
1" Thick A.C. Overlay
1528
S.F.
.35
534.80
Adjust Sewer M.B. to Grade
2
Ea.
250.00
500.00
Adjust Water Valves to Grade
4
Ea.
75.00
300.00
Streel Lights
B
Ea.
1500.00
12,000.00
Street Signs
2
Ea.
200.00
400.00
Removal of A.C. Pavement
22400
S.F.
.35
7,840.00
Removal of Rock Wall
1875
L.P.
3.00
5,625.00
Removal of P.C.C. Pavement
30300
S.F.
1.00
30,300.0
Reflectors and Posts
3
Ea.
35.00
105.00
Concrete Block Wall
50
L.P.
22.00
1,100.00
Retaining Wall - 3'
550
L.F.
16.00
9,900.00
Concrete Black Wall - Remova]
45
L.F.
5100
225.00
Retai::.ng Wall - 5'
310
L.P.
26.00
8,060.00
Retaining Wall - 4'
120
L.F.
22.00
2,640.00
Retaining Wall - 2'
S0
L.F.
15.00
750.00
18" R.C.P.
340
L.F.
30.00
10,200.00
8" ABS Pipe
140
L.F.
14.00
1,960.00
Catch Basin W -7'
4
Ea.
1500.00
6,000.00
Junction Structure
1
Ea.
1500.00
1,500.00
Local De preaaf nn 7'
1
EA.
500.00
500.00
cutlet Structure
1
Ea.
2500.00
2.M.00
Relocate Fire Hydrant
1
Ea.
500.00
500.00
Relocate e" Water Line
1420
L.F.
16.00
22,720.00
Relocate 4" Co. ilne
200
L.F.
20.00
14,220.00
Striping
3708
L.P.,,
Lump
Sum
260.00
Landscaping - Parkway
205DO
S.F.
2.75
56,375.00
CONSTRUCTION COST
$357,239.10
CONTINGENCY
COSTS
$62,760.90
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
$420,000.00
FAITHFLI PERFORMANCE.
BOND
(100X)
$420,000.00
LABOR BIND MATERIAL
BOND
(507.)
$210,000.00
ENGF %EF,RIHG INSPECTION FEE
$9,025.00
MOFLMF,NTATION
BOND
(CASH)
$7,000.00
q
BOND F0.
JREM.IL'M: $1040_00
FAITHFUL PERMRNpNCE BOND
Y,'HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and F LESYY pNetoPMENT Co. _
(hereinafter designated as princrpal") have entered into an
agreement whereby principal agrees to install and conplete cer-
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated ,N, S gtern d _ 19 ai and identified as
project t 111'0 _
fs hereby referred to and made a Fartpa hereof: —
V•VERF.AS, said oria<ipal is reyaired and ar the terms of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement.
NOW, TREd FOPX, WP the principal and )" DEVELOPERS
IYSLFANCE COMPANY r d5 eV Le Gy, is held and
Ti mly hound unto the City of Rar.chn Cucamonga thereinafter called
"City "), in the penal sum of Faur Eondred and Twenty Thousand
Dollars ( AP0,000.00 ) lawful
Honey of the united states, for the payment of Which swn well and
truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successoxsr execu-
tors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these
presents.
The condition of this oblication is such that if the above
bounded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, shall in all thincs stand to and abide
by, and well and truly gee, and perform the covenants, condi-
tions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration
thereof made as therein provided, an his or their part, to be
kept and performed at the tine and in the manner therein spec-
ified, and in all respects according to their true intent and
meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers,
agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this oblication
shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall he and remain in
full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition
to the face amount specifiod therefor, there shall be included
costs and reasonable oxpenses and fees, including reasonahle at-
torney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, all to be taxed as, costs and included in any judgment
rendured.
The surety hereby stipulates and agnoes that no chance, ex-
tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of tare
agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the epoc-
ifications accompanying the satae sha LJ in anywine affect its
obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any
sue*. rlw ngc, extension of time, alteration or addition to tho
Lures of the agreement or to the wort, or to tho a,r:cifications.
FN WI'i NI:ES M91F.RFAF, this inpt rime nt Fos boon duly uxn cu;:ed
by the principal, and surety' above named, on f�� ,et -a_ utad
19 B },,
DEVELOPERS INSURANCE COMPANY
_
4
//f,' /' 1 l 1, "
J/-
Steph•,n A, R,.,,Ae /
Attorney -in -fact
NCEt1 �5
LESNY DEVELOPMENT CO., A Califorala conoratlon
Rudolph J'-L,sy, P idem
Arlene Stova<k, Asst. S ... ata.y
BOND NO. IollBl - A
PREMIUM, INCLUDED
L: BOR AND )ViTERIALNEN OO:iD
WHEREAS, the City CoVncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, and _ .�RJY DLI,b ?KENT
(herei -after dosigne ted as •'principal'•) have entered into an
agreement whereby principal acrees to install and complete on,
tain designated public improvements, which said agreement,
dated ) _sea�ez Y 19e1 _, and identified as pro-
ject -
4s horeby deferred to inrl maee a Dart h ^_reof; and,
WHEREAS, under the terms of said acreem..t, principal is re-
ufired before entering upon the performance of the work, to file
accod and sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15
Ic.m,ncing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
Civil Code of the State of California.
NOW, THEREFORE, said principal and the undersigned as a
corporate surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material -
ran and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
acr3mment and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure
in the sum of Tvg Peedred and Ten 'Thousand
_ _ Dollars ( 210,000.00 i, for m erials
^.r sited o labor thereon of any kindr o for amount. due under
the Unemployment Insurance Act with resrect to such work. or labor,
that said surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the
amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought
upon this bond will pay in addition to the face amount thereof,
costs and reasonable ex_oenses and fees, including reasonable at-
horney's fees, c c n
urred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, to bea rded and filed by the court, and to be taxed
as costs and to be included in the judgment therein ra..dae d.
J•
RCE24 5�
It is hereby o- pressly stipulated and agreed that this brad
Shall inure to the benefit of any -,Ni all persons, ccc -ponies, and
cor-oratLons entitled to file claims under Title 15 (ca-anxncing
with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, se
as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit
brought coca this bond.
Should the condition of this bond be folly ned, then
:,
ser
this obligation shall begone null and void, otherwise shall be
\
and remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and ag Cges that n change, ex-
tension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of said
ogrecment or the spocificalious accompanying the same shall in
any moaner affect its obligations on this bond, and it dogs Fern -
by waive notice of any such change, extonsi,)n, alturation or ad-
,itle..
I1; WITNESS WNP.PP.OF, this instrument has been duly e::cc.:'.ed
by the pti ncipal and snrety above named, on `sryq err
19_
LESNY DEV PMENP CO., a California r'crroration
r�
DEVELOPERS INSURANCE OMPANY E
/ANCE
' � - - -- —
" ' udc J. Lo%, Presid
de
ent
�
eie e noln
At tnrnr Y'in -(act �3(drrl C•r_:
Asst.
Arlene Stuv ack, Ass 1. Secrets rye
ry
J•
RCE24 5�
SUBDIVISION
OUAR.15TEE NO PFMPORN.INCE
(SETTING OF F3YAL P.OYLXEYTS)
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. o. Box 791
Rancho Lmamonga, California
Gentlemen
Pursuant to Article 8 of City Ordinance No. 28, the underslgnad hereby agrees that
all mounments shown on the final map of Tract 11350 a to be set and
furnished by the subdfvider's engineer a u av on r before March I1i983
as specified in the certificate oftM1e Engineer
and agrecs cc furnish the notes thereon as required by Chapter 4 Article 9, and to
complete all engineering requirements specified in Section 6649Itof the Subdivision
Yap Act.
The undersigned hands you fierewf th the s of $ 7,000.00 as a ash deposit,
said deposit to doarm.rcc than the mgnumesnts will be set and the notes furnished
am above provided o r before the date specified and that the engineer or surveyor
will be paid by the undersigned.
It is Bother understood and agreed that In the event the undersigned fails to c
,lets the above rcqulrcMacs within the time specified, the City of Rancho Cucamonga
I, authorized to complete said requ tremonts or cause them to be completed, and the
cost thereof is to be a charge against said cash deposit, and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is authorized to make the necessary transfer from said cash deposit to the
credit of the proper city fund.
It is further agreed that if the undersigned does not present evidence to she City
Council than he has paid the engineer or s u rveyor far the setting of the final
monuments, and If the engineer o reeyorgives the notices prescribed in Section
66497 of the subdivision Map Act, the city shall pay to said engineer or surveyor,
the cash depnsit herein me de.
If the cost of completing said requirements exceeds the amount
— of the cash deposit,
the undersigned agrees no pay the difference within thirty f3O) days after r e tailing
written statement from the City of Rancho Cucamonga specifying the amount of the
difference between the cash depnsit and the actual cost of said requirement.
Very truly yours,
LINNY DEYE PMENT CO. Subdivider
HY / __•
e- 1CUda1 d, Lowy, res dent
Date 9 /.f /i•/ P.O, Dnx 5526, B _ ¢A 90230 , Address
The depositor of record (far return of any portion of the cash deposit) shall be
1 , t_ES`i! DEVE:q {_M£M CO. P.O. Dox 5526neverly H1 }5, GA yyjjp__�
(Addre s)
To be signed by part releasing his rights to the rash du,ait
of $______is hereby ackmw l edged
Deposit Permit No. from
City of Rlelho Cucamonga
NOTE: To be submitted fully
filled nut and si,ead.
BY:
Original City Council Ci[yf:ug:n err
Signed Copy: To Subdivider
S7
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
VICTOR A. CHERBAK. JR.. P -id-t
September 24, 1981
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Engineering Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mrs. Barbara Krall
Gentlemen:
VZP", '
FRANK LESINSKY
5111M1v. 0-e ' M¢.¢n�
LLOYD W. MICHAEL
Dirt 1
CHARLES T. VATH
EARLE R. ANDERSON
ROBERT NESBIT
Lesny Development Company, Developer of Tract No. 11350,
situated in Rancho Cucamonga, have deposited with this
District a Material and Labor Bond, a Faithful performance
Bond, and a Utilities Improvement Agreement.
These bonds and agreements, previously filed with the County,
are now being accepted by this District as an assurance that
said improvements will be provided, as stated, within the
boundaries of the Cucamonga County Water District.
In addition, this letter is to verify that the above refer-
enced Developer has complied with all requirements for de-
velopment that are mandated by District policy.
Yours truly,
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ames Hl.� ir,e j
Assistant Civil Engineer
JIIC:bf
5"K
„lta
Loma School District
MO 1 R.mrlinr Nned
if
Ihrut Will RnN 170 Ilan( hu t'ur.mrnnya. t .Jilnrnia 41701 714/011 0766
11 1
Ir r11A L. .'dr \II; NI MY
PLVY'❑ N. STORK
July 1.3, 981
1 - =° i e:T.af
._._— _Prnunnrb.l'ufgrvn tmrras
U:1CC
SIACY NlLSON
lI]hh$hl•11 IBBS
R,n,n Tl ifn'r[..
.ARO OF TRUSTEES
AM LY SfNAIN
4011ERTS FNWI
t.on. ulunu U7.rru1l•ugrns
IAT w. TANt;t MAN LP.T•rER OF CERTIFICATION
FOR SCHOOL DTSTRIC'1' CAPACITY
i NANCY I, RI IIL!
i. SANDRA A OLRLY
- JORN C. Ii
Within Alta Loma
School District and Alta Loma School
District attendance
boundaries for the following
described project:
Location /Description _ N/H Corner Baseline s Hermosa_
Tract No, 11350
Number of Dwelling Units __ .1-1-4 - _ _ ___,_
Anticipated Completion I'i,Y tc August..1982._. .
Gentlemen
The Alta Lnn:,1 Sc11,101 Ilir.l riot h.:r. by r(•rl.ifics Chat. the
Capacity for 35 studr•ht5 will be provided
within 2.1 months -uf ihr ct irm „f Ole above project.
This certificotion is (liven on th,- condition that the
State of California continues to (noel the provisions of
the Leroy P. Greono LC:ISp /1'urch,1 sv Act of 1976, or any
successor Act, in such mnnnor that JAI,, Stntu Allocations
Board may Cued all schcul buil.lin(I projects under its
current rules and ro•lulations wi l.huut priority points.
The commitment of this capacity 511,111 r.:•:pire"60 days
from the date of this letter. Approv.[1. of the final
map or the issuance of bui)dinq permi is by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga within that 50 play period shill validate
such commitment.
Sincerely,
Floyd M. Stork ..
Administrator
Personnel and Support Services
cc: Planning Division, City of Rancho Cue ;,monga
jh
'ti
JOINT
UN_ ION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICTEP,,
CHAFFEY
&zL'�o;':.—
O21,
WEST FIFTH STREET, ONTARIO. CALIFORNIA 11712
I uux C. avnx muemouu unv¢u nxnnI
j[DI I
axone: In I.......
n no or nus.an .. rno. v..c.<.. w,x...,c,..n�om.c.....a.,,.au.. a<n.....w,xo. ,,...o •.m..<s.cw ...,pro + +<v�ccc.A.......cx.• +..
en tter of Certitication
of Schocl District Capacity
Ti,' thin thr< Ccaf fev ,jei..n.t 11i,inL) 111 ;1h S istrict and the
Alta Lana H. � � attendance for c..^
fol ics:in =1 aescri L::d n�]CCt:�
T,or. t"on /Des %:ription: Tract 11350
Baseline 8 Hermosa Ave.
NIur fih ^- of IIWei 7,i uas: 114 (Townhouses)
Anticipated Completion Date _ September 1, 1982
The s =Loo' district hereby certifies that the capacity for
17 stt;cInnts ::ill be provided ithin 24 months of the
of the above proiect. This ccrtificaticn is gi von
u: the c.>vditior that the Statc of California continues to
fund Us provisions cf the Leroy G. Greene Lease/Purchase Act
of 1976, or any successor Act, in such manner that thL State
Allocation Board may fund all school building projects under
its current rules and regulations without priority points.
The commitment of thi-I capacity shall expire GC days from the
date of this letter. Approval of the final map or the issuance
of buildinq permits by the City of Rancho Cucamonga within.that
GO -day period shal). valide.te such commitment.
;:uprr i ii i.rirdcr t, it/.("�S(up�erin Londe^ t.
cc: Manning Di.vi;.ion September 11, 1981
City of Ranchn Cucamonga
OTm. nsnAW011nrrrreMnnrr_e
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
By: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Real Property Improvement
O
>I Q z
Fj, U Z
PSI
Lesney Development Co. has applied for a building permit for the
construction of townhouses on the northwest corner of Base Line
Road and Hermosa Avenue.
The conditions of approval for the construction of the townhouses
include entering into a Real Property Improvement Contract and
Lien Agreement for the future installation of one -half landscaped
median island on Base Line Road.
To guarantee the installation, Lesney Development Co. has entered
into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for
the future installation of one -half of the median island, includ-
ing landscaping and irrigation on meter, adjacent to their pro-
perty along Base Line Road.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolu-
tion and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign and accept the
Lien Agreement on behalf of the City.
Res ectfully submitted,
Attachments
0
za
...... ....
to
z 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I IERMOSA
I OkVNi K)mi S
RESOLUTION NO. � / — ) !i %
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM
LESNEY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME.
WHEREAS, Tract No. 11350, located on the northwest corner of
Base Line and Hermosa, submitted by Lesney Development Company was
approved on November 26, 1980; and
WHEREAS, Installation of landscaped median island on Base Line
Road established as prerequisite to issuance of Building Permit has been
met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement
by Lesney Development Company;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California does accept said Real Property
Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the
City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
WOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
612
1'J p;cen Me, Garr.
Courier No. 6173
argrn = 12 - 96 6177
Singular . 6176
6173
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
and
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9320 -C Base line Road
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT
THIS AG3EEMEST, made and entered into this day of
1981, by and between LES =Y DEVELOPMENT co.__
(hereinafter referred to as "Developer "),
and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "City'), provides as follows:
WHEREAS, as a general condition precedent to the issuance of
a building permit for residential developments the City requires the
construction of a Landscaped aedian Isleod with Irrigation on meter
adjacent to the
prcperty to be developed; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to postpone construction of
such improvements until a later date, as determined by the City: and,
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to such postponement provided
that the Developer enters into this Agreement requiring the Developer
to construct said improvements, at no expense to the City, after
demand to do so by the City, which said Agreement shall also provide
that the City may construct said improvements if the Developer fails
or neglects to do so and that the City shall have a lien upon the real
property hereinafter described as security for the Developer's performance,
and any repayment due City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE:
1. The Developer hereby agrees that they will install
one -half of the landscaped media,: isl+nd with ir[ination on meter
in accordance and compliance
with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of
the City in effect it the time of the installation. Said improvoments
shall be installed upon and a1an9 _Rasnl Age w,..n aN amend to Da +ri o�
Rrnrerty M1rrr tnaf ror dascrib aA.
lF' /
2. The installation of said improvements shall be co-oleted
not later than one (1) year following written notice to the Developer
from the City to commence installation of the same. Installation Of
said improvements shall be at not expense to the City.
3. In the event the Developer fails or refuses to complete
the installation of said improvements in a timely manner, City may at
any time thereafter, upon giving the Developer written notice of its
intention to do so, enter upon the property hereinafter described and
complete said improvements and recover all costs of completion incurred
by tha City from the Developer.
4. To secure the performance by the Developer of the
terms and conditions of this Agreement and to secure the repayment to
City of any funds which may he expended by City in completing said
provements upon default by the Developer hereunder, the Developer does
in trust
by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey /to the City the
following described real property situated in the City of Rancho
Cacamonna, County of San Bernardino, State of California, to -wit:
1Tat Portion of t,at 6. Block 4, Cucamonga Homestead Association
Land, as per plat [etc,d.6 in nook 6 of Mal, Page 46 Records of
said County, (Also KneWr as Tract 11150), (AW. 203- 1B2 -13)
5. This conveyance is in trust, however, for the purpascs
desc ribeL above.
6. Now, therefore, if the Developer shall faithfully
perform all of the acts and things by them to be done under this
Agreement, then this conveyance shall be void; otherwise, it shall
remain in full force and effect and in all respects shall be considered
and treated as a mortgage on the real property and the rights and
obligations of the parties with respect thereto shall be governed by
the piovinions of the Civil Code of the State of California, and any
other apnlicrbla statuto, pertaining to mortgages on real property.
7. This dlreetiont shall be binding upon and shall insure
to tho b•nofit of the hairs, executors, administrator's, successors and
assigns of each of the parties hereto.
W
To the extent recuired to give effect of this Agreo -ent
as a mortgage, the term "Developer" shall mean "mortgagor" and the
City shall be the "mortgagee" as those terms are used in the Civil
Cede of the State of California and any other statute pertaining to
mortgages on real property.
9. If legal action is commenced to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, to recover any sum which the City is
entitled to recover from the Developer hereunder or to foreclose the
right of the Developer to redeem the above-described property fron the
mcrtca^ -coated herehy, than the prevailing party shall be entitled
to recover its costs and such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be
awarded by the Court.
IS WT-;NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above written
CITY: DEVELOPER:
CITY OF RANCHO COCRIOSGA,
CALIi0118Ii., a municipal
Cor o.ation Le NY DiVELOPMZNT CO.
LY:
.4i L1.IP D. SCHCO sER Allan N. La)
Mayor Senior Vice Pecs i2Cnt
ATT=S':
LAu Ra❑ b1. WASSEILMAM
City Clerk
�6
STATEOF CALIFORNIA }SS
COOMTY .. Coa Angela.l
ql r" 21st J.Y J! —_ e�tembe[
1981 -_, III— r,meunJr rap n[J.
N"r,n IN.—`w III ud C_ e , 'u" per•pn.IlY... .... .-
I(1
Ali , Fl_, 1?w,
{I
—_
FCn [Vic r, ..
_PrzN mn
a'�
`,w
n
rw n••,n . ,.
,"e kv.n M m, ,Illd 11, -11%11
j
. m•r ....... l
u. ni
..M .[I4 n n v knJtR� lE rn m( rn.l w[n , n u rM
lmne me'run I ••lul ,n
I.meJ
n pnnJ of Pre [M
wItalu, m[ Ind wJ ofM., wJ,
�
OFPrraAL S6pL
a MII IfR
/
• am
NAMIR
eowrt
—�i
(loin le tllk'W UiI
X.Illrrt,I 1YR<�rinreal___._
en
�6
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
1977
TO: City council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Intent to Order Annexation No. 6 to Lanscape Maintenance
District No. 1 for Tracts 11350 and 110d45 -1
Attached is a resolution declaring the City Council's intention
to annex Tracts 10045 -1 and 11350 to the Landscape Maintenance
District and setting the date for public hearing on November 4,
1981.
Tract 10045 -1 consisting of 16 lots located at the northwest
corner of Hidden Farm Road and Haven Avenue is being developed
by Westland Venture. Tract 11350 consisting of 114 lots for
townhouse purposes, located at the northwest corner of Base Line
and Hermosa is being developed by Lesney Development Co. Both
tracts are submitted for final approval on tonight's agenda.
Requests for annexation into the Landscape Maintenance District
have been received from the developers.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that council approve the attached resolutions
declaring the City's intent to annex Tracts 10045 -1 and 11350 to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and setting a date for public
hearing for November 4, 1981.
Respectfully sybm/it`t /^ed,
"LBI"H:BIC:jaa
Attachments
67
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 6 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (TRACT NO.
10045 -1 AND TRACT 11350)
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1981, the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga directed the City Engineer to make and file with the
City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City
Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for pursuant to said
Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration;
and
WHEREAS, said City Council has duly considered said report and
each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said
report is sufficient, and that said report, nor any part thereof, requires
or should be modified in any respect.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs
and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection
therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby,
preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 2. That the diagram showing the Assessment District
referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions
of land within said Assessment District are hereby preliminarily approved
and confirmed.
SECTION 3. That the proposed assessment upon the subdivisions
of land in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated
benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work
and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is
hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed.
SECTION 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's
Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to
the proposed district.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
6 �,,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
ANNEXATION NO. 6
to the
Landscape Maintenance District Number 1
Tract 11350 and Tract 10045 -1
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2, General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the
areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tract No.
10045 -1 and Tract 11350 as well as on the lots directly abutting the
landscaped areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed
tracts are shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements
to be granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared
by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans
for Tract No. 10045 -1 and Tract 11350. The plans and specifications for
the landscaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission.
Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment
diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and
specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the
same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on historical
data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated
that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty ($.30)
per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment
will be based on actual cost data,
Engineer's Report
Page 2
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation No. 5 comprised of 15,011 square feet of landscaped
area) is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.30 X 236,688 square feet = 71,006.40
Per Lot Annual Assessment
71,006.40 : 1030 = 68.93
Per Lot Monthly Assessment = 5.75
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and
the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this
annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which
are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be
maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall
be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner
maintenance.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby
incorporated within the test of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement for Annexation No. 5 is found to be of general benefit
to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for
each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1982, to
determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by
the City during the 1981/82 fiscal year which are to be recovered through
assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District
and sets a public hearing date,
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony
and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the
City Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing
and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
7d
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.I
ANNEXATION NO. 6
1E)
43 .,
FT
:.1 �91 19293194195 X196( 66
'•i 65 1 116 w I9 I6 1] IB I!
56 3
64
102 101 00 99 96 97 '' 6] 56 •i �• ....
CV •V �i' !ij' � 1�
(�IIS 9 5 131
— - 101 10<'105I!O610T 106 bT .N }Y � �o�
.`I oTJ yip sl
``IJJ114 IIl II211 lu 109 11/ ]9 �nhn 5•-U4� r,
a
BnSE Ir - - -�
� •J ..�:.,. omn o LINE
�� L? �. I we . a•• —
s
CITV or aANCFIO CUCANlo�cn w
TRACT 11350
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY NIAP
43
34
e�
]9
'P0 19
169'�( 1
a 2
46 �'
21 4?
38
�"
4
�I 29
I I
r L!� I
ij pl-1
„�
19 P
30 �•
P� 4 0 !]
I ]9 3B
20
9C
LEI
•
90
iB9eB
6] B6
BS
�52 53 59�ia 21 22 123
L4 25�'
FT
:.1 �91 19293194195 X196( 66
'•i 65 1 116 w I9 I6 1] IB I!
56 3
64
102 101 00 99 96 97 '' 6] 56 •i �• ....
CV •V �i' !ij' � 1�
(�IIS 9 5 131
— - 101 10<'105I!O610T 106 bT .N }Y � �o�
.`I oTJ yip sl
``IJJ114 IIl II211 lu 109 11/ ]9 �nhn 5•-U4� r,
a
BnSE Ir - - -�
� •J ..�:.,. omn o LINE
�� L? �. I we . a•• —
s
CITV or aANCFIO CUCANlo�cn w
TRACT 11350
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY NIAP
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
ANNEXATION NO. 6
I it
FAn
� .. ........
or RANCHO CUCAN lo,\G,-\
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY NlAV -
A
N
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING ITS IN-
TENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT:
DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 6
TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND
OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
THERETO. (Tract 10045 -1 and Tract 11350)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code
of the State of California, as follows:
SECTION 1. Descri tion of Work That the public interest and
convenience require an it is the in Of this City Council to form
a maintenance district in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the maintenance
and operation of those parkways and facilities thereon dedicated for
common greenbelt purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map
within the boundaries of the proposed maintenance district described in
Section 2 hereof. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and
supervision of any sprinkler system, trees, grass, plantings, landscaping,
ornamental lighting, structures, and walls in connection with said
parkways.
SECTION 2. Location of Work The foregoing described work is
to be located within roa way right -of -way and landscaping easements of
Landscape Maintenance District No. I enumerated in the report of the
City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file
in the office of the City Clerk, entitled "Annexation No. 6 to landscape
Maintenance District No. 1 ".
SECTION 3. Descri tion of Assessment District That the
contemplated work, in the opinion of said ity Counci is of more than
local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes
the expense of the said work chargeable upon a district, which said
district is assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which
district is described as follows:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon
that certain "Map of Annexation No. 6 to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1" heretofore approved by the
City Council of said City by Resolution No. �; - :+r,,
indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the
territory included within the proposed assessment district
and which map is on file in the office of the City Clerk
of said City.
73
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4. Report of Engineer The City Council of said City
by Resolution No. has approved the report of the engineer of work
which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessment, the district
boundary, assessment zones, titled "Engineer's Report, Annexation No. 6,
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1" is on file in the office of the
City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for
all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the
extent of the work.
SECTION 5. Collection of Assessments The assessment shall be
collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are
collected. The City Engineer shall file a report annually with the City
Council of said City and said Council will annually conduct a hearing
upon said report at their first regular meeting in June, at which time
assessments for the next fiscal year will be determined.
SECTION 6. Time and Place of Hearing Notice is hereby given
that on the 4th day of November, 1981, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers at 9161 Base Line, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, any
and all persons having any objections to the work or extent of the
assessment district, may appear and show cause why said work should not
be done or carried out or why said district should not be formed in
accordance with this Resolution of Intention. Protests must be in
writing and must contain a oescription of the property in which each
signer thereof is interested, sufficient to identify the same, and must
be delivered to the City Clerk of said City prior to the time set for
the hearing, and no other protests or objections will be considered. If
the signer of any protest is not shown upon the last equalized assessment
roll of San Bernardino County as the owner of the property described in
the protests, then such protest must contain or be accompanied by written
evidence that such signer is the owner of the property so described.
SECTION 7. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 All the work
herein proposed shall bedone and carried through in pursuance of an act
of the legislature of the State of California designated the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California.
SECTION B. Publication of Resolution of Intention Published
notice shall be made pursuant to Section 61961 of the Government Code.
The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to
the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10
days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in The Daily Report,
a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario,
California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
iy
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Citywide Emergency Street Repair, Clean -up
and Supplementary Maintenance Annual Contract
City Council at the regular meeting of May 20, 1981, authorized
the City Engineer to seek bids for said contract (see attached
Staff Report). Contract was advertised and bids were received
up to September 29, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. at which time they were
publicly opened.
Bids have been reviewed and were found to be complete and sub-
mitted by responsible contractors. The apparent low bid of
$39,319.73was submitted by Laird Construction Co. The Engineers
Estimate was $49,627.50.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept all bids submitted
and award the contract to the low bidder, Laird Construction Co.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:blc
Attachments
25
V
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SUR44RY OF PROPOSALS OPENED
PROJECT IIT1 -YIOF. EMERGENCY STREET REPAIR, CLEAN -UP AND SUPPLEMENTARY MAINTENANCE
ANNEAL CONTRACT
LOCATION CITY -WIDE
DATE 5F.PTEY8ER, 29. 1981
CONTRACT NO.
ITEP'S
QUANTITIES
SuLl - Miller
_ _ __
Blp NA011 "IT
_. Laid Can,,
BID ;.'OONi
tarmac cons[.
...
110 AMW(IT
_ __
piD MOUNT
_— __. _ -_ _
810 AIMtUNi
_ D _... .
BID AaUU'll
Iliddc,'z Bond
J2 4-00.- 50
--
_ ]`�. .3]19_ .J- J
_7_3
CNGIMF
a5 EST. _
10,410.00
L5
7,490.00
Us
4,908.00
$49.627.50
II
A. L. Replace
IS
I.5
Y. C. Place
LS
IS
10,410.00
LS
7,490.00
IS
4.908.00
i
3�
X. C. Remove
LS
1.5
8.140.00
I.5
11.958.00
LS
5,980.00
6
A.('. SLtn 111.11
LS
IS
9.400.00
is
1,364.00
1.5
3.500.00
5
A. c. Hand Overlay
Ls
LS
7.627.50
1.5
2.etl 1.50
1.5
4,815.00
6
A. C. Boa Overlay
IS
IS
2,542.50
IS
L,252.50
LS
2,375.00
J
A. C. machine Overlay
LS
LS
6,225.00
LS
6,365.00
LS
2.625.00
8
F.acava Lion
IS
IS
2,084.70
LS
1,629.20
LS
5.662.00
Y
A. C. 0eom Piace
LS
LS
], 12Y.00
1.5
31030.00
Ls
3.750.00
10
seal Cant
LS
LS
912.SD
1.5
397.50
LB
4.462.50
11
C.A.B. Place
L5
LS
2,092.7D
LS
!,2D3.30
LS
3,219.50
12
Labor Biff.
LS
is
1.450.40
LS
673.53
848.81
13
Equipment Rental
LS
LS
3.376.20
IS
1.585.20
2,593.92
"IT, 11 OT11111 IT IT I". -.,rA u.
STAFF REPORT
C
O
F
DATE: May 20, 1961
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorization to Seek Bids for City -Wide Emergency
and Normal Equipment Pavement Repair
1977
During the past year since the City has been performing its own
street maintenance, it has been necessary to use heavy equipment
rental and contractor services as was intended in the Maintenance
Program. However, it has been a cumbersome process.
Efficiency of the process of supplementing City forces with con-
tractual services, dependability of services available, response
time and unit cost would be greatly improved by an annual agree-
ment between the City and a contractor.
The contract basically covers six services:
1. Emergency Pavement Repair
2. Emergency Equipment Rental
3. Urgent Pavement Repair
9. Urgent Equipment Rental
5. Normal Pavement Repair
6. Normal Equipment Rental
Where emergency is defined as: a condition where an imminent hazard
exists, which may cause injury to public person or property, need-
ing immediate attention as determined by the City Engineer.
Where urgent is defined as: a condition that may become an emergency
if not corrected in a reasonable time as determined by the City
Engineer.
Where normal is defined as: routine maintenance.
-;;'%
STAFF REPORT
Authorization to Seek Bids for City -Wide
Emergency and Normal Equipment Pavement Repair
May 20, 1981
Page 2
Pavement repair is defined as:skin patching of depressions, over-
laying of high use areas, replacement of deteriorated areas, minor
shoulder and widening, minor berm placement, and repairs as a result
of a storm or other causes.
Where equipment rental is defined as:shoulder grading (minor mainte-
nance item), debris removal and other minor earth work.
Proso_ective bidders are made aware that the City has patching equip-
ment and grading and debris removal equipment (tractor and trucks)
and the intent of the contract is to supplement the City in an
emergency, when the work load at any given time is too great, or
the nature of the project is such that it is more efficient to use
contract services. Also, that the contract is not intended for
capital improvements and the City may enter into other contracts as
needed. The dollar amount of any single project will not exceed
$5,000 unless unusual circumstances exist and the annual amount is
estimated to be less than $50,000 unless unusual circumstances such
as a storm disaster exists.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that Council authorize the seeking of bids for emergency
and normal equipment pavement repair, shoulder grading and debris
removal maintenance intended to supplement City forces in time of
need.
�Respectfully ?submitted,
(WYw J
J
LBH:MP:jaa
W%
'.T" n
STAFF REPORT'
x
oil n
DATE: October 7, 1981 �,i V
TO: City Council and City Manager 1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement
Security for Director Review 81 -05 - Ameron
The subject director review received approval from the Planning
Commission on March 11, 1981 for the addition of a plate- fitting
and employee service building located on the southwest corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Route.
To guarantee the installation of off -site improvements for Etiwanda
Avenue, Ameron has submitted an improvement agreement and security
in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance $54,000
Labor and Material $27,000
Ameron has requsted an additional 12 -month period for installation
of said improvements along Etiwanda Avenue for the purpose of coor-
dinating installation with other proposed projects in the area.
The above security amounts include the additional 12- months of
inflation that might be anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION
It is reommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving improvement agreement and improvement security for Direc-
tor Review 81 -05.
Respectfully Submitted,
/tom
LBtt: S:ja
Attachments
Iq
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR
REVIEW NO. 81 -05
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, has for its consideration and Improvement Aqreement executed
on September 1, 1981 by Ameron as developer, for the improvement of
public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described
therein, and generally located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda
Avenue and Arrow Route; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in
said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be
done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred
to Planning Commission, Director Review No. 81 -05; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied
by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said
Improvement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and
said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved and the
Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip e. Schlosser, Mayor
b U
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
DIRECTOR REVIEW E1 -05
xnoW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and
entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code
and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California,
a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred t s the City, by and
between said City and AMERON hereinafter referred to as the Developer.
WITNESSETH:
RAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested oporcval
by the City of Director Review R1. -05 in accordance with the provisions
of the report of the City Engineer thereon., and any amendments thereto;
located or, the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Etiwanda Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be met by
said Developer prior to granting the final approval; and,
WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement
security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorney, are
deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for
the purpose of securing said approval;
DOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City and the
Developer ds fallow.:
1. The Develooer hereby agrees to construct at Developer's expense
ail improvements described on Page I hereof within twenty -four
`.months from t.ie date hereof, as per Section 2.12 of Ordinance
?R.
2. The term of this agreement shall be twenty -four months commencing
on the date of execution hereof by the City. This acreement
shall be in default on the day following the last day of the term
stipvlatec, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter
proVrded.
L The Developer may request additional time in which to complete
the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than four
weeks prior to the default date, and including a statement of
circumstances of necessity for additional time. In consideration
of such request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions
hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and
sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments
thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein.
4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provisions
of this acreement, the City shall have the right at any time to
cause said provisions to be completed by any lawful means, and
th^roupon to recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the
full cost and expense incurred in so doing,
a. l,nricichment permits shall be outlined by the Developer from the
ef`,ice of the City Engireer prior to start of any work within the
Public richt-of,ay, and the Developer shall conduct such work in
full compliance with the requlations contained therein. Non-
compliance may result in stooping of the work by the City, and
assessment of the penalties provided.
o!
Public right -of -way improvement work required shall be constructed
in conformance with apProvud improvement plans, Standard Specifica-
tions, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments thereto.
Construction shall include any transitions and /or other incidental
work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety.
7. work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to
completion: the City shall have the right to complete any and all
work in the event of unjustified delay in completion, and to
recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or
his contractor by any lawful means.
0. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation,
or removal of any component of any irrigation water system in
conflict with the required nor% to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the owner of the water system.
9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all lcese rock
and other debris from the public right -of -way resaltino from work
done on the adjacent property or within said right -of -way.
10. The Developer shall plant and rtaintain parkway trees as directed
by the Community Development Director.
11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to
guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be
subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The principal
amount of said improvement security shall be not less the amount
shown bclow�
IMPR0VEMENT SECURITY SUBMITTED:
Faithful Performance Bond 54,000
Material and Labor Bond 27,000
Ill WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have eaused these presents to be
duly executed and ackuowl.1gOd with all formalities regained by law on
the dates set forth opposite their signatures:
DEVELOPER
By n.Y DATE: By: DATE: �LWl T '� // DATE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORN SA
a municipal corporation
BY: _i , MAYOR
HATE;
�a
CITY CLErx
EZ 3CjiM
D,iTr; — 8124/81 PERMIT NO. CO.:IPCTED BY Joe Stofa, Jr.
Fi1c, Referent, DR 81•G5 Gi, Eti.anda kewe Only
CONSM.'CTION COST FSTIMTE
MI
lfnjf�jl�lj,11'j�SO'T
year-----T,7g-
T —'
[;N'TT-
T31:j- C,) ST
1 :
10TAL
.1111ANT
R4 Ann
FU 74 %.',.1. PiRr"R!
i?,U. ?I'!;' G01)
._
r, C. r,,Ib g" r-i.
!'-%1C7ZIA1, FV,11
77
6 xg
=4
II.C. 1'u lb I I �"
(FEE ICTIEM 1.0
x04tl1E:;-..-1T10;
BOND MUNI)
N.". H.Irl (Ili r -i,10
4.50
405 1
4 P. 17,1 .
S.F.
':-41, Alllr
S. P.
1
--T
loo
A.f. 1300 t ... I
I
TON
E��
A. G. 19011 1. lino ZIn,
—F
—
sin
TON
4LOO
i'0::
.F.
—
----------
I A. 17.
1
1 1.4.11
2
25ft nn
Soo— A
5— r C.O. 1, Gl,,,,
A.
3
E. \.
PofT—tnr,, id PpItI
I
FA
1; nn
lfnjf�jl�lj,11'j�SO'T
year-----T,7g-
42,992
MirrNrIMIXY COSTS
6 709
10TAL
("'If :'( iW( COSTS
R4 Ann
FU 74 %.',.1. PiRr"R!
i?,U. ?I'!;' G01)
54,000
7 AY,
!'-%1C7ZIA1, FV,11
27,000
INS111;rTON FEE
2 qqq
(FEE ICTIEM 1.0
x04tl1E:;-..-1T10;
BOND MUNI)
Exatoted in itiplirat¢
Bond Yo. 80 82 95 92
Premium $540.00
FAITHFUL PERFOMNNCG KIND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State
of California, and AMEHON (hereinafter designated
as "principal ") have entered Into an agreement whereby principal
agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements,
which said agreement, dated _,—u -1 24 , 194L, and identified as
project M Al _ __ _ __ Y
is hereby referred to an mace a part hereof: and,
WHEREAS, said prinicpal is required under the terms of said
agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said
agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and F =, 11 r•' v rnMPaIN
as surety, are held and firmly bound
onto the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter called "City ") , in the
penal sue. of Fifty-four Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($ 54,000 )
law`. ul money orte United .,..as, Ear the pays nt of which sum well
and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors
and adninis tra <o rs, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounded
principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or
assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly
keep and perform the covenants, conditions end provisions in the said
agreement and anv alteration thereof made a., therein provided, on his
or t`:oi pat•, :9 'r.• F: ,o, u'' F. :. `or -- at I t -' '" *av mar
therein specified, and in all respects, according • to their true intent
and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless city, its officers,
.cents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation
^,hall become null and void: otherwise, it sha11 be and remain in full
force and effect. '
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the
face .mount specified therefor, there shall be incladod costs and
reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees,
incurred by City in successfully en£orcinc such obligation, all to be
mxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
The earety hereby stipulates and agrees that. no charge, extension
of , al torat inn or addition to the terms of the agreement or to
the •work Co be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying
the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it
does hereby wmive notice of any such chnnmC, extension of time, alteration
or addition to the terms of the agreement. or to the work or to the
specificntions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the
rtin. ^ip,l and surety above named, on sn "etntcr 4 , 1911•
AMF.104
By __ 1-6
11L- I —; -, .. Scc
FEOE $1AAH6E (
coh"u
By
.J. li ¢lsen, Attorney- Ln•Fat[
Executed in Triplimte
Bond No. 80 82 95 92
LABOR AND MATERIALAEN BOND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State
of California, and AMEP.ON
(hereinafter designated as "prinmpa )have entered etc an agreement
whereby principal agrees to install and complete certain designated
public improvements, which said agreement, dated 24
195L, and identified as project
rs hereby re erred to an made a part hereof; and,
trNEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, principal is required
before entering up9e the performance of the work, to file a good and
sufficient payment bond with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to secure
the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (cc,- .mencing with
Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State
of California.
NOW, TNEREFOF.E, said principal and the undersigned as a corporate
surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, mstarialmon and other
persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid agreement and
referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of
Twenty -seven Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
'C$--27,000 1, for materla a furnished or labor thereon it y kind,
or Co- unts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect
to such work or labor, that said surety will pay the sane in an amount
not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit
is brought upon this bond will pay in addition to the face
thereof, costs on. +sr n, lu le expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such
obligation, to be awarded and fired by the court, and to be taxed as
costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.
I-, is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall
Inure to the benefit of ant' and all priors, companies, and corporations
entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing With Section 3082)
of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of
action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
Sold the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this
obligation shall become cull and void, otherwise it shall be and
rercaio in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension
_ of tine, alteration or addition to the terms of said agreement or the
-- eperifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its
oblig,n eions on this bond, and it does hereby site notice of any such
change, extension, alteration of addition.
M Wi TNF.5S WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executrd bV the
pri, ^.c :pn] and surety above named, on
ANERON
By
ELDER I svanl�ce conpANr
by
J. Nielsen, Attorney -tn -Fact
nrmv nm o n ntnvn nr TO n 19~u n
STAFF REPORT
'v
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Dave Leonard, Maintenance Supervisor
SUBJECT: Authorization to Seek Bids for Street Sweeping Contract
In order to allow additional flexibility with the City's street
sweeper for handling citizens' complaints and up- coming storm
work, it is requested that Council authorize the solicitation of
bids for continuing and routine sweeping of major problem streets.
$20,000 was budgeted for contract sweeping. The proposed route
is estimated to be close to that amount for the remainder of this
fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council authorize the seeking of bids for
contract street sweeping service.
Respectfully su mitted,
A / —
LBAL: jaa
CPPY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1981
TO: City Council /City Manager
FROM: Harry J. Empey, Finance Dire:
SUBJECT: Deletion of Inactive Fund Accounts
Funds 040 (Capital Improvement) and 049 (City Facilities) need to be deleted.
Both funds are currently inactive, and are in reality, duplication of other
funds currently being used.
The debit fund balance in Fund 040 of $3,682.14 will be absorbed by the General
Fund. The credit balance in Fund 049 of $201,835.80 should be transferred
to the Capital Replacement Fund.
HJE:cam
a%
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1981
TO: City Council /City Manager
FROM: Harry J. Empey, Finance Direc(tor
SUBJECT: Interfund Transfer (Loan)
Irhas been recommended by the City Engineer that $300,000 be transferred from
the Storm Drain Fund to the Special Assessment District Fund for the purpose
of proceeding with projects related to the 79 -1 Special Assessment District.
The $300,000 would be a no- interest loan, and when assessments are received
by the City Assessment District, the loan will be repaid.
HJE:cam
MEMORANDUM'
o
F
J
1977
DATE: September 30, 1981
TO: City Council /City Manager
FROM: Harry J. Empey, Finance Director \
SUBJECT: Budget Transfer
With the transfer of the Administrative Analyst from Community Services to
Administration, it will be necessary for Council to authorize the tranfer
of budget figures from one department of the budget to another.
The breakdown is as follows:
From Account 601 -50 -01 to Account 001 -11 -01 $19,992 (Salary)
From Account 001 -53 -28 to Account 601 -11 -28 14,000 (Contract Services)
TOTAL $33,992
This will, in effect, transfer the budget figures for Administrative Analyst
salary and the budgeted figure to produce the Grapevine.
HJE:cam
G�
RESOLUTION NO. 81- L
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, NAMING THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO SIGN SMALL CLAIMS COURT DOCU-
MENTS RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does resolve as follows:
In order to comply with the requirements of the municipal
small claims court of the County of San Bernardino, it is necessary
to name certain individuals as those persons authorized to sign
court documents as required on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
THEREFORE, the following named Individuals are authorized to
sign all necessary court documents relating to Business Licenses:
Claudia A. Monahan Business License Inspector
Mary A. Kuhn Clerk Typist
Harry J. Empey Finance Director
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
/ T
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1981
TO: City Council /City Manager
FROM: Harry J. Empey, Finance Direc tpi
SUBJECT: Public Hearing /Revenue Sharing
As in the past, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Revenue Sharing has been adjusted
upward. This, of course, means that an additional public hearing moat be set
for public input on the disposition of the funds.
It is therefore recommended that a public hearing on the disposition of $57,433
in additional Revenue Sharing be set as part of the regular meetings on
Wednesday, November 4, 1981 and Wednesday, November 18, 1981.
HJE:cam
r�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Butts, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Carnelian Street Storm Drain
Construction Project
The Carnelian Street Storm Drain from existing Carnelian Channel
to newly construced Demens Channel, a City Project, has been
completed to the satisfaction of the Corp of Engineers (connection
to Demens Channel only) and the City Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
Council accept as complete the Carnelian Street Storm Drain con-
struction Project and pass the attached Resolution authorizing the
City Engineer to file the Notice of Completion and release per-
formance bonds and authorizing the Finance Director to pay the
contractor all amounts due.
Respectly submitted,
ful
/.
LBH:blc
Attachments
�a
RESOLUTION NO. '� ' - j;�
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE CARNELIAN STREET
STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION FROM CARNELIAN CHANNEL TO DEMENS
CHANNEL AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLE-
TION FOR THE WORK AND FINAL PAYMENT
WHEREAS, the construction of Carnelian Street Storm Drain from
existing Carnelian Channel to newly constructed Demens Channel has been
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying
the work complete;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted
and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion
with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County and the Finance Director
is authorized to pay the contractor all amounts due.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
13
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF RANCHO UCA
CMONGA
Post office ice Boo x 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91'1]0
iVSN RECORDED MAIL To:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Post Office BON'007
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The Undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate
in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which
interest or estate is:
Camelian Sroem Drain
2. The full none and address of the undersigned owner is:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 9320 -C Baseline Road, Post Office Box
804, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
3. on the 7th day of ott,A r , 1981, there was com-
pleted on the hereinafter described real property the work of im-
provement set forth in the contract docur,.ents for
Carnel tan Storm ntetn
4. The name of the Original contractor for the work of im-
p"vement as a whole was K.E.C. 00ostrvct(nn C,
S. The real property referred to herein is situated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California,
and is described as follows:
Camellan Storm Drain
The street address of said property is: `:L\
DATED: , 19 .
CITY OF RMCHO CUCAMONGA, a
municipal corpora lion, Owner
By:
Nnn,'l
(Title)
17�- -I-
Engineer's RDnthly Progress Estimate lID. CITY DF RpvlG4W CltCiwWlWp
Final For Period
1IetC CA[ne11.m Tvenuc "c— 1".10
_r. Cltf of Rancho Cucamonga
rat tar: C.F.C. C..mP.ml.
_l I]
i li
]
ii
FC Iate[ T.
L.F.
1-
(t Ea
lIYh.F�
MEASURE
tiI fF:AILD
DgnTITY
2_
0AT
PRICES
S
Gtt GGalt—
A11i1101l I!y0
_
157
1111
18, 840. or
Tir P1aecA Cont.
4nu0.0o
= ..Wo.no
2.00
e.- ral o[ .t.c. a r•,;
12" v C.CU[b r
L.F.
7100.110
] Loc.tW
7
m Cane. chat
S.F.
833
8700.00
8700.1
P.C.:. t vc APProacn
- uvtlna
C.Y.
800
4.00
3200.00
•
llt
C.Y.
11'10
4.071
441.on
2
B."
Ton
fi8fl
!0_00
68o0. nn__
6.00
� D.r n_c.
mn
s9S
]s_an
zD,xzz.on
1795.0 lo
_l I]
i li
]
ii
FC Iate[ T.
L.F.
]0
100.00
7,000.00
fy mneI
L.F.
157
11u.n0
18, 840. or
Tir P1aecA Cont.
S.F.
12.10
2.00
2.400.00
12" v C.CU[b r
L.F.
176
1n.(10
1,]60.0'1
P.C.C- Sidmaatk'
S.F.
833
3.00
2,649.00
P.C.:. t vc APProacn
S.F
ttn
5.00
550. 00
6' Chain Link
L.F.
170
—740D on
Chain Link (Latex
Fa.
2
350. 00
11" Curh pnly
L.F.
42
6.00
1 Signaturu:��
zn.oD
700.011 282.00
VIORi: COMPLETED TO DATE:
> -zo -sl
THIS ESi ANTE TOTAI. ESTIMATE
fgeprniv naaunr ANnr7 rY nrauur_
zs:. Mon. on lanx LDDO. Dn
sox ]esD,DD lDDZ noD. oo
-0- 1002 8700.00
-n- soD lion.ao
-D- uoo 440D. 00
649.70 6497.00 649.70 6497.00
5]3.10 20,018.50 5)].10 2005B.SU
JS' 718.00 179 ,500
-D- )o ],ono
18,81,0
fief CCD P] To ce Account
1I5' 1160 llfi 1,760
954 2862.00 954 2,652
190 950 190 950
1 Jc40 1n 3,LCn
71
z ]oo z ]oD
4: 282 43 282
41,199.50
Oa to
Can Cret[ Fl[fl[
hpproved „•o rkie
— 5 -15 -91 -DaY
Ilo rk ing '
Days
120 _
fast Oay
Contract
11 -5 -BI
91a Ucr
Non-Working
Days
1
Lon tract
Cha nye
Order ears
Other
0.71 orrable
Of Completion
tt -6 -81
Percent
Completed
99X
Percent
T i.ne
E la sped
]In
z
z69 ,4 s9 si
11 -5 -BI
91a Ucr
Non-Working
Days
1
Lon tract
Cha nye
Order ears
Other
0.71 orrable
Of Completion
tt -6 -81
Percent
Completed
99X
Percent
T i.ne
E la sped
]In
i
change Orders:
contract Cnanse n:ac. dt b x s cox
This escinate rocn�
50.31 L.F. 2 115 7.31'13031.65 SD. J1 /20,8]8.65
Contract Chon6n Cr<.er 42 nc
- .nda2 in Quantities
�nnRaet CpanFe 0[J e[ :fJ Pev F..— Account
3,559.13
r
Page 2
-+! YALJE OF NOBR CDi NI? SUR TOTA1. C.C.o.'s $ 24,531.78
l0a R..ta fined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293.927_8
_..T PAID A-0 PAYAOLF ... . .. .... .. . .. ... .. .. ... . ...... .. 29.392.]1
3: Total Amount Previously Paid . . .. • . . . . . . .. . . . . • . . 264.534.55
%:fT OL'E WIDER TU[S EST RkUE . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.616.50
Cent Inspector
:iDUtian:
APPROVED:
City Engineer
°yt0
rr,"` f��
ACC.EPTFD Y:
CDntr for
ay:¢�. Date.
CITY OF RA\CP10 CI,G\JIO \GA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT N0. 80 -12 -
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A tots development
of 393 townhouses on 40 acres in the R -2 zone, located on
the east side of Archibald, on the south side of Church,
west side of Ramona - APN 1077- 341 -01, 1077 - 133 -08 and
1077- 631 -03.
ABSTRACT: Marborough Development Corporation has requested a conti-
nuance of its previously continued public hearing from October 7 to
October 21, 1981 to provide adequate time to refine the revisions
made as a result of discussion with the neighborhood group. See
attached letter from Marlborough Development Corporation. The neigh-
borhood group has been aware of this impending request for conti-
nuance and concurs.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue the public hearing
on this item to October 21, 1981.
��l Respectfully i�submitted,
ack Eam, AICP
Comnunity Development Director
JL:jk
Attach.
17 7
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
September 18, 1981
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9340 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Attention: Jack Lam
Re: Tentative Tract 11663
Dear Mr. Lam:
Per our discussion of the time required to schedule a design review
meeting on our project as revised to reflect the Citizens' Committee
revisions, we hereby request a continuance of our zone change hearings.
We request that the Planning Commission hearing, originally scheduled
for September 23, 1981, be continued to October 14, 1981; and that
the City Council hearing, scheduled for October 7, 1981, to be con-
tinued to October 21, 1981.
Thank you for your time and patience during this revision process.
Very truly yours,
MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Paul N. By nes
Vice President
Engineering
PNB /sl
q0
ONE C`NTb0Y PLAZA 20" CENT 01v PARK r A 5' 1,,jiTEI(, LOS A•.; JJ :_: Cn ':;N 12t3 cy o.c.i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Ordering Annexation $4 to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 1 for Tracts 10569 and Tract 9584 -1
This item was continued from the September 16, 1981 meeting to
check on noticing requirements and to allow time to discuss
several issues with the owner of Tract 9584 -1 (Deer Creek
Development Co.).
The proper notices have been sent and the City Manager and I
have met with the tract owners. One major concern of the owner
was the timing on the inplementation of the assessment and pay-
ment for maintenance of portions of Haven Avenue normally covered
by the homeowners association.
The issues raised by the owner are legitimate concerns which staff
feels should be addressed for this project as well as similar pro-
jects where homeowners associations may be involved.
To mitigate these concerns, the district annexation has been modi-
fied with the provision that the assessment shall not be posted
until after 608 of the tract has been occupied and that for Tract
9584 -1 arrangements shall be made to credit maintenance of the
Haven Avenue frontage to assessments in the tract if maintenance
is performed by the homeowners association.
Both of these provisions are recommended as standard future policy
to be incorporated into the District functioning. Credit arrange-
ments are further detailed in modifications to Section 4 of the
Engineer's Report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended thas Council approve the attached resolution
ordering the annexation of Tracts 10569 and 9584 -1 to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1.
Respectfully submitted,
*L: f `l
a
Attachments
`� 1
RESOLUTION NO. cr- q
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN
CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 4 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR
TRACT NO. 10569 AND TRACT NO. 9584 -1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did
on the 5th day of August, 1981, adopt its Resolution of Intention No.
81 -113 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation
Number 4 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of
Intention No. 81 -113 was duly and legally published in the time, form
and manner as required by law, shown by the affidvait of Publication of
said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk;
and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of
said Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement ", was duly
and legally pasted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as
required by law, as appears from the affidavit of Posting said notices,
on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption
of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning
real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in
said Resolution of Intention No. 81 -113, according to the names and
addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as
known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said
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 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 arquired 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 annexation to the district and the ordering of the work, and said
City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in
said Resolution of Intention No. 81 -113, 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 further resolved that the assessments and
method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved,
/C (J
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4: Be it finally resolved that said assessments shall
not begin until after 60 percent of said tracts have been occupied.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip 0. Schlosser, Mayor
Jo 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
ANNEXATION NO. 4
to the
Landscape Maintenance District Number 1
Tract 9584 -1 and Tract 10569
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape
Maintenance District No. 1. The City Council has determined that the
areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tract No.
9584 -1 and Tract No. 10569 as well as on the lots directly abutting the
landscaped areas. All landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed
tracts are shown on the Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements
to be granted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared
by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans
for Tract No. 9584 -1 and Tract No. 10569. The plans and specifications
for the landscaping are in conformance with the Planning Commission.
Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment
diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and
specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the
same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on historical
data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated
that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty (j.30)
per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment
will be based on actual cost data.
)4
Engineer's Report
Page 2
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation No. 4 comprised of 16,464 square feet of landscaped
area) is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.30 X 212,720 square feet = 63,816.00
Per Lot Annual Assessment
63,816.00 ; 1005 = 63.50
Per Lot Monthly Assessment = 5.29
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and
the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this
annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which
are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be
maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall
be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner
maintenance.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby
incorporated within the test of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement for Annexation No. 4 is found to be of general benefit
to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for
each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1982, to
determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by
the City during the 1981/82 fiscal year which are to be recovered through
assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District
and sets a public hearing date.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony
and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the
City Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing
and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assements.
_ Jb3
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1
ANNEXATION NO. 4
CITY Or RANclio CUCA,%IO,NGA
•.,.,.
-� ENGINEERING DIVISION,
_ VICINITY MAP
m
Exhibit A
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I
ANNEXATION NO, 4
1p�� -� -, I
I � L i
J-7
C, k1l"',
CITY OF RANCHO CL:Cj\.\joXC,,,.\ TRACT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
A
VICINITY NIAP
N
/0�-
-_2
J
C, k1l"',
CITY OF RANCHO CL:Cj\.\joXC,,,.\ TRACT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
A
VICINITY NIAP
N
/0�-
i
Affidavit of Mailing:
I, Judy Acosta, Engineering Secretary for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby swear that I deposited in the City's outgoing mail located
in the administration building at approximately 4:00 pm on September 18,
1981 the attached letter to the William Lyon Company regarding Annexa-
tion #4 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Tract 10569.
Dated:
Signed; , / , ./' 11
/uay o ta, Engineering
'Secre Nry
l�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT
I, Lloyd B. Hubbs, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he
is the duly appointed, qualified Superintendent of Streets for
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and that pursuant to Resolution
No. 81 -113 of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State
of California, he on the 3rd day of September, 1981, posted the
"Notice of Improvement" of the City Council's intent of considera-
tion of Annexation No. 4 to landscape Maintenance District No. 1
which notice is attached hereto and made a part hereof; that Notices
were posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart in a
consipicuous place along each parcel of property affected by Annexa-
tion No. 4 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
DATE:
Sworn and subscribed
to me this _ day
,1981
Notary Public
,S ri tetd nt o Streets of the
C&fy of Rancho Cucamonga
)0 i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
G�;GMpry
2 z n
z 1
Inii I
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 - LEWIS
A proposed change of zone from R -1 single family residential)
to R -1- 20,000 (single family residential, 20,000 sq. ft. lot
minimum) on 52 acres of land located on the south side of
Summit Avenue between Etiwanda and East Avenues - APN 225 -181-
04 through 09, 26 and 43
ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
above zone change and is recommending approval. If the City Council concurs,
two (2) actions are necessary; 1) a motion and adoption of a Negative Dec-
laration, and; 2) adoption of the attached Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 52 acres of
Tand located on the south side of Summit Avenue between Etiwanda and East
Avenues (Exhibit "A "). The subject property is presently zoned R -1 (single
family residential) which allows lot sizes of 7,200 sq, ft. The request is
to increase the minimum lot size to 20,000 sq. ft. A. 90 -lot residential sub-
division (TT 11549) by Lewis Homes has been tentatively approved by the
Planning Commission. All lots within the subdivision contain a minimum of
20,000 sq. ft. Approval of the zone change will bring the property into con-
formance with the General Plan, as it is designated as very low density on
the Land Use Map.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 12, 1981, held a public
hearing to consider the above request. Upon completion of the hearing, the
Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 81 -89 which recommends approval
of Zone Change No. 81 -02 to the City Council.
ANALYSIS: The majority of the site is presently undeveloped containing
only minimal improvements. There is an existing house on the property which
has historical significance and will be relocated by the applicant. Euca-
lyptus windrows run east -west at 330' spacing, and north -south along East
Avenue and two interior locations. A portion of the site is covered by an
abandoned, non - maintained citrus grove. Surrounding land uses include
) 6 '
Staff Report
ZC 81 -02 -2- October 7, 1981
residences, orchards, vacant lots, a school, and a General Telephone sub-
station (see Exhibit "B "). The surrounding area is planned for very low
density; therefore, this change of zone will conform to future development.
This zone change will not affect the approved tentative map.
The Initial Study has been prepared for the environmental assessment of this
zone change. Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as provided by the
applicant. After review of the Initial Study, the Commission has recommended
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Daily
Report legal ad section on September 25, 1981. In addition, 27 public
hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property. To date, no correspondence has been received against
this protect, but one letter was received supporting it, which is attached
for your review.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the attached Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 81 -02 and adopt a
Negative Declaration through minute action.
Respectfully subm'tted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:CJ:cd
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Site Utilization Map
Letter
Planning Commission Resolution
Ordinance No.
) 6 c(
19 rTE(/T Te..f/O.
�i oua fJ
e
7
Y
I
VICINITY MAP
1555V
NoRTI -I
CITY OF ITEM:
RANCI -i0 CCG1INIO, 'A TITLE; I QR17Y MAP
PLANNING DIVISION GXIum-r:A" _SGU.G: Nf3
r
Heys. genera/ P /a,� ,O�s /g7nfioir
For fn /rre .4 /eo sKew+n p.'s %C JC' / PLAN
Wary Lo/.� Fes//%nfio/ L
l�
NORTI i
CITI' 01' IT17%1: -- (zc81 -o2)
RA \CI i0 CUCAMONGA TITLE! SIM U " -T'°" ""O
PLANNING. DIVISION C A1111IIT_S —SCAM MX.%
CITY OF RA:;C1i0 CUC,L'M::GA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORI•IATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
EnVirOnMental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00
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 Enviro;.mental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Cormittee will ma%a one of
three determinations: 1) The Droject will have no
envircnmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental ir..pacc
and an Environmental I ^.pact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the ,plicart giving ..Esther information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Tract Number 11549
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
Levis 11e ^es of California, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, F. 0. Box 670,
Upland, CA 91786 714/965 -0971
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO - nE.CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: —.Son Nottineham Lewis Hones of
California, 1156 Korth Mountain Avenue, P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786
714/985-0971
LOC.ITION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS At",) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Etiwanda Avenue to Ease Avenue, southerly of Su .-nit Avenue,
225 - 181 -02, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09, 26, 43
LIST OTH5R PERMITS N'ECESS.4RY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES A17D THE AGENCY ISSUI::G SUCH PERMITS:
Santa Ana Regional Water Oualitv Control Board
I -1
0�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DES=,,I?TION OF PP.OJECT• 00 In, j
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING A::D
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 52 acres
Existing Buildings 3.000 s.f. annrox imately
Proposed Buildings = 170.000 a_r. r„
DESCRIBE THE M7VIFO ::�_ ?iiAL SETT'NG OF THE P'r.OvrCT SITE
INCUiDI iG INFOR•14T1ON ON TOPOGRAPHY, PL ZITS (TREES),
ANZIdALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SC--?71C ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROLi7DING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF A ^Y
EXIST ;G STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
Th?—C' h't� tlr alp f -i h h
There are Evcalvptus h•indrows running east -west spaced t 330 feet,
OF north -south vend rows along Eas[ Avenue and at two interior iocatio; s.
(See attached map showing windrows.) A Portion f the 'c is c - d
by an abammqed, non - maintained citrus gnn,e . Th only —4—ls lbser',d -4—1
were the rodents, birds, and rabbits normal to the general area There
is an existing very old house on the property. It appears to be
n...sinal condition to maintain. However. we have been i n :,h
cne local historical society and will relocate this house to an
uses or surrouna mz properties are shown the er ' - d sit
u,111zation map. These uses consist of existing residences vacant lo-s
the General Telephone Substation. and anma — herd..
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series,
Of cur,.ulative actions, which although indzvidually small,
may as a whole have significant environ.•r.ental impact?
11-
I- 2
)i3
4
WILL T!17!7 Pr,77'?'T:
YES NO
x_ 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
. x 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
_ X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
A _ 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 350
x 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardo•os materiels such as
toxic scbstances, fiac=ables or explo_i•:es?
EYnlanatipn of anv uF.F answers above: The plans show the many
existing eucalyptus windrows to he maintained if desirable to the City
flewever, approximately 702 or 350 eucalyptus trees are shown to be
removed. Also, there is a small citrus grove which is not maintained
which will have to be removed. (See letter dated 8/28/80 with item 1
recardinc nossibly savine additional eucalvntus windrows alone East
Avenue and Summit Avenue.)
if the project involves the eonsiructicn of
residential units, complete the fora on the
next page.
CSP.TIFICTTION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the date and
inforn:..ition required for this initial evaluation to tt:o
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
infornaion presented are true_ and correct to the best of
my knowlcdge and belief. I further understand that
additio ^al information may be required to be submitted
before an �dcqunte evaulat•ion can be made by the Devo!nrnent
Review COIX14ttee• Lewis Hoycs of California
Date January 21, 1981
Signaturc
Title Au[hnri,cd Arent
T� „�
(-
t
rrSTDS': - -r AL CC's; rcc10.1
The fo llo >anc infor-ation should be provided to the City of Rancbo Cucar..or.ga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessinc the ahility of he
school district to acco, =odate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Levis Homes of California _Tract 11549
specific Location of Project: Eciwanda Avenue to East Avenue southerly of Summit Aveauc
PHAS P. I
PF —..SE 2
PFA Sr 3
PH:,sF. 4
1. - 0: single
f ami 1y u..i ts:
34
30
26
N/A
90
2. l:urbe of mul' --le
fam;1 ", cn its:
N A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Dat^_ proposed to
October
April
October
-
bcc' -r. cc ^strccticn:
1981
1982
1982
`7 /A
N/A
4. P.ar'_ies' date of
April
October
April
occ�yancy:
1932
1982
1983
N/A
N/A
1SO dr.l 8
and _ of Tentat'i ve
i. IIedroocs Price Rance
-
640 - 49R 8150.000
6
5
6
NIA
17
684.2
684.3 - 48R 135,000
9
8
6
N/A
23
685 - 313R I1n.noo
8
6
7
N/A
21
687 - 3BR 130,000
10
9
8
N/A
27
y37 - 3RR I55.OnO
1
2
1
WA
4
Rate: The above are our best
estimates at
this date
(8123180) and
are
90
'dubject to change. Revised 1121/81.
� ►5
I
ee�., �
CITY OF RAPJ! NO CUCAirONGA
CG:d7dUttITY C fvr pcfnEpi DEPT.
i '! -.ii
AM PH
glg.nt�pl�i�t ?i11��j31'!ISIG
1
�- ll�
RESOLUTICN NO. 8: -C9
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAFIUNGA PLANNING
C1?7'11SSION RECON!IENDMG APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE
NO. 81 -02 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM
R -1 TO P. -1- 20,000 FOR 52 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTi SIDE OF SU4PIIT AVENUE DET1iEE "! ETI4NANDA AND
EAST ;.VENUES - AM 225 -181 -4 thrnugh 9, 26, and '3.
i1HEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 1981, an application was
"iled and accepted on the above - described project; and
SIHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1981, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 11: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
foliov;ing fir•dings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted
in the proposed zone in to ms of access, size, and compatibility
with existing lard use in the surrounding area;
2. The proposed zone change would not have significant
impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties;
and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the
e:.isting and proposed General Plan.
SECTI�1': 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission h�s found
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the
envirenment and recom^ends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August
12. 1901.
THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California
Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the
12th day of August, 1981, Zone Change No. 81 -02,
2. The Planninq Commission herehy recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 81 -02.
That d Certified Copy of this P,esel••ition and related
niiterial hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall
1;n forwarded to the City Codneil.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AL;UST, 1931.
PLMIi ING CO(IFIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CIICAFIO'IGA
�7
Paco
BY:
ATT
1, JAC: LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Cec- ission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote
to -wit:
FlES: C07,b1ISSIONERS: Sceranka, Rempel, Dahl, Tolstoy, King
'IDES: COMNISSIONEP,S: None
','SENT; CONMISSIONERS: None
CIF
ORDINANCE NO. )
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
225 -181 -4 THROUGH 9, 26, AND 43 FROM R -1 TO R- 1- 20,000
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE, BETWEEN
ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
following a public hearing held in the time and manner
prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property
hereinafter described, and this City Council has held a
public hearing in the time and manner prescribed by law
as duly heard and considered said recommendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
R -1 (single family residential) to R -1- 20,000 (single
family residential)
Said property is located on the south side of Summit
Avenue between Etiwanda and East Avenues know as Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 225 -181 -4 through 9, 26, and 43 .
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shah cause-fhe same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Dail ly�Re port, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontarfo, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
nr • e,n I rn rvnn s 1 Rnwrne
STAFF REPORT 2e°
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council & City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04
TT 116141 - DEVELOPMENT GROUP - A change of zone from
R -1 and R -1 -5 to -3 /PD for a total planned development
of 80 single family attached units on 10.1 acres of land
generally located on the west side of Ramona at Monte
Vista Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -05, 06, and 16
ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 9, 1981,
held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the above Zone Change
request. The Planning Commission, after reviewing Staff's recommendation
and conducting a public hearing, has adopted Resolution No. 81 -99 which
recommends adoption of the planned development designation. This change
of zone will allow the development of an 80 unit project. The Planning
Commission also adopted Resolution No. 81 -98 approving Tentative Tract
Map No. 11614 and all conditions of approval related to that development.
The approval of the Tentative Tract Map is contingent upon approval of
the planned development designation by the City Council. If the City
Council desires to approve this project, two motions are required; one
to approve a Negative Declaration, and one to approve the attached Ordi-
nance. Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report,
which fully describes the project.
The Planned Development designation is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The development of
this site, as a result of the change of zone, is consistent with the
Zoning Ordinances and development standards established by the City.
At the public hearing before the Planning Commission, two residents
from the surrounding neighborhood expressed concern regarding the
potential impacts of the project upon traffic circulation and drainage.
Ida
Environmental Assessment /Planned Development 80 -04
City Council Agenda
October 7, 1981
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice has been placed in The Daily Report newspaper
advertising this item as a public hearing and notices were sent to property
owners within 300' of the project boundarm.es. To date, no correspondence
has been received either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the attached
Ordinance approving Planned Development No. 80 -04 and issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL:OC:jr
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission Staff Report of September 9, 1981
'al
ORDINANCE NO. ) "%
A14 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5 ACRE (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 3 /P.D. (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL /PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAMONA
AT MONTE VISTA AVENUE,
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time
and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of
the property hereinafter described, and this City Council
has held a public hearing in the time and manner pre-
scribed by law as duly heard and considered said recom-
mendation.
B. That this rezoning is consistent with the General Plan of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
herein.
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby
rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended
accordingly.
Assessor's Parcel Number 202 - 181 -05, 06, 16 are
hereby changed from R -1 and R -1- 5 acre to R- 3 /P.D.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shal -cause use the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
W
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -99
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAi -0ONGA PLANNING
CC ??NISSIOH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -04 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN
THE ZONING FROM R -1 AND R -1 -5 ACRE TO R- 3/P.D.
FOR 10.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
RANONA AT MONTE VISTA. APN 202 - 181 -5, 6, AND
16.
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of August, 1980, an application was
filed and accepted on the above- described Project; and
IJHEREA.S, on the 9th day of September, 1981, the Planning
Co-mission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section
65854 of the California Government Code,
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the fol lowinq findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted
in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility
with existing land use in the surrounding area;
2. The proposed zone change would not have significant
immact nn the environment nor the surrounding Prooert.ies:
and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the
General Plan.
SECTION 2; The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found
ct
that this prone will not create a significant adverse impact on the
environment and recommends issuance of�a Negative Declaration on
September 9, 1981.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California
Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 9th
day of September, 1981, Planned Development No. 80 -04.
2, The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt Planned Development No. 80 -04.
?. That a Certified Copy of this Res nlution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall
he forwarded to the City Council.
4. All conditions of approval applicable to Tentative Tract
No. 11614 shall apply to this Planned Development.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9111 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981.
)�J
/ Resolution No. 81 -99
1( Page 2
i
a PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
/
BY:
6
on
I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Plannina Commission of the Citv of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foreaoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of September, 1981 by the following vote
to -:vi t:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Dahl, Rempel, Sceranka, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
.ABSENT: CC 'I!qT`.c TW-r.oc.
V "1
I
RESCLUTION fie. 91 -93
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CW!'USION OF.THE
CI-17 CIF RANCHO CUCAMOL'GA, CALIFORNIA, CM;DITIDHALL'I
APPRO':IiIG TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11514,
1dHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11614, hereinafter "Mao"
submitted by Development Croup, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing
the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivision
of 10.1 acres of land located on the west side of Ramona Avenue at Monte
Vista Street into 82 lots, regularly came before the Plannine Commission
for public hearing and action on September 9, 1981; and
I;HEREA6, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Mao
object to all conditions set fertn in the Engineering and Planning
Divisions reports; and
W'HF. EAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Enuineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other
evidance oresented at the public hearing.
NN', THEREFORE, the Planning Gommission of the City of Rancho
Coca -onoa does resolve as follows:
SECTi011 1: The Plannine Fo- missinn •: �i .. -_
in regard tc `enfative Tract No. 11614 and the Man thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable
interim and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of devel-
oprient proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury
to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
ThQ tentative tr::ct is not likely to cause serious public
health nrohl ;
(r) The dr. ^ ;iIn of the tentative tract %rill not conflict with
any ea, t acquired by the nuhiic at large, now of
re;:ord, for access through or use of the nrnperty within
tiie prnposed subdivision.
/�J
(q) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. •
SEC7i,U 2: Tentative Tract Mao No. 11614, a copy of which is
attached 'hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. All units with a garage apron less than 20 feet long
shall be provided with automatic garage door openers.
2. Fencing at the rear of lots 26 -37, which back up to
Ramona Avenue, shall consist of masonry block at a
raximum height of 3 to A fee*_ with wrought iron on top.
3. Prior to the issuance of buildinq permits, the Desian
Review Committee shall determine if a directory is
needed for the project.
E:79 CfEERING DIVISION
3, e required easement per City's standard fur the proposed
stormdrain shall be dedicated to the City.
coordinated with that of the ^ tracts 10491 and 11603 and
that portion of the stormdrain from Victoria Avenue to
Ramona Avenue shall be completed prior to issuance of
occupancy permit for this project.
5. The full width of the existing P.C.C. pavement on Ramona
Avenue shall be removed and replaced with asphalt concrete
pavement.
AI'PR07ED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981.
PLA:; ;IINO CO:11IS SON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
0j r.lii a.nv
A. T, 7
S ^c rr t'r: aF thr Pli`la iminn'Ul m? ,,inr
'dlp
Pane .3.. ..-
I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify..that the .foregoing Resolution was duly -and
recularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City 'of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 2nd day of September, 1981 by the following vote
to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Rempel, Dahl, Sceranka, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
1�7
OEPA.RIY.;Ni PP CWVuatll OEV......
SiA'.C.AR0 C)I:dfi(OI.S
Seb)eC: -P A PO_04 (1T -I 1
APP n tan: --- Ceve In Melat_Group_ - ---- -- - - - ---
ileac'..:- ales C- __- ' - - - - --
S ide - Rar „on a- (a- FbnEe- Vi
iep5e ItP"t (h CI C.'. Irv`
Ill"Sla 5'.ttl IG'.idCE
MWEIZ0AS: _. PIE IY91_;)I:IS :P' FOR CW;V,-ICE Nllli TrE EJI Lf:a Y':
C
A. Site_v_I- n_i_n[
1.
site V I
t! kv;,-, in tt [o Jnt ...h ill I
in ill P aVa•VeJ v[c U
.,, 1 01.iliuo "'a"' un file
v..1 it, cand,tiana cph t li nr.l n.
Z.
Ph", .1 x:rP Clan Id n'. 1J aS eletat f-"i r °c postln, all C :rc. :irny
ill sn.l :
L_yzu .Jlb•1 t t, PI n of
puiidi, v'm i; s. arcing Osvl¢mn prior to Iltuan.e Uf
X 3.
nP:aoval of [nn it sn)11 rot wive illpiLIll with ail
III ser tim'S of
t ln.Y iInni, dpDli<aple U[Y flrJimntt3
IfrR 1'- itdiitu.r z'. rn rtfect al:
l
hie Je ar lc ser von rrnvidc ern lots vltn IdIcInace zmcyArJ arw for
Pecreallm vehicle
s;orag., PYrvant to City standards.
x S.
irl,M1 romp[, :`r aryl S,n 11 :c ennic,. by a 6 felt hi h m
vi[n
na olq tr .0 bnq g" 4t pu ,ran[ to City standardz. Lima,,- iic,11 be
aubYOCt 11
aaamval ly no Planning Olvision.
6'
-•
'orarVv,..ra O'.• rme nw;eri at snail be "do"', it to [ne planning
o -
a Division
n uplrr., rl prior [o IstuaneP of nuilJ in9 per. r[z.
--
All mol arp.r ;,-c -S nclu]i ng "' c- nJl4on -rs. Nall be zr<ni tr[ :;I rally
In [nni. ten.: J:J o-nm
v C and tint soInJ bnr rerr!J rrau a enl nropernei
and Street a1 ar,.'ra by the Planning and 3nlidin9
X 9.
Oivlvonsat
Prirr In any u of p,¢ Plollot site or bUSi,aS ...ivity be in9
t ne rep n,
tor. cr, wl
.II [m•Is t i. nc -I a,,.a,hl [-nta rhea M1r rein Nrll be [au Vl el,.d
um sousra inn
4
or v,e mre tlnr or e- an'.nity bev elpp'1c.1.
➢'is door -.al shall 'rears• nun and volt if building
mr
Dn mil: a noI )ssm`J
[ as Pio3e[t .'thin one Year frtln the date of
10.
Pla.rct approval.
AS a CondlZol, nv: Drrmlq this P,.J.,t 5NI1 brccne
n :dl non vnm it
e'9n`- if.) ^....11:1 r .e or approvl, unless pl-its are Iywed o
pie 'vProcel is ce *p1acU. da r
_ 11.
A drta i I i,gnung nlan sw 11 b<n)mluea to and nm• rnvm
Oar
ill rat' Pin nn L'•,
nacn Prior to su.ante nI loila lvl Perna t5. 5u(M1 Plan Vm11 in'lica
shall
to
aJver ?eta t rffttlncr UOn, nergr,t and 're; hod OI ynrel Jin9. Ill 1'gnUn9
t Y a - t adlacen[
Grcier ties.
X 12.
All l.rmnin9 pools- initalled at the ume Of initial d'ido. milt [nail be
solar boated.
3_t 13.
Ie.tlrrvcd In, lorial Da mn,YS demo llrou"tf-n aisles shall bit Provided
th`00'aut
ue Jeeelpprent to connect it'll l i n0, wi to open spaces and
retread Oral lies.
Proirct :1.. 11614
.�' 14. f11 L''th pith u- shall be rpr Ind,,I0n, un'It vi tx J11 r r:,tl[Ify ixl el JfJ
fr.m: punt l' rLV, if no centralized tr,.,n au•p lJCls l e o.- )n...l.
Is. st:nn", Patio : ,r pl-, shall b... nit n.J to a:m J :r),...1 by Ire City
Pl Inner a.j mild log Official prior b Cul:.rny n,i p..
,Y Y` 1 11t
16. 811 nUrlU rny'y m..::xers and radlvitlwl -"I shall ll Identified In a elm,
^d n: Inciti
_ X lie 1-11d t elier for dIr.....CYri [y GNJ belt, aw.Iocrii shall be In ... Tied
a.. r6 n:ei1[ In this pro Jtt [.
eevls,s IcCh as wmdid lock, shall or ant blleJ on I[b unit,
19. All u tb:u Gwelo^ e
i.larnv ,v roiling n "L ""ent 5nJ11 bf prep 4r.ra [n Ee JJ rp tae f r
9 a
- X 20. mc,yy c nsr Ins build,
'p)rltId tint- tl:ilY proJeCte loo Incl. %e Ai a Clla train yip rC ,u rCJ !n 'r
In -c-c!.. [ I :I Cn r bl"olY, t-till lial, of In I hit l :ill Ili t to
wr .. eaenAle - vern'nungs. 911 till, deft[ ( his t ' it held. pined
21. This ndevJohl:11 shall provide an option to hen' buyers "to Pict neu � s-ler
wl ter hm['n5 milt.
% 22. For .... cy .ecprdary At ...I shall n, Pill !1,1 m this vet f
lacnon -f [AC 1-e[x ill fire Prate[;ien gntn(t. [ t- the 4J +14-
2l. tract in l'kaslry Planned Epunstrian v all .1: '
trail .c[nrun(a with the EgneR%iue Ira:, plan Vr nJ:.a Im nrJ t�'[ 'o
n'aI Ir aL ing vl Jth n rl 1 .I 4 EJ't ...^ reef �r
In JAm'dan(C ywllen Cit :..• h'Yt' AI [[na r, Irlc n,
t•r ,rrl m i,Y'.r to and I'll, J by 1, CIt 1'_. "a tr In Lrlil : t,nc ... ....
I:
e[ r of le final map. r lawmr pr'ar to apt ant
24. ,hit trill ehali fore er annex to a snten]r ,e m;trig dar ,r m[:m,ice or
Cgns [r J,n bail,. rn _ l
X 25. Sit "" na •s "Ill In r v'ewed and Jrlr -,..1 ry r fl tY Plem.e in nC�CUr J rn(e
Ne a:luP 0.'a Strept e'la:n'nq Phil cy. poor to arprmal -nJ ry oraalmr' of
the rival mop. v
26. If this JeveloP'm[ Intend, t0 rettrlC, C
to srecific In6. or roil _ n entire p. eie� Ir nil ,rI"r, it
final br ,,font [[rI [-pond nvlewoAl pY tine CIy Pl nnu.rl pr lit r tin ('Truro
21 . This Projrct shall p..v1Ye
root:. i t nfm•an.r wr Ur ran'ecal pan n- he i'nffnnbble nd,l log "'i,rl
n trria d1f."Id in th, Gryl,tn ° 1 1'vl lC le'..i' ^I t'r I^ inn
hr Jrlern'nrJ h' -urr '1e]g -'m-n[ t,J rnJ "cC. Airnr dJOillt. II
tx.! talc or [Yn51NC[i nn Of oa[l'SC [fen [1 Jn:l nn:liAn i,([J -• In. -1 yr et
]ppr rod pY Nr till rlanner[I:C :.n J•IO C•rv•nl tY :.Ur.n ;r:.11l p
prl r .o Iayulnu I b.JIJln9 permit:.
P_arx In a v.•nrzwa A¢ess 1
1. Ao rl Spcim rm I'myear.•e Island, 1,31 n,,a a rc n - nisldl uiu.nii ii �n
e.:nta,n an 13' I)k iJiatent t- I'lln9 still.
_X 2. Parking lot tree, shall be A mrmry
�. m 15 9]11en rte.
3. All tw -way atilt widths shall be a minimum of 25 feet vide.
iL A, twe"eney a Shall be 01uv141J• mamtenaneo free and dear• a
at $a see' L _ .1) t I, I, rug aanaWclran in ache'd ace ui:.h Lnp:rll
fire Dls[rlel requ lrPr.rn [S
�C 5. All parking SO.eei shill he Jnuble strfmd.
6. All nests span be pr'midxd .rte eutmmtit gar aqe door .'re.'s.
X 2. DesignalN visitor paring areas Shall be turf blocked.
m D. The Conu
unls, Eodei arm Aestr,cticns shall restrict the storage or recreational
vehicles Yn this Site unless trey are the principle source or transportatmn
I., the uena,
II 9. co CA, ain't that to per. -ittel .,thin the interior circulatl, aisle other than
in dr, gn St,J vis,tnr Pas. Crvr.In(s, Corks. and pest,,,,o„s
shall If develop, by t.�.aaappllcant and Sutmitmd to the city PI—ing
Diwivcn "Or to III nanco of building p..Ill.
C. 4MUaoing -
_]� 1. A detailed Ianln,,s and iv,gatlm plan shall b, sIbuillel In and approved
by the Planning CIv,VCn prior W the issuaxe or building Permits.
_][ 2. &siting Ireeu shall be red ' nrd uh,lever possible. A Niter D]an or
i41,y tales Sh—sng shrirPVrelse location, site and 1,1 shall be
formats,, or ve de,clo ;era J aid plan shall lake Into account the proposed
913,1111. '.hat [ are r e to hel1tairtod, 1119th, methods, and wnxfe ve.
trees will ce plante: r reVlMenunt of rd,ead Arid , Pre plan is r,,wirdd
to be S.!.11 to 1.4 approved by the Planning Division ors., to aVVmvil
Or the Imal groom, Alan.
% I street tree S, a 1 of 15 gallon sine or IMgcrr shall be installed in
aecordmce .ith V, e 144ter Plan of Street IrbeS for the City or 9sncho
G,urmula .vA snail he plarbd at an average of every 101 On Interior
u.eets aN :u' on nter,or sf: efts.
% a. A mi niew:e of 50 trees par gross acre, comprised of the following sides,
shall be moviav .,%bin the development; 2o: -24v boa Dr larger, ]05 -15
station, am 10: -5 Salim.
% 5. All l.rehAlne9 areas skull be naintitned to a Ircalthy and thriving con.
ditlmn, free first needs. trash. aM debris.
X S. All slope ranks in bills, of five (5) feet In vertical height and of 5:1 or
greater slab, 0La11 be lnndteapN aim i1rigate4l In acooldrncd with slope
planting reVUi rr aentS oI Ne city of Ran,. Cweamgy. Such it.. planting
ins ll ,ntlnde but at oC liailld to rmtetl ground cover and aplropriate
Viral, and trees. All such pWnting and IrrigRim Shall be cnnl- ,dhisly
,n Lnncd In A id,ltny and lhr,nng Condition 1, the ,:¢veluper until each
indluiHU1 unit IS solo and Ol,"i,d by the buyer. Prior to releasing
Attarinty tar these units, in ,nipetlim or the 5lbret shall be m- "Id.tui
by one r .mmig Stair to determine Nat It Is In HtisNSNry cunditmn.
X 2,. All Dari wSS, open areas. add Will,aling Shall be lull, NIn Hired by a
M.m,a nr.r aS aiibtiatian or other d,a.$ acceptable t0 lM City. Such pr,ar
of ,elsdten.nee Nall be tnlanittad to the City prior tO issuance dl building
pl•rnfla. -
XL, 1hg Jrant yard lanOSaaytri , &W an appropriate Irrigitiw syttemm,. shall be
,m WllrJ
by and d,eldu, in acm dance with Subsisted pl and.
z
-�, fan :t -.iii
Dfoject ad. 116j}t
. 9. lire final design or the Cerlae.•Itr P ✓hn n, will;. IanysulJ nq 1:•1 Side.
walks shall be Inlluded in the mq,,,-c ton'kcan- plans all shill be
;abject N approval by the PN—in9 pia l5 inn.
10. A minimum of S of the trees planted .itlnn 11, D,.,gct. Shall be
sprdron slap trh.,
% 11. 5c•'ciel Idhd1IW fmturta sutb as nm:nd5nrl, alluvial ruck- s:'eeiren slat
tree:. n anJerin9 sidevalts (loth ver treat and her t:ont,l ehoe;e) any
Ifttmstrmd laslscapinq, Is required dlonq
0. 51
X I. Any Signs Drepos,d for this aeveloi.nent Shall it n.vglwJ in "I"faunee
with Ste fva:prebensive Slgn 01dinance and shall le w and approval
by the Ptamol,y Civilian prior to installation Of .,h vigrs�
2. n rmifnrm Sinn pm9ram ror this I ... I.,. tit s „u e. w: tier.: I the
—”
M-ain, mns,on ror their ravler and arDrawl Prior in isms «e of
Edwin, Penults.
_ 3. The signs Indicated on the sulrrltted plans are not gq,ro -:el with this
.1troval JAd .11) require SPDa a [a sign Aaibw and apfrdrol.
E. FeditlOna] nnpmralc�ui red 1
t. Uta.li h,ft ile ale. Still be a<eMip111 tied prior to the 4Stuan!P Of a 11:.." Yl ldin2
Permit. III
_ 2. Dever uprn'n[ Perid shall M rtfoWltsneJ Pr iar to recrrljlaliun of ,bSutdivisinn rear. - I
X 1. APpmval or Tentative Tract M. is grimed ItophgI to [h, ah
of
e. This CuMlt Sonal use pemlc is granted fn a Derigd of
which tied the Planning Commission may ado or delete C
the Conditional use pone$ L.
5. lot developer is required to obtain the folirvi,p sign
purc i,irs of Notts u.Pich have t pri Pose or Yul,l :c equ
1alocent to their property.
In purchasing the home touted on Lot Tra
m . 1 nave rw one C.C.
eadar
Ynderin I., it Hid Lot It trot C[t LO a L.
' nmt (nr the Wrw se d"Tll ow 4,9 a rwotr ion t
gain accts a.
Signed
Said statement is to ae riled by the developer .,in the
o cuWnly,
Prior to aYDroral and recordatim Or the final nap. a
anildinq Drrni {s. when no suM1J iv is Mn cap is inrol .twit
fruit all ntlalted 51MO1 Di5[rlcts, Shall be lun.yltr.I
eonn„nii, u,vrlo;mnt wIthh Sulfa Inn( aJem „t, r. hma
III be l."bi, of aeeo:rddati ng itu,l "tits pow ra!e.l try
Metier of ctrl/ cation east nave then i d•1 by the ,,
si.ly (601 Jan nr for to the foal nap, Ind, 0 .0 so the
dnision win Yr nmarele Of pr,III in u„ ease or ail
projects.
Dn5 or rick,
^
, -rat b
rail Or
1
5 wd
ret iproGa
m
prior to i
Ica [vial
be I: to
it lu.., •s n r
i...,:'It.
ber resie.rl lrl
1 I
(
of
x 7. I'll., to an,.rnvJl "ya .1-no or "in flow?
ed.
lo,". or pride if
of bd. lul, '.., " " 1 1 ; �, 11 1. , ,
I. ..... Io i fIrt i I I
1 It
,� � 1 11 111.11 I.�j -,t, ,
l, ,
1".
rl,j I� I I
It I - 74 'd ...
zell. 1,
the Jay A,ld
�11 , or., if I b� in 111
- yy G,dd.l,
I Ir of t d 1) M-P 011i,po-1 ...
I . u.e of
Utz I 'td1q".is I'd .......
o, �11 I I,,,
r,l, be I' I.bluo d III Inn n.
It 1. 1 lll�, ',I . I . I I . I Jl
d
10, , I ) . ", I I
a
X - 2.
- t, . I I I I ., be
d!, III, lily. I ..P. I'd I I
,I,lj t a I" I I slier 7 ... ...
I -' 0 1 Ca I ff� to pe,f_ ley, 1 1, to.
_][8. Tell ". "' e�j �jr I I I 1
l_'
1. .,. 1.
A dI11-jKdl
11 r J IF if t I, . .......
rlieIrt be I, d .II III�J
doir n.
d, -y 11.11 ,1 `pp clitled fb, 11 9-til.,ilt
un I I 1.
ell Ill b" 1, 1 'd I 4! 14 o I ,
4 d
T! fle,
I
gr3lid, Pilo So],, . .
f:d, r
9. T 1. 1 r.r
I'll I by tid.
o do d i, It I'- le!-
ICJ a tedl
`p .1 111.1yr, of eve" - of he (if.]
I., e 'I it'
be 11. fir'!
A,
it I". "o.."t .1
�e,fq to to dd�ol�pld
t"
SHAI I C UVACT 7b- 111`
P�l 1-11 do., Il . I. 1. 1,
,,. I
11 FOA ca,Plrl:.E �i ni Td, FuLj,e,j:jG
.,I e
�Ilidn of m, Ill 4, 1
P,;"
d Sr.. ty C". l or.
e�,,fyty, for .
d
lite or y,,,- ""l of Ile i ....
P i I r I I
e. 1 1 Z
y"' "r latest
It fa 1, 1.
the 6111, 1 .. 11 11 1 did
eq
3dOPt III L.Ild-
,I; I., I, code. rid
1 1 1
0-11t. 1I "t". i
11 j,. led
I, Ise in ifI
yP'-e11-1-11
11jesivi4ld
tl'r . . It ,, 'ferIc
e `1 fl".111
pro
u I't;
Ildleii P,eb�,, for
2.
d
r 1. in
Va reel Y I :-Ie
111fle 0 ehl,,h Or
..l, f DIIIi-I., Fire Chi Cr tr� o"
, tIJIld.f, ".",it Id I
re,ulill".
did by d
in, plans
f to !e• IO i,,.,
for
I- Prid, I, of
f
." "l "' do to ,_y� l
Vkl .."Nil or adl I d III P' "it for A new
'I'.-
to ......
d-el'; I, do '�"fyl bell(l), the
All ii-i•• banks in I,"" I t
III, y,
o ,I,. s,l:4 I," 'i" 'd-I �pe. �Ilt :.,.1
5:1 of
Ill, I1,,I, 'e,11
�-. 't,ft Fee p � ,
F',. dr Crain F"
rand
be of
If or 11 1 ogler
'e,, p Fee S
tel
the ldtI,fdI,c,e.
,
4- Pride
'f lid"e,
I* I`e stoll-I of � be,ld ... 9 e-it for
le If, - new IwIll—il or
d
9 devOcpl,,e. t) z
-le,
Al"•, IrIgr Sd,�ILL CCbrACr
V,��jru,:,, fee. In, I III,
lE
IR CIII Ild,E
I. ledge Fee. PIr,I,i I oi pid
L I 'j,' Ili,
I -C. 1, o� lot ..
A,
_X
prom JII by the Willi, officij,
I.
6 D11 I I ed I
_ -- ". II by
ludltr.<Ied with Ii ma ter lal
-r-, y .111 "'y", If
Iend "re-
ed
2. u-Il"tior l"I I Ll "do. of the
Z I. ;s I, Il I h�,, be k,ld
olid, I'll-l—, o
lw`: -.do tend d,,,,
-1
my
LoM Fell on
d1di".ill feet I,, ------- -- AL-
Id I I i bed Z left III,
.,in ti" colon Build- Cody
3. Cerell, lin. ,,idl
d',l ed,,,n,y,
for .,d,. if ets of er-It'.9
.,ll Ell ridd I, I, Per fill lllyqIird
4. All
bblill.I".
2. 17111to, bill,
_
,.ibt, of e hil.I.Ir lre,l to
Ili
dg(l) b.or to If .in eb"eii,
il
hits
'or 11., iiie:ld�d in, Ap v.,
the building
-2k_thrQ_uq4e'3? I UUQUS to
-Ramon dAvIri noil__
shdll Ill d;fIllhed.
to "'my .,to lot 11 be fill kill.,
"y' Ill- "t' IWI) be pi-cl,i,d
9 and lell-lo CtI Ce,!,.
1, 0""'
t"' od" or i
I ld I be r ... 11ilotited I,, Cuvfnt
Nit's it, nip.
_, i wemutP ono n soil n: mode m vroJ «t rm. 1Lfi1.4_
Cir ulan n ury truest,. %I<h will rbp urea eetd, limy o /J'Le mrr[•,51
pro +erti n, r "Per.rbmr of the prerozeJ bust, es s. X 10. Wededri.i nlarea to Drivld<d b -tween Gu Cilt ssffw]lii .nd on-SIIP
u[.
na V.11 .. d [re .lint Jfin shall he r -, n.r, ._X. IL Cn, nfra:rd d, dln gt
rl n., .ul ru:rCNtau Nr Iival gd.ep. rlra,r Ilo , 'o.111
R S. All c.- S14I1 bC m: bll ^J r[o
quitNdi `el rs.n [n:Ja rrtm< rig"' 12, ,tu r .n)y Jil"I"Inr and /ar n i
"'l tnin
„[5. m t4 ..n nr tee u:y'o�: •• +roll r ones, k,
9. LLo, .nos fur r4 for r:rl ,c v an d I • t a<C: rl]n r of e a ux. rrl er t q.. I;
n J•.. dediu [tot to Le Cr' - C v,a'ic r
I: utC
.here all t•^ r.nnr• Ins, U.. v
s ,4- ....'ai ..are- -:- [nr,::..n .+', va [ ,y c..::'r% .:...11 LC reque re J. J ..: rs tee r. yr0irrlY
:! I:rcpe rty.
J. S[rcP[ IJn , ,ls ! C' Rr.^
1. Cr11trn<t loll -• -[ j ��nn [4 i n<I4dinq,` tort nit I ^r i, I -r1 tr. —� 1 drar' �'Ie l lafslideib re qu SDO'S'YIC !er <'P .t [ri:[[r:n e...... nn trle
he.s J..., v. .:Flu ._ °, a i,r a on a.. v u.e Cs IJ En"' n.
. e[s v rot 11 e:er.or S:f CCt i.a Ira..er 2. lntrr 11tipr drd ins r
A men rr um to 'C -i 't -_ well pe r <,u root a[ .r- Ivl 1. yr y fo<a [tuns;
•rte
,r inn loot e, [.11
nail tr. ..[,ec: a 9V -1- -_
ri q'L nL.,r 5 u uG
�d far ail nut t -s¢ bon es [.mo.. —• - __ .
x 3. Conte u: [ lne rLl :owin, -111n, Falls v +lle rn .. rode:.. r.J _i _ _ - ._•
linitel lo_ 1 ImproveinM ti inf luJ inq, put not the :n [rows f1a.,J n�Ir,.rge I•r n. uel,. tr tale,
[Le Irr'JVis ¢rq e, tout pr ]n' dnf p J Ir.r:. le<t to
G[R__ _ C1: -: ' tl. _- di: •/E 5 T ____ o. ul, r ur.,.r,:- •n. 3:.
J, A Jra rnayp cLrmrel and /or /'ao(I
_�_____ / N +4i:. Tttfxis OC EALty IA.a.'1 T -I O, nteft[ge HruUUres by C be[inro•tr't:o.r..al l Billt -r -a riot
ff r
P_amond 4xx � S I smr:d drd rn. , zero n,nnu m nro;z. FOr t
A:e.y.d l.• yn.as, nos tha 11 be,o . rnr do.pin .. Irs
- -I { -- --_ ______ _ _ I sarG<e dra ,d9C err;en r:g tnC p.nrenr not +ir srl er
1 <ent
eta ey .ante tram d,;,msvc • ".
t Ir I Here runo Fi (r <m [Ga tfa[[ flu..; c,¢vr Grrrs[r "n"! ° �t ell 4C r red
_x 1. Ramona ie'. `
•i nCl u.11S IdnY3<ap,ng d _ r i:::on en :e tef. 5[rea o lv:r'rnr a _ tr''S11 f• desrlr,1 d _Al .r ri, ter [
51, drive 1 cempene tien of ry<• -r.ei C.rL r yi
W a. nm n r e wa, 4r as ofmdscap tuned be,, c , ill
X_ r tp dny .ork tier; .erfer —d In the pupti[ rinnt- + +'J %or tandsoped edr [n beret °' e¢ron
a'.a11 b- pilot one a - aUaen[ or -.o l' revs • ..,,
Permit stall be of L:il -r nm one \ C ty Cn9b er.r'; Gu v<e. in av'Jr [i an to any ptnm permits reru,irN. -
Jf 5. 9ver v _x 8. tl•e toll owimr 'to"' drain spill msb llud n
O.e City Eng i.r LP to Ue "F ""Min
tiC
[ rr^Y•a d C' it trr J;pro:Pf E be
b' d R. %Its [Feud ;ry it En42n.er Y City Engineer sod PtA.a red o
r,re.- •5 .oan > <rcgr+irM. loran suer[ _Fro�_ex75Sjng catch baSin on Victo r�ia
- .:r „r to e: ,ra ae nr an Meroa<r.rM[ Pm:ei [. renal .elvenuN 1 -- -
pldrn a,:a ;.mr:ins Bran snow :re location L/ all Witin9 It slit, _d CrIl dNOf13_ V Mile- from—the'- project
'.rtnen m <ngno-oF -war- E_.___._ -. jl_ 7
X 9. Pr'i or to reor.le clan Pt tl:e md0. e ores.: -. esle r, lee lr _._1
% 6. <'. e[/ sms 11 r.: os;[ V .n'd an agfe -eIt CxKutid to the s - _ -- —
pCt C..I a E. l•n:er ar.t tn.. dt In rr. J c e;.l.•[e..o rtv r„lar tn., prnJeet shell t Ci[Y C[ nor
. C. CY. 9' +afd'et ^per. pe sub.tit of I,o nr. fur ^ le
is;uen<C pl Lm 4p n,r`IIS. 0ri, r [o «cord m3 of I., w0
0r.net4...ICnerer [ordt flrs[. L. teilitirt
_x 1. L11 zbrC[ imrya ....... .roll be fntt011ed to the sW❑ NGban of toe
C' Er ;dozer, Grscf ,a cccupa < . X I. Yrorj,, all etili'Y lerrices to ea C^ let i err s
^ / va lee, elC•C lei; 0' .er, glt, tP I PrrM P red [:slelf rr.
_'C_ 3. Pd r•r .r,l ]tr rDen let rvl;l::n en�irrri t.
ins;a l [� 1 nr ............ l' trdffrc dnJ ttrlr[ na Sr9ni ng still Dr [ton [ne
N
t.n - el llee City Eng rr.eeL enf luJ nrg to teas alon project slrall tC up[, 11 rot w:I�rynrr.nJ
F.; 9 rioter arO•r eats Irs: [rem 13 'l.
I,ry tot, rcad ngnln n9 r [enitro "I"i mall r eien For .X ] Ub lit
lfatf¢ et Al [het with dd, ;":r detours Juf inq ean,V.11on,_ A Y ea se o..,rH M]II IC provided to to vrec, /snack of the
an+ ell tot Lill pC ........ - e la Ceior the e]tt of ary n'9 alit it, MmPlnlb; an a Clt
.. M1rr. r' v C grading acs d [p 16egmrnr. i
U e u;faCb .n of Pw +C.I cPpl [ion sr [nP cons tract ion [o —%. C, Ces rl u;'cr vi:el le be red,ansible for the relocation of e,r }t iu9 Puolle
_ / fr.p Weer, utili bet. as
5. ue<Plnper s1411 Le r i
on ac[ordaeCe with Soo here Caluor^ea Cd It" l C " "n or it Fret lWellr
�m,y mea City Well rd,.
4
J
Wtn am Rod, plans Sluil be def lgned aaK lodslrocled to beet
'
rental' ew'ntf Of the Cucuenga C.un ty WA ter Dl s tr let (CCUD) fen th l I
.
Fire Dastrbt net tY [nvimnanWl [kaltb Departuent of the Cmmty
Of San pernm dime. A letter .1 saVJhh.r f. CC %D adll be n +lui m
rrapr 1p '..'-anti.,,,.
T-
ArormaR A.r. not been "Ce"d am. a1I uUlrtlos and other Jet areseea
aIllec Ill involved. .11Nrovnl of ue Ana m,p ,m be Snbiacl to any
m
r Ou i.one.. 13 t[ mr be recebea frm them.
II. Deearal
Req_ meals _sad •tpp,_e:a is
permits trmx e:n.r agencies .ill be reed r, as Iol {ps:
A. f- til-nr ter:
n.rtt AN ll- �T�e:Wirvd prTTto fs w.nm "e
p, 1:t
5an t.. od,•w County (lend Control Uis[ntl
Dinar:
p.
A "OF of M-1 - ,elenm:s, C nditions am Restrictions (C.C. & R s)
and Ar[Iele: of L,p..... then 3f in. Ibnkp„Of rs Associa tl on, subject
to the dOprowil OF eh Crtr Attorney, Shall be recorded with this nap
and a Copy rrb ided !o the City.
—3.
final parcel and tract "hi" shall con /prat W City staddards and
procedures. -
e.
A parcel .., Small be recorded prior to tint yha3e s.Edivi,IdA to
prevent creatlen OF ner cognized parcels.
S.
Landscaperand E /Shall
iignbngap l•a [rids be. filedfwiththencityi Cennell.
The ... ineerle) aos[: involved rn Distget fOrytlon Shall be here.
by lee aeve Taper.
E.
All "Fire"' lamsmped parboan an M,lo$. to For
annexed Into the
Jim scale - emb,otelu district.
righ[cotin, a Neagv Iron srste¢s repurred ad be instatlea he public
NJ) ly
tacceptat
N
wintatntl tY Ile do elck- until by the ity and annexed
into for landsenpe maintenance district.
f
1
3
S
0
1"Weet ,OF.—
d-
l'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: September 9, 1981
TO: Members of the Planning Commission ;, WW
FROM: .Jack Lam, AICP, Community Development Director
BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 80 -04 (TT 11614)
DEVELOPMENT GROUP - A total planned development of 80 Single
Family attached units on 10.1 acres of land in the R -1 and
R -1 -5 acre zones generally located on the west side of Ramona,
at Monte Vista Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -5, 6, 8 16. ,
ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development and
associated Tentative Tract Map, (Exhibit T "). The project will consist of
80 Single Family attached units on 82 lots to be located on the west side of
Ramona Avenue, south of Victoria Avenue. The proposed project meets the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements, and has passed the City's
Growth Management and Design Review process. Therefore, the planned develop-
ment, tentative tract map, and issuance of a Negative Declaration may be
considered for approval by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested review and approval of an 80 unit
project to be located on 10.1 acres of land located on the west side of
Ramona Avenue, south of Victoria Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The project site
consists of an existing orange grove, two single family residences, and a
mini- ranch. Mature Eucalyptus trees run along the south tract boundary,
through the middle of the project site, and also along Ramona Avenue. The
site is currently zoned R -1 and R -1 -5 acres (Single Family Residential), and
is designated for Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre)
on the City's General Plan. The proposed project density is approximately
8 dwelling units per acre and is therefore consistent with the General Plan.
The project site is bounded on the north by a citrus grove that has been
approved for a single family subdivision, on the south by a single family
home on approximately 5 acres of land, to the east by single family residences,
and on the west by vacant land and an approved condominium project, as in-
dicated on the Site Utilization Map (Exhibit "B "). The surrounding zoning
is shown on Exhibit "C ".
The proiect has been reviewed and rated by the Design Review and Growth
Management Review Committees in accordance with the Growth Management
Ordinance. The project received a point rating in excess of the required .. ..
threshold and is therefore eligible for Planning Commission Review. In
addition, the Conceptual Grading Plan has been reviewed by the Grading
Committee and has received approval in concept only.
l3_571
C
STAFF REPORT
September 9,. 1981
Page 2
ANALYSIS: As noted above, the project will will have anB attached Fgarage
Each dwelling es include one and two
attached units (Exhibit "E ")• Exhibit "d 1 -4'), with
and a private enclosed back yard. Dwelling unit types
story units, as shown on the attached Elevations, (E 989 square feet to
one, two, and three bedroom floor plans Then typical unit entry and planting
1,537 square feet (Exhibits "N 1 -4")• to enclose the rear
concept shown on Exhibit "!, indicates what each unit will have a th oe
a common recreation center, green belts
stucco wall at property line, or wood fence alternate ,
yard. In addition to private yards, Exhibit 'E ")•
and active play area have been prow, ay arealandea toil lot (Exhibit
pool, recreation building> spa, p .
The main vehicular access point, Street "F" is F" has been Ramona Avenue
landscaped center median.
A Private drive
directly opposite tlacce vista Street. Street 'F' has been deprived with
36' of paving plus a 5' heavily
system provides access to
all dwelling units within the projector A`_1 ,f
access point is provided at the north tract bouedLoYo and will Tconsist of
a crash gate betaeen the prof ace plan 1, have been provided
All dwelling units, with the exceptf on of floor rking spaces are being
with two -car garages. An additional 41 guests p
ro ect, therefore, the total amount of parking
provided throughout the p j
arage aprons
arking. The pedestrian circulation system within
provided exceeds City standards. Some units have 20' long g
to acco^,modate overflow P
the project is comprised reectserTe %turf iedv pedestreiao walkways a have been
located throughout the p j
incorporated into the project design at appropriate locations. A condition
has been provided that would require additional pedestrian crosswalks across
circulation aisles.
Based upon the Grading Cogs and eventuallyddrain toltheosoutheast corner
to drain to private streets, provide certain
of the property site into a 10' drainage require easthendevelopero Loop Ramona venue. ion, flood
The attached conditions of app line unless the
improvements in Ramona Avenue °. redc along the north boundary drain connection
protection devices will be
required a storm
approved project to the north develops first. Alsg,
Will be required to extend from London Avenue on the north through the
to the existing outlet structure on Ramona Avenue at the southeast
project
corner of the project site.
\ ) 3q
STAFF REPORT
September 9, 1981
Page 3
According to the Conceptual Landscape Plan, (Exhibit "I "), the applicant will
be providing a substantial amount of landscaping similar to a Special
Boulevard treatment such as raised contour berming, specimen size trees
and shrubbery, to soften the visual impact of the proposed project from
Ramona Avenue.
As indicated on the attached Ramona streetscane drawings, (Exhibit "J "), the
proposed backyard fences for lots 26 -37 have been designed with a variety
of heights and setbacks. During the Design Review stages, the applicant
was requested by the Committee to modify the design of the fencing along
Ramona Avenue to a maximum height of 3 to 4 feet of masonry block with
wrought iron on top, to which the applicant consented. As shown on the
Conceptual Landscape Plan, (Exhibit "I "), the developer intends to provide
substantial landscaping throughout the project site along greenbelts,
private drives, unit entry, turf blocked visitor parking spaces. and one
tree per rear yard. In accordance with City tree preservation policies,
a detailed tree plan will be required as a condition of approval with the
intent to preserve as many of the neaithy Eucalyptus :roes as possible.
The Design Review Committee also reviewed the building elevations and
architectural design of the project and has recommended approval of the
project. The Committee recommended that final colors and roof material
samples be provided to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance
of Building Permits. Colored renderings and elevations of these buildings
will be available for review and comment at the Planning Commission
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as
completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial
Study, and found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as
a result of this project. Staff recomtends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was placed in the Daily Report
newspaper.. In addition, approximately 36 public hearing notices were
mailed to surrounding property owners. To date, Staff has received
no public input regarding this project.
STAFF REPORT ... ----- ._.:.
September 9, 1981
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
the proposed Planned Development and Tentative Map and conduct a public
hearing to consider all public comments. If, after such review, the
Commission concurs with the attached findings and proposed conditions
of aporoval, a motion to adopt the attached Resolution of Approval with
Conditions would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL:DC:kp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "8" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Zoning Map
Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "E" - Site Plan
Exhibit "F" - Grading & Drainage Plan
Exhibit "G 1 -4" - Elevations
Exhibit "H 1 -4" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "I" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit 'U" - Ramona Streetscape
Exhibit "K" - Entry Landscaping
Exhibit "L" - Landscape Details
Initial Sutdy Part I
Resolution of Approval
Conditions of Approval
I
.rte
CITY OP
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLA\ \I \G DIVISION
I
n'ORTI I
ITEM: 9c -O'F
TITLE: L-OCA o1 J MAP
LNIII131T: _SCALE: 1" ICDG I
137
r
•-r ,,.!- nc,nR
CITY Or
RANCHO CUCAINIONGA
PLANNING DIVISION
NORTH
ITEM PP so -r)4-
TITLE: Sl'f ; MUZk-nM MRP
MIMIT _SCALE+ t1•T.S.
13R
CITY OF
RA�\CI-K) cuG\lI0\G1
PLANNING DIVISION
NORTI I
TITLE: ZGNIIJC-j NIkP
LM 11111-r: C sGat_r:
=16Ct7'
Tncr ioa9i
o it I 1
M t
t h IIrIl M /] K IS I N tJ tl N I (O I of b
STRLC_T /' n
iN Sb ^• q 58 SJ St 10
„r
+
+T u tig .I rv.gl •roe -I,rr uwro Inuv¢Ir f0` ^�1 � - --
ff or
k
'y bf 45 b] Ld N TO i•
_.Y
J --.. A L� ]b 97 fe� qI '
;k, I
If ro I I] /S if tb P/ !t of .y tn✓'
°I '7 •� ti +I it ^I it .t � n
(b°
^NTWR N014W"
—
L fy
V V
NORTH
CITY Y (X' ITEM:
RANCHO IO CUOVNIO- GA TITLGI TC- NTiiT)e,
PLANNING DIVISION CXIl111 _ _SCALD
F )/
-�
NORTI I
CITY OF rri:,M: go-o+
RANCHO CUCVNIONGA TITI.Ft -SITE Fl A )
PLANNING DIVISION' r-millIM-61 SCALD
LF
j I
-41 Fr;j 9
1 13
.... ................
--- mj
:lN
CITY OF I FEN 1: PP -04
RANG 10 CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION EX I IMIT SCALEN
)ti;
84213 rp$ .
CITY OP
RA\Cll) CUQ1MO \GA
PLANNING DIVISION
m
NORTH
[TFNI: Po W -O±
TITLE: L-C- 'VA-T la) W!;>
CXIIIBIT: SCAIx -
143
MEAN
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION'
C;��
ITEM: FD �O C74
TITLE ---Cl��L-EVA
LNIIIPIT: 6 2! SCALL
144
CrO,�N TfiYSI � E
VI�L.LAS
TM @1"
�ctiY y ..- - �•R55555�55 �WWiWWW++++
��'.D� r'
CITY or
RANCHO CUGkNIONGA
PLANNING DINTSION
Mm
V V
NORTH
ITEM; PD sc -0
TITLE: __ E L.E \/ATI OQ S
L' \I1161T���? SCALli
q5
NolUl I
CITY OF PD
RA-Ncl-K) CUCANKYNGIN 5 LLe;
PLANNING DIVISION EXI IMIT: -C- SCALE: -----
� y6�
PL 1!
\c)RTII
CM, OF ITEM: PO SD -04
R:1 \(I-IO CUCAMO\G1 Trrl.r:_��_ePL�tN --
PLAN'NIN'G DI%'ISK) \` exmnn' -I_SC
147
f5l-�
NORTI i
CITY (XI, —FO go -oq
I t, 1 ,NC 110 C UG VN IONGA
PLANNING DIVISION SCALE;
Nb
r-
C V
N AT11
CITY OF
_� 8o -04
R:1 \CI IO Ct GAIN'IO \CA TITLE: FLloo(2 PL t�
PLANNING DIVISION GSIIIITI*: +I Scm,l
) U`9
. . I . m=14'.
CITY (T
RANCITIO cuc-I.NIOIXGA
PLANNING DIVISIO.";
IM )RI'l I
I FEN]: ED -GD -c--4-- Pl THIL: FLOC P-
LN I I I RIT: {'h SCA I.r.:
RANCID C UCAN IONG.
PLANNING DIVISION
K/
NIORTI I
K/
'ie�l�ealfvoi��'••.' /4
CITY OF
RANCI-K) CUC1N'IO.\G\
PLANNING DIVISION
N I'II
TI'1'Ill—pttv� I c—FT-nCi11
EXIIIBI ; SCALE _
1� d
nTmv nT T., XTn TTn n
STAFF REPO RT��r�, tic
9
�I J
r
1977
DATE: October 1, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -03 - DAON -
A proposed change in zone from M -2 General Manufacturing
to C -2 (General Business Commercial) on 18 acres of land
located on thenortheast corner of Arrow and Haven -
APN 208- 622 -01
ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 9, 1981,
held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the above- described
Zone Change request. The Planning Commission, after reviewing Staff's
recommendation, adooted Resolution No. 81 -100 which recommends adoption
of the above - described Zone Change. the request for a Zone Change is
in response to Conditions of Approval regarding the development of the
K -Mart Department Store. At the time K -Mart was presented to the Plan-
ning Commission, the Commission requested that a change of zone be accom-
plished prior to final occupancy of the structure in order that the site
would bein strict compliance with the General Plan. Attached is a copy
of the September 9, 1981 Planning Commission Staff Report which fully
describes the Zone Change request. If the City Council concurs with
the change of zone, two actions are required; (1) adoption of a Negative
Declaration by Minute action, and (2) approval of the Zone Change
through adoption of the attached Ordinance.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice has been placed in The Daily Report newspaper
advertising this as a public hearing and notices were sent to property
owners within 300' of the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence
has been received either for or against this project. In addition, at
the Planning Commission public hearing, no one spoke in opposition to
the proposed change of zone request.
��3
Environmental Assessment & Zone Change 81 -03 - Daon
City Council Agenda
October 7, 1981
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the
attached Ordinance approving Zone Change No. 81 -03 and issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Resoectfuliy submitted,
1JlJ�
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL:DC:jr
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Planning Commission Resolution No. 81 -100
Planning Commission Staff Report of September 9, 1981
1 6�4
ORDINANCE N0, 1,-?
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
208- 622 -01 GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
HAVEN AND ARROW, FROM M -2 TO C -2.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time
and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of
the property hereinafter described, and this City Council
has held a public hearing in the time and manner pre-
scribed by law as duly heard and considered said recommen-
dation.
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.
Assessors Parcel Number 208- 622 -01, located on the
northeast corner of Haven and Arrow, from M -2 (General
Industrial) to C -2 (General Commercial).
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City
Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of
general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
l�s
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -100
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAPh;NGA PLANNING
- CO'n42SSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZO;IE CHANGE
N0, 81 -03 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM
M -2 TO C -2 FOR 18 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORKER OF HAVEN AND ARROW AVENUES - APO 208 - 622 -01.
WHEREAS, on the 17th day of'August, 1981, an application was
filed and accepted on the above described oroject; and
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of September, 1981, the Planning
Cormission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section
65854 of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planninq C,ommissinn has made
the fgllo'ainn `indinys:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses perritted
in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and conoatibility,
sith existing land use in the surrounding area;
2. The proposed zone change would not have significant
impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties;
and
3. That tho rise., .... ... .. .. .,,_
General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found
that this Eroect will not create a significant adverse impact on the
environ^ent and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on
September 9, 1981.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California
Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 9th
day of September, 1981, Zone Change No. 81 -03.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt Zone Change No, 81 -03.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
cntarial hereby adopted by the Planning C,ommiscion ahall
HP forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ACOPTEO THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981,
PI-X91 MG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
l��
` ��
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of September, 1981 by the following vote
to -wit:
:1'l ES: C0:TMISSIONEP.S: Dahl, Sceranka, Rempel, Tolstoy, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
n nvv nc' n n vnvn nr rn % nMNrc n
STAFF REPORT
v I>
irr I
DATE: September 9, 1981
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 81 -03 - DAON
CORPORATION - A or000sed change of zone from M -2
General Manufacturing) to C -2 (General Business /Commercial)
on 18 acres of land located on the northeast corner of
Arrow and Haven - APN 208 - 622 -01.
A35TRACT: As a condition of approval for the development of the K -Mart
Department Store, the applicants are requesting a change of zone to a
commercial designation for compliance with the adopted City General Plan.
Staff has reviewed the request and has processed the change of zone in
accordance with all legal requirements and is now presenting this request
to the Planning Commission r:ith a recorm:enJati cn of approval to the City
Council.
BACKGROUND: The applicants, Daon Corporation, are requesting approval for
change
a of zone from General Manufacturing to General Business /Commercial
on 18 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven Ave-
nues (Exhibit "A "). This request is in response to the Conditions of Appro-
val regarding the development of the K -Mart Department Store. At the time
K-Mart was presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission had re-
quested that a change in zone to commercial be accomplished prior to final
occupancy of the structure in order that the site would be in strict com-
pliance with the General Plan. The site is partially under construction
based upon the approval of the K -Mart Department Store application and
many of the off -site improvements such as the curbs and gutters have
already been installed. The remaining portions of the site are presently
vacant and are planned for commercial uses in accordance with the adopted
`taster Plan of Development for this area. The General Plan designates
this site as comnercial uses.
ANAU"31s: The Planning Division has conducted an analysis in regards
to the request in comparison to the adopted City General Plan and the
'faster Plan of Development for the Daon project. It was found that the
subject property is suitable for the types and uses permitted in the
'`� ITEM 9
Environmental Assessment /Zane Change 81 -03
September 9, 1997
Page 2
proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing
and planned land uses in the surrounding area. Additionally, the pro-
posed zone change would not have a significant impact upon the environ-
ment and is in conformance with the City's General Plan.
The applicant has completed Part I of the Environmental Assessment and
Staff has completed a field investigation and Part II of the Environ-
mental Assessment. As a result of the completion of the Initial Study,
Staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a
result of this project and recommends the issuance of a Negative Declara-
tion.
CORRESP05DEICE: A notice of public hearing was placed in The Daily Report
newspaper on August 28, 1981, advertising this item as a public hearing.
In addition, aperoximately 7 public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, we have received
no correspondence either for or against this project.
RECO�9REIDAT 1071: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct
the required oublic hearing to receive all public input. If, after com-
pletion of the rr-iblic hearing, the Commission can make the necessary
findings required by law, then it is recommended that the attached Reso-
lution be adopted which recommends approval of the Zone Change to the
City Council.
Respectfully sub:nitted,
1
lm�JAC)f1
Director of Community Develooment
JL:IIV: jr
Attachment;: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Part I Initial Study
Resolution of Approval
z 'J 7
I
FARCIL 3
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCXNIO.N(ljk
PLANNING DIVISION
r� V
Nol"I I I
ITEM:
Tffu;
EXIIIBIT:26' —S(-,Al,l:: k""
Ab
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.110%GA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To he completed by applicant
Environnental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00
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
Coanittee will meet and taka action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to he heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: K Mart Retail Shopping Center
RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS P
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
Daon Corporation, 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Weac
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Jack H. Corrigan, General
Manager Commercial /Industrial 714/752 -7855
L40CATTON OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
NW corner Arrow and Haven, Rancho Cucamonga
LIST OTHER PER:-!ITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDEFAL AGENCIES AND THE, AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
1 -1�((
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
— Cenmercial Retail Center with adjacent parking lot and
landscaping
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
annros. 18 acres
DESCR:_E THE ENVr ^` ?'?YPAL SETT"',G OF THE PROJECT SITE
I.:CL'.'D -NG INFO N ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
A=-!: ANY CULTU AAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF Si;F27,017DING PROPC7TIES, A.:D THE DESCRIPTICN O? ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS)
negative declaration
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series
of cu=mulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
_ The project is a part of a larger project consisting of
approximately 240 acres.
1-1
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YF.S NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration.?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
x 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORT.I >iT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be recuired to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee. /r '
Date August 10, 1981. Signatuze <.•�,!.� <<z r: �t�
Jack H. Cor�Jan
Title General Manager,
Commercial /Industrial
l Ffy U1'' KANUIIV UIJI:AMUNiA
STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 7, 1961
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
cx" o
U' >
SUBJECT: APPEAL ! �F PIA ING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE PREPARATION
OF AN FNVIRONM NTA IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 11933 - A 185 single family planned
development on 95.5 acres of land located on Hermosa Avenue
north of Hillside
IV, ;
ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission, at their meeting of August 26, 1981
required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the develop-
ment of Tentative Tract No. 11933, The Commission's decision was based upon
the Initial Study which was prepared in accordance with the State Environ-
mental laws and which indicates that potential significant adverse impacts
may occur as a result of this project. The Planning Commission Staff Report
and an excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes is attached for your
review. It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning COnnmi5-
decision to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for
this project.
BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the letter from Richard Scott, Chairman
-6f the Board for Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. who has requested an
appeal of the Planning Commission decision for the preparation of an Enviorn-
mental Impact Report on the above - described project. Mr, Scott's reasoning
for the appeal is not based upon the Commission's review of the Environmental
Assessment and the type of impacts that are associated with this project, but
rather based upon reasons that previous discussions on the project, prior to
its formal submittal, did not indicate that an Environmental Impact Report
would be required. Mr. Scott's letter refers to a number of projects being
submitted for review during the last 13 months. None of the projects which
Mr. Scott refers to were formal applications, but were conceptual plans that
were being shown to the Commission and Council during the General Plan process
to show the type of development that could occur on their site. The majority
of the site is General Planned for park and the developer was trying to per-
suade the Council, during the General Plan hearings, that development could
be compatible in the area.
i 4
Staff Report
EIR for TT 11933 -2- October 7, 1981
During review of the Conceptual plans at the General Plan hearings, no
environmental analysis was done since no formal application had yet been
submitted. The applicants submitted an application on April 29, 1981
and staff notified the applicants on June 1, 1981 that the project
application was incomplete and additional material was needed. Following
the submittal of additional material the applicant was again notified
on June 26, 1981 thet his project was complete for processing and that
final acceptance is not made until all envirommntal documents and findings
are complete as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Following a notification of acceptance of the application for processing,
the project was scheduled for Design Review Committee and Growth Management
Review Committee on August 4 and 6, 1981 respectively. Following the con-
clusion and findings of those Committee meetings, staff's environmental
analysis was completed which resulted in a finding of potential significant
adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. This
recommendation was then forwarded to the Planning Commission who acted in
favor of the preparation of the EIR. At the Planning Commission hearing,
two citizens in close proximity of «e project, testified before the Com-
mission asking for the preparation of an EIR because of the environmental
factors related to this project.
Our Attorney has indicated that environmental review has been an active
area in the courts and some standards for judicial review havc. been developed
regarding the requirement for environmental reports. The Attorney indicated
that if reasonable minds are questioning whether or not significant impacts
will result because of the project then the courts have upheld the decision
for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Further, the State
Environmental Guidelines state that where a substantial body of opinion
considers or will consider the effect of a project to be adverse that the
lead aoency should prepare an Enviornmental Impact Report to explore the
enviornmental effects involved with the project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission decision to require the preparation of an Enviornmental Impact
Report for Tentative Tract No. 11933.
Respec ully ub 'tted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV:cd
Attachments: Letter of Appeal from Woodland Pacific Development Inc.
Excerpt from the August 26, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report from August 26, 1981
ME
li-
P—acd- q
September 2, 1981
The City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
c/o City Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
fic0ic,
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
RE: Tract u ,'11933 PDSI03 - Property located on both sides of
Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside
Gentlemen:
Please consider this letter to constitute our appeal of the
Planning Commission's requirement of an Envirnomental Impact
Report in connection with the proposed development of this
property.
During the last thirteen months, a number of projects have
been submitted for review to planning staff, Planning Commission,
and Council, through our consultants, The Planning Center, and in
no instance has there ever been mention of the requirement of an
Environmental Impact Report. Indeed, on a number of occasions,
there have been specific conversations in which it was stated
that an Environmental Impact Report would not be required.
In addition, in a meeting on April 2, 1981, attended by the
undersigned, Mr. Barry Hogan, Mr. Jack Lam, and Mr. Lauren
Wasserman, this project was discussed in detail, and assurances
were given to the undersigned that if we were to file during
April, 1981, that planning department processing would be ex-
pedited. The general tone of that meeting was that the City of
Rancho Cucamonga was sympathetic to the problems of our having
waited for several years to move this project forward, and that
needless and time consuming processings and submissions would be
avoided.
We thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Vey sincorly your
Richard .J. S ott, Chairman of the Board
Woodland Pa 'fie Development, Inc.
RNS /bb3
1111 WEST NINTH STREET • UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786 • 714.946.1802
Excerpt from the Official City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes
of Au�lust 26, 1981
G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A public hearing to consider
a requirement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on a
total planned residential development of 185 single family detached units
and a 14.6 acre Dark on 95.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located
on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Chairman King asked Mr. Vairin if what was before the Commission at this meeting
was the determination of whether or not the project in question needed an Environ-
mental Impact Report.
Mr. Vairin replied that this was Staff's intention.
Commissioner Dahl asked if the density of the project had any bearing on the
draft EIR.
Mr. Vairin replied that the density was over the 2 dwelling unit per acre desig-
nation of the General Plan and would, therefore, require a General Plan amendment.
However this is not the sole reason for an EIR.
Commissioner Dahl called attention to the fact that a Resolution had been adopted
by the Planning Commission regarding lots in the R- 1- 20,000 zone classification
that the lot size would be 20,000 square feet net.
Mr. Vairin stated that this would have to be resolved by the applicant in the EIR
Process.
Mr. Vairin stated that the EIR would cover many aspects of the project, one of them
being the land use category.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the General Plan designation on the west side of
Hermosa is a Park designation.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Templeton of the Planning Center in Newport Beach represented Mr. Dick
Scott of Woodland Pacific. He stated that this project began approximately a
year ago and at that time representatives of the Planning Center had met with
City Staff to see what the requirements would be for this project and if an EIR
would be necessary. Mr. Templeton stated that Staff informed him that an EIR
would not be required. He further stated that geologic, soil, and hydrology
reports had been obtained by the Planning Center as well as the study into
various types of fire retardant materials. He said that the applicant would
be willing to sell the property to the City as a park as well as many other
alternatives. lie stated that Mr. Scott would be placed under financial burden
if this project were postponed another five to six months while an EIR was
being processed.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the property in question has been for sale since
April and that thisapplicant may not necessarily be the person who would develop
this property, therefore he felt that it could not be deemed a hardship that the
Commission would be placing on the applicant to request an EIR.
Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1981
167
Mr. Templeton replied that this was placed in the newspaper approximately nine
months after submittal and at that time Mr. Scott felt that he was getting no
where with his project.
Mr. Vairin stated that he would like to clear up three items which Mr. Templeton
commented on. One comment being the length of time since the project was filed.
Mr. Vairin stated that the project was not officially filed until April of 1981.
The second issue is not whether or not the City would be losing a park but is that the
area is General Planned far a Dark and the person who develops that land will
have to deal with the issue of whether the City wishes the development of a
park. The third issue was the density factor and this would be one of the
points of the EIR.
Ronnie Stevens, who lives in the area adjacent to the project site, stated that
she was in favor of an EIR because of the very serious drainage, circulation,
and police and fire problems in the area.
Christine Benoit, Alta Loma resident, asked if the project would be brought
back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing after the completion of
and EIR.
Mr. Vairin replied that the EIR would he used to help mold and design the fin-
ished project or help the decision makers to decide whether, the project should
be approved. He explained that the EIR is a tool to determine the kinds of
impacts as a result of this project the way it is proposed or alternatives to
the project.
Mr. Lam stated that the developer df this property would have serious drainage
problems to consider as they are at the top of the Alta Loma Channel and this
issue would be a consideration of the developer.
Commissioner Sceranka asked for an explanation of what the Commission's respon-
sibilities were when a project such as this was filed with the City.
Mr. Lam replied that anyone is free to submit an application to the City with
what ever proposal they have.
Christine Benoit stated that she hoped that the Commission would keep in mind
that the beauty of the area was the reason for designating the area as park in
the General Plan.
Chairman King asked if there were further comments, there being none, the public
hearirg was closed.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was very concerned about this particular
piece of property. He stated that very few cities in the area are fortunate
to have a forest and it was his intention as a Planning Commissioner to retain
this piece of forest as the General Plan designation of Park. He further
stated that economic considerations of the applicant were not an issue that
the Planning Commission should deal with. Commissioner Sceranka stated that
he was totally opposed to any mechanism other than an EIR for this project
which would discuss the issues presented by Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 26, 1981
11P b
Chairman King stated that he felt that an EIR should not be required for the
property. The type of development he felt was appropriate for the area would
be of such extremely low density that it would not mitigate environmental
impacts. He further stated that everyone was aware of the mitigating circum-
stances of the fault zones and drainage problems plus all of the other areas
addressed in the reports attached to the Staff Report and it was his opinion
that if the prooerty were planned properly at a very low density that there
would be no impacts. He felt that the project as proposed would have many
impacts, but if it were planned properly it would not.
Commissioner Dahl stated that density would have a tremendous amount of impacts
and the decision at this meeting must be based upon the Tentative Map as it was
submitted to the City. He asked if the Commission could state that, based upon
the density shown, an EIR would be required; however, if the developer wished
to come back with a lower density, the EIR would be reconsidered.
Mr. Vairin replied that the decision is to be made on whether or not an EIR
must be made on this 'ientative Map as submitted. if this statement is made
to the developer, they would have the option to drop this tentative and draw
up a completely new project thus necessitating a new Initial Study to deter-
mine what potential impacts would be created from that project.
Bob Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the area of environmental
review has been an active area in the courts and some standards for judicial
review have been developed to either require or not require EIRs. He further
stated that the trend of the decisions have been towards the requirement of
an EIR if there is any doubt on how the issue should be resolved. If the
question of whether or not significant impacts are a result of the project
is debatable, then the courts deem that an EIR should be prepared. The
effect upon a developer in not requiring an EIR when one should be required
could be more severe than if a Negative Declaration was issued and a court
ordered an EIR prepared a year or so later. It could have a financial impact
upon the City as the attorney fees are frequently awarded against the City
where the decision was not to require an EIR and the City was sued over that
decision.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if this area was designated as a park in the General
Plan shouldn't the Commission be acting upon a negative impact on the General
Plan amendment before action on the Tentative Map.
Mr. Vairin replied that it would be done concurrently.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he could not understand Chairman King's
statement that there are no negative impacts or an EIR required on a piece
of property where a General Plan amendment would have to be made from a park
designation to a proposal for a subdivision development. He felt that an EIR
would most definitely be required when you were completely changing the land
use of a piece of prooerty.
Mr. Vairin stated that the State Guidelines states that public controversy
alone was grounds to require an EIR, despite the issue of density.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 26, 1981
4
Commissioner Sceranka stated " *it the proposal on this property is to take a
public park and make it a private park.
Commissioner Rempel stated that it is not a park, it is a proposed possible
park. He further stated that he was in agreement with Chairman King that
the applicants come in with a proposal of a much lower density. He also
stated that a study of the fire danger in that area should be looked into.
Chairman King asked for a motion.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Dahl, carried, to require an Environmental
Impact Report for Tentative Tract 11933.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Dahl, Rempel, Sceranka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 26, 1981
W
CnTmv AP. U n XT=n Of TO n nenXTO A
STAFF REPORT°
is
August 26, 1981
H e
1977
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933
wwoLnnu rnw ray - m cocci piannea oevelopment or iuo single tam
detached units and a 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the
R -1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside.
ABSTRACT: The project is a single family residential development submitted
in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. Since this project
appears to have environmental concerns, an Initial Study was perpared for
the Planning Commissions consideration and review.
BACKGROUND: The project is located on the east and west side of Hermosa
Avenue, north of Hillside. The project site totals 95.5 acres. 185 single
family detached homes are proposed to be built on 80.9 acres while a park
will be developed on the remaining 14.6 acres. The proposed Tentative Tract
Map, Exhibit "B ", indicates that 149 lots are 12,000 sq. ft. and 36 lot are
20,000 sq. ft. Current zoning is R- 1- 20,000, and the General Plan designates
the majority of the property as a proposed park site. The applicant is re-
questing a General Plan Amendment to very low density (less than 2 dwelling
units per acre) and a zone change to the PD Combining District. The surrounding
zoning and land use is provided on the attached Zoning Map (Exhibit "C ").
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Approximately 80% of the site is densely covered
with 65 -year old red gum Eucalyptus trees which are in good condition. The
overall gradient of this site is approximately 10% with the slope running
north to south. The majority of this site empties into a natural drainage
course which flows northeast to southwest. Runoff from the easterly portions
of this site travels into a channel which runs along the east project boundary
then turns west along the south of the property line. Surface runoff is very
slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Cutting across the northern part of
the property is the Cucamonga Fault. Existing development on site is limited
to Hermosa Avenue, a concrete reservoir near the south property line, a forest
service road along the north project boundary, several internal dirt roads,
and small borzon pits in the northwest portion of this site.
The project site is bounded on the north by the foothills and isolated single
family homes. To the southwest lies an existing single family residential
development. A subdivision application, Tentative Tract 10088, has been filed
along the western project boundary. To the south and east there is a variety
of land uses including agricultural uses, single family residences, vacant land,
and a flood control basin.
ITEM G
►W
TT 11933 (P.D. 81 -03)
Staff Report -2- August 26, 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by
the applicant and is attached for your review. Staff has conducted a field
investigation and has completed Part II of the Initial Study. Following is
a brief discussion of the major issues and potential adverse impacts which
may occur as a result of this project.
1. Drainage: Currently, the onsite soils are excessively drained and
the absorption rate is high. This project could significantly increase
runoff by increasing the amount of impervious surfaces which do not
allow water to seep into the gound. Compounding this problem, is the
fact that approximately 750 acres of land outside of the project area
drain into and across the site. The magnitude to which the increased
runoff will affect the ground water table and erosion potential is not
known.
2. Biota: Removing a large number of Eucalyptus trees from the site
could significantly reduce a wildlife habitat which is unique to this
area. The environmental impact of this action is not known.
3. Land Use: Since the project site is designated as a park in the
General Plan, construction of this project may necessitate the need
for another park in the general vicinity. It is uncertain whether the
short term benefit of the development of a 14.6 acre park will override
the City's long -term goal of providing a much larger park some time in
the future. Also, the economic feasibility of the City developing the
entire Eucalyptus grove as a park, or the feasibility of purchasing an
alternate site must be considered.
A determination of the most appropriate land use configuration and density
should be made. The possible alternatives could range from the clustering
of homes on smaller lots to maximize open space or to maintaining a minimum
lot size of ; acre or larger throughout the project site.
4. Public Safety: Public Safety is a concern which must also be addressed.
Faintaining the maximum number of Eucalyptus trees will make the homes
highly susceptible to fire. Potential fire hazard is increased for this
site because the northern project boundary abuts the foothills. Also of
concern is the Cucamonga Fault which runs through the northern portion of
the property. Since the magnitude of an earthquake in this fault could
reach 6.5 to 7.0 on the Richter Scale, there is a significant public safety
concern.
0
TT 11933 (P.D. 81 -03)
Staff Report -3- August 26, 1981
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon staff's review and preparation of the
Initial Study, it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report
be prepared for this project. If the Commission concurs with this
finding, then the scope of the E.I.R. should be determined by consi-
dering the information presented in the Initial Study, this report,
and the public hearing.
Respectfully su mitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL:CJ:cd
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Vicinity Map
Tentative Tract Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Grading (two sheets)
Natural Features Map
Conceptual Landscaping Plan
173
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LIT-
p 0 cr
VICINITY MAP
ji
'Ropo 3
=t
NORTH
crry oi,, -C,-- -r 11 q
RANCHOC UG \ i\'Io,\( "A TITLE: --vic —1p (T�l AKf
PLANNING DIVISION' L\1 11BIT JI Afl SCALE;
)-7q
P"
RANCHO
CAMONGA
A-
N
VICINITY MAP
ji
'Ropo 3
=t
NORTH
crry oi,, -C,-- -r 11 q
RANCHOC UG \ i\'Io,\( "A TITLE: --vic —1p (T�l AKf
PLANNING DIVISION' L\1 11BIT JI Afl SCALE;
)-7q
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933
ji
Ip
. rw vrr o uw,n cuc.ww,
ua.w ••••••••••••• rur, n. wem
• E `a
_
THE WOODS AT RLINCHO CUUMMIGA
A Planned Conimunity by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc.
'
^1
ITF_M a 175 E �i 111 11 8311
I
THE WOODS AT RANCHO (UCAMONGA
A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc.
1 TLM G %(o rw HIT' "C."
o� p U
STREET SECTIONS
J n
}
xr�, -
Navu�,Am
� r � _� � A� ✓ � 'ti�
i t
sBuvD CKS1�
i
PAHK SRE�
uuwn.ru[nwn }nu
�(1, : nom cwnna
\ ww
111 O61M0
• u,w.0 uumn
t �
FENCING
n ncn
VICINITY MAP
T 4�'
177
THE WOODS AT RANCHO (UCAMOHGA �m <
A Planned Community by iodfand Pacific Development, I=
ITr- �,l r-� vo Wii =n`' v
C
CONCEPTUAL
mWU.rc.s
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
"`rte
11.1. ...
Yt..Y.M WY
1
+.I
Y .0 . 1. .n � m.Yu
.r
LiF,a, Elam
YC1.0.
MC1q tY. 100W FIlY1
yy
Y . u ro 1.1
TYPICAL FINISH GRADING PLANS
THE WC: ®DS AT Adil(H 9 WCAM011GAd W
A Planned Community by Woodland P26fic Dmiopff*nt 1
IYT ' ( & F,)wg TAE os"-r ► cf z.
CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
air a e. a avaa
TT
THE �9 ®5 AT RQ�'tHO CUcgMejjGA �.
4 PlamW Community by Wc6dland Pacific Ombpment, Inc.
I
EIN'LLxVfVZ GROVE / FO pll \'�. \�1 1 ` I-i
• \ \ l\
SIRf1E TREES
Y.. sLOMNG CO�TMH
\ ��
r+w
ln' A� 1\
/ xRruRpE oRpwpcE
\ I
t 1111
I
e� }11
. - ___..c ...
! GU
THE WOODS AT RANCHO CUC61MONU
A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc.
11TM G V?XMIPNT "F"
CIIY OF R.1);CI70 CUC-V!0 %CA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT I;d'rtl RMATION SKEET - To be completed by applicant
Enviro!=ental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00
For all Projects recuirirg environmental review, this
form rust be ccmpleted and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department oinere the
Project application is wade. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Pali II o° the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet an tR,[e action no later than ten
(10) days before the p.blip meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The C=s i *_tee will make one cf
three d� terminations: 1) The project will have no
envircnmental impact and a Negative Dnclaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an ervirormantal impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prcnared, or
3) An additional infor- ,aticn report should be supplied
bg the applicant giving further information concerning
the prcposea __.
PROJECT TITLE: The Woods
APPLIC:d7T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
NANE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: above and Peter Templeton, The Planni
(714) 640 -4911
WCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Herrosa Avenue - North of HIllside (see attached)
LI ^T CTHER Pli:^..'dI'i'S NECESSPnRY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
PED:PAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUI::G SUCH PERAlITS:
T -1 J!�/
I
J
F11
>11 P,
r--
A
KEI
4
rL^w
THE WCODS AT ROCHO MAMCHGA
A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc.
P�
PROJFCT DESCP.IPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The development of detached single- family
units on 14.9 -_12,000 sq. ft. lots and 36- 20,000 sq.ft. lots for a
total of 185 units plus dedication of a 14.6 acre park witTi improve-
ment for same as a natural park with equestrian facinties.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANTTY: 95.5 acre
DESCRIBE THE SETTT "G OF THE PROJECT SITE
INC Li; D I`: ^v IiLFO R:dlTIOS G:: TO FCG v ?PciY, PLl]TS (TZ °ES),
ANI :L>.LS, P. \Y CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCr'NIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURFDT:CDI`:C PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSr.RY SHEETS):
- See attachment
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series
of cuca:lative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
no
.y
x -z 183
WILL ^ ?iIS P OJECT:
Yrs NO
X 1. Create a subst=antial change in ground
contour,?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial chance in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)!
X 4. Crcate changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
_ X 6. Create the need for use or dianosal of
potentially hazardo•,_s m=aterials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosive_?
LxpInnation of any YES answers above: (3) The project, by going
from undeveloped to developed has the Dotential of chanaino the demand
for services ouc ;nouid De witnin Gte acceptea range. I4) the appiicati
is a request for a GPA and a PD addition to the zoning classification.
5 Trees will be removed for streets and buiTding enve open an td -tire
i1•t?J'r :T : =.li: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to tho
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my lcr,00 ;ledge and belief. I further understand that
adQitional information may be required to be submitted
befcre an adequate evallation can be made by the Devclapmo c
Review Committee. r�
Date /&%L /�,Eo/ Signatur
i
Title
CmsT r.I:CTTDN
The following in`_crnation should be provided to the City of F.ancbo Cucaaonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the agility of the
school district to accc. ^Odate the prcpesed residential developr..en:.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:_Woodland Pacific Development Inc.,
TT #11933
Specific Location o` Project: Hermosa Avenue, North of Hillside
1. I:u^.cer of sin le
fami'•- units:
2. ZS U.::^ of null die
fan;ly unit.
3. Date me ?osed to
becin ccnstructicn:
4. rar.iest c_,._ of
oc -.
and - of Tentative
5. Fed_•o c-.s Price
all
PHASI I PEASE 2 P S E 3 PV�..Sr,
The development will have six phases as indicated
on the phasing exhibit. Construction activities
will start approximately 120 days after recordation
with each phase approximately 6 months apart.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - THE WOODS
Topography
Located at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest,
The Woods has a high elevation in the northeast corner of
2170 feet above sea level dropping to a low point along
the southern boundary line of 1960 feet above sea level
(1920 within the drainage area). The overall gradient of
the site is 10 %, with the slope running from north to
south.
Running through the site in a northeast to southwest
direction is a natural drainage course. That portion of
the site west of the drainage area has a gradual sloping
condition toward the drainage areas. That portion east of
the drainage area, although also having a gradual change,
slopes easterly forming the western limits of the drainage
area (see attached USES map).
The development concept for this project results in mini-
mal grading with grading only for streets, access, and
housing structure.
Vegetations
Approximately 60% of the site is densely planted with red
gum eucalyptus (Eucaiypcus camaidulensis) approximately
65 years old. The densely planted conditions of the site
have not permitted the average tree diameter formation,
however, overall the trees are in good condition.
The limits of the densely planted conditions are shown on
the following exhibit. As can be seen from this exhibit,
the groves do not exist on the most eastern and western
portions on the site.
The "Woods" plan will preserve the maximum number of trees
possibly restricting tree removal to that necessary for
streets, access, building envelope and fire station.
Additionally, those areas not now planted will have intro-
duced eucalyptus.
Riparian habitat exist in the natural drainage areas of
the site and will be preserved in the park area.
Suils
The site lies in the northwestern portion of the San
Bernardino Valley in an area of granular alluvial soils.
These soils, derived from the San Gabriel Mountains, have
been deposited to great depths.
b� •c." qlr rrry '\ �� C.*`� � h' 7 1 I ��. ,. .� � .. r�P` t /. -�l
r I ri I I L ,. �� � r I : /. -, 4 �I i�ti ✓� �} � � "� 13
l.J` ti, S'I lr.•.,�i '_`��J'1.. k '��., 'oM ^�kw�'e, a•N`tinl N p.l.i
i
NAG F��C RBS
1 t .
/ \ 1
{ !\ : (�- SITE__.
k
jr I
••e. --
v
r
MIANT
do
.0
US s
fr
h � ,
ex
- - -��., tt
1. `..»'•, ;`(-.1. ;�'
THE WOODS AT RaMCHO CUUt1t ONCA
A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. —=
!'
l
Soils in this area are part of the Tujunga- Soboba Associa-
tion. A soil association is a landscape that has a dis-
tinctive proportional pattern of soils. Specifically,
these soils are of the Soboba gravelly, loamy sand series
(SOC), are nearly level to moderately sloping, and are
excessively drained. Runoff on these soils is very slow,
cro S on hazard is slight, and the aearee of 14iitation for
septic tank absorption fields is also slight.
Test holes encountered surface layers of light drown to
a ark yellow -brown silty sands with gravel, cobbles, and
boulders underlain by dark grey -brown sands with gravel,
cobbles, and boulders, or red -brown very silty sands with
gravel, cobbles, and boulders, which are further underlain
by light Crown sandy gravels with cobbles and boulders to
the maximum depth penetrated.
h full soils engineering rcpCrt prcparad by Riciiard ills
Associates, Inc., 9223 -C Archibald Avenue; Rancho
Cucamonga, CA 91730, ( 714 ) 989 -1751, is available upon
request. The study aid not indicate that soils would be a
problem during this development of the site provided
guidelines are followed.
Seismicitv
The Foods is located largely on the northwest extremity of
the Deer Canyon alluvial fan in the upper San Bernardino
:alley.
The northwost portion of the property extends locally into
the foothills of the San Gabriel Moonta ins and is tran-
secLed by the Cucamonga fault. An Alquist- Priolo Special
Studies Zone nas been established for this fault. Beurock
exposures are limited to the foothills area north of the
fault.
Tire potentially active Cucamonga fault cuts across the
northern part of the property. It is typically a thrust
fault striking N60 -81E and dipping from zero to .19 degrees
north. Significant local variations in strike and dip
suggest an uneven thrust plane. The southerly dip has
been noted in adjacent areas along the Cucamonga fault.
It may represent a "tectonic - slide" feature: the movement
of the eoge of the thrust plate downs lope across the land
surface during repeated fault movement.
Tne m., r, ini um crediirle eartnquake magnitude for the
Cucamonga fault., and for other active or potentially
active faults that should he considered in design are
listed below;
9
Distance to Magnitude Maximum
Site (Ni.) Cr eaibleI
San Andreas 10 8.5
San Jacinto 7.5 7.5
'w h ittier 20 7.5
Cucamonga On -Site 6.5 -7.0
A full seismicity report is available from Richard III iI is
Associates, Inc., 9223 -C Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cuca-
monga, CA 91730; (714) 989 -1751, upon request. Said
investigation indicates that the site is considered feas-
ible for development within the limitation and require-
ments contained within the seismicity investioation.
Groundwater
Small seeps representing local groundwater occurrences
concentrated by the clay faultgouge were noted in the
northwest portion, but were not in evidence on the exist-
ing ground surface.
A small spring discharging less than an estimated 1 gal/
min. was noted add ut 130 feet north - northeast of the
northeast property er, I ,,.t_ `r-7 this 9
in evidence on the site.
Surface water flowing at an estimated rate of 1 gal. /min.
disappeared into the alluvium (qal) at the existing sub -
drain located approximately 325 feet northeasterly of the
Hermosa Avenue cul-de-sac.
The Seismic Refraction Survey suggests a possible isolated
groundwater table at depths of 45 -75 feet along Seismic
Lines 3.
Drainage Analysis
The Woods is bounded on the north by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power Transmission line right -of -
way and the south by a county roadway.
A drainage review of the site was made by the County Flood
Control Uistrict in the late 1960'5 and the information is
contained in their file 106.0302. A drainage study made
for this report yields results consistent with District's.
9D
Comprehensive Storm Drain Project No. 2 (CSDP2), System
No. 3, is intended to serve the area. Construction of the
Corps of Engineers' Hillside Basin and Channel are re-
quirea before the CSDP2 system can function adequately as
proposed.
Approximately 750 acres, offsite, drain to and across the
site. Of these, about 484 acres will be intercepted by
the Hillside Basin and Channel System, construction of
which is currently scheduled to commence in the spring of
1932. Development of the site prior to 1982 must allow
for the possibility of flows from the approximately 390
acres of drainage from Hillside Creek as well as the
approximately 94 acres east of the Hillside Creek drainage
boundary and north of the proposed Hillside Channel.
Existing drainage improvements on the site, constructed in
connection with the improvement of Hermosa Avenue, include
from north to south respectively, a 48" Corrugated Metal
Pipe (CMP), 30" CMP, two 24" CMP and a double 6' x 3'
Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert (RCB). (Plate 4) Their
respective capacities, assuming one foot of head at the
entrance before overflow onto the street, are 100 cfs, 40
cfs, 25 cfs and 290 cfs. With the exception of the 48"
CMP, these capacities are adequate for the 10 -year dis-
charges. Required capacity for the 48" CMP is 133 cfs.
Capacity of the double 6' x 3' RCB is sufficient to handle
the 100 -year discharge once the Corps' Hillside Basin and
Channel improvements are completed.
In addition to the improvements listed above, a County
Flood Control channel bounds the property on the so utn, a
large natural cnannel traverses it near the west line and
a large channel, part of the earlier water spreading
system, runs north to south near the east property line.
This latter channel serves about 8.5 acres of the most
easterly part of the property. Its tributary area will be
practically eliminated by construction of the Corps' proj-
ect.
The complete drainage report is available from Associated
Engineers, 316 East "E" Street; Ontario, CA 91764. This
report details the improvement that will accompany devel-
opment.
Existing Development
Existing development on -site is limited to Hermosa Avenue,
a concrete reservoir in the southwest portion, a forest
service road along the north property line, several un-
paved internal roads and paths and small borzon pits on
the northwest. The site utilization map tiled as part of
this application graphically describes surrounding land
uses.
V11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
APPLICANT:_,,4,Z`b��(J //t�*I'r��
FILING DATE: �/�Qldj� LOG NUMBER:
PROJECT:
PROJECT
I. ENP1RON *1ENTAL IPiPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets).
199
YES MAYBE NO
1. Soils and Gooloay_. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
b. Disru,,tions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion, of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
✓ —
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
V
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or
use of any mineral resource?
y
2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
199
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants? T
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare /
or endangered species of plants? V
193 - -
YES MAYBE
NO
a.
Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff?
t.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface water in any
body of water?
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 water 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 sources?
J
/✓
tionr_
Stationary Sources?
V/
b.
Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or
interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
C.
Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
/
or temperature?
✓
—
4. P,So[a
Flora. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants? T
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare /
or endangered species of plants? V
193 - -
iry
C �
YES MAYBE NO
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 results
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, rare
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
/
wildlife habitat?
./
5. Population.. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a, Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rat -a of
the human population of an area?
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
/
create a demand for additional housing?
6. Socia- 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 beneficiaries, i.e., buyers,
,
tax payers or project users?
). Land Use. and 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 designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
entities?
c. impact upon the Sty or quantity of
existing consumptive a or or non - consumptive
recreational opportunities?
19y
YES MAYBE NO
9. Transportation. Will the proposal have significanc
results in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional vehicular
/
movement?
b.
Effects on existing streets, or demand for
/
new street construction?
C.
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
d.
Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion systems?
e.
Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and /or goods?
f.
Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic?
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. llealth,
Safety, and Nuisance 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?
C.
A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident?
d.
An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenagenic
organisms or the exposure of people to such
/
organisms?
V/
Increase
Y
e.
in existing, noise levels?
f.
Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels?
g,
The creation of objectionable odors?
. h.
An increase in light or glare?
4
Il�
YES N_AYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
/
vista or view?
_✓
b. 'the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
/
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
C. Common ca Lions systems?
d. Hater supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h. Fire protection?
I. Police protection?
j. Schools?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
_
m. Other governmental services?
13. F.nerry and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial or eacussive fuel or energy?
i). Sub3Lanti%Il increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy?
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of energy?
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy nre available?
V _✓
1G6
YES
:LAYAE NO
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
✓
14. Mandatory Findines 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?
✓_ _
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -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).
_
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual oroi ?ct are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
/
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
II. DISCCSSION OF ENVIRONMEYTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to
[h:; above questions plus a discussiornn of^ proposed mitigation
measures).
III. DETe'.MINATION
, ,ye 7
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑I find the proposed project COULD NOT have n significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
I effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
�I in this case because the mitigation measures described on as
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MY have a significant effect on the
envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date
ignja/tt r
Tit e
l��
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11933
Explanation of "yes" and "maybe" answers:
Soils and Geology
(c). The applicant intends to maintain the existing natural grade
wherever possible. This is to be accomplished by grading only for streets,
access, and the building footprint.
(e) & (f) The grading and drainage plan indicates that a number
of lots will drain into the existing natural drainage courses. Construction
on this site will increase the amount of surface water runoff, therefore, in-
crease the volume of water in these natural drainage courses which could re-
sult in water erosion of soils affecting off -site conditions. No improvements
to the drainage courses on -site or off -site are proposed, other than culverts
._. under the street.
(d) The northern most portion of the property is transected by the
Cucamonga Fault. An Alquist - Priolo special study zone has been established
For this fault. The maximum magnitude of an earthquake on the Cucamonga
Fault at this location is projected at 6.5 to 7 on the Richter Scale, there-
fore couli exiose people or property to potentially significant geologic
hazards.
2. Hydrology
(b). Construction will increase the area covered by buildings and
paved areas which will reduce rain and flood water absorption rates and
will increase the amount of surface water runoff.
(i). Development of the site could concentrate runoff water, particularly
in the existing natural drainage courses, which could result in potentially
significant flooding hazards both on -site and off -site.
4. Flora
(a) & (b) The project site is commonly known as the Hermosa Groves, and approx-
imately 80'd of the site is densely planted with Red Gum Eucalyptus approximately
65 years old. The proposed development has been designed to restrict tree re-
moval to the minimum necessary for streets, access, building envelope, and fire
protection. The most western and eastern portions of the project site are out-
side the grove and are proposed to be planted with Eucalyptus. A Tree Removal
Permit would be required from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for those trees meeting
the size criteria of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, which are protected by same.
- Fauna-..
(a) The development of this site for human habitation will have an
effect on the diversity, distribution, and numbers of species of animals
inhabiting the site.
W_i
Addendum to Environmental Checklist for TT 11933 -2-
5. Population
(a) The project site is designated a Park site in the General Plan
for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and has a land use density of just under
2 dwelling units per acre. However, to preserve a 14.6 acre park along
the western portion of the site, 149 of the lots are proposed to be in the
12,000 square foot range. The surrounding properties are designated very
low (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) residential on the General Plan
and are presently zoned R- 1- 20,000. Therefore, the project will alter
the density and growth rate of the human population in this area.
7. Land Use and Planning Considerations
(a) & (b) The project site is designated as a park in the City's General
Plan, and the proposed development includes a 14.6 acre park. Computing
the dwelling unit density based upon excluding the 14.6 acre park from the pro-
ject site results in a density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, which is
in conflict with the very low residential density established by the
General Plan for this area of Alta Loma.
8. Transportation
(a), (b) & (d) This Project will generate increased vehicular traffic
volumes which will effect existing streets and require new street con-
struction and potentially impact existing transportation systems.
(g) The proposed development will result in an increase in the population
for the area and associated vehicular traffic. The 14.6 acre park shown
on the development plans does not indicate off - street parking facilities.
Both of these factors could potentially result in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists.
10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors
(e) Increase in noise levels resulting from this project will be pri-
marily due to increased vehicular traffic and normal human activities in a
residential area. Noise levels will temporarily increase during construction.
11. Aesthetics
(b) This site, commonly known as the Hermosa Grove, is recognized as a
significant natural resource for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the develop-
ment of the site could result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site.
12. Utilities and Public Services
The construction of this project may require extensions or modifi-
cations in some or all of the utilities and public services noted in the Environ-
mental Checklist. The most significant impacts would be upon fire protection
services.
C�G D
Addendum to Environmental Checklist for TT 11993 -3-
14. Mandatory Findings of Significance
(a) The development of this project may have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment.
(d) This project may have environmental effects which may cause sub-
stantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
ORDINANCE N0. 1�1'L
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CIT. COUNCIL
AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
does ordain as follows:
SECTION l: That an amendment to the contract between the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Board of Administration,
California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a
copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A ", and by
such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.
SECTION 2: The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized,
empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said
agency.
SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of thirty (30)
days from passage thereof, shall be published at least once in The Daily
Report, a newspaper of general circulation, circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in force and
effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of
1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
r
T ✓ �
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BEEN THE
BOARD OF ADMINISTIO ION
PUBL ?C EMPLOYEES' RETI �NT SYSTEM
An THE v
CITY COUNt
OF THE
CITY OF RANCH._SUCAMONOA
The Board of Administration, PubljC4Nmployees' Retirement System, herein-
after referred to as Board, and the 9derning body of above public agency,
hereinafter referred to as Public AB8',e,�cy, having entered into a contract unl-
date of January 26, 19"!8, effec tive`3anuary 28, 1978, and as amended eff=
September 22, 1980, which provided4or participation of Public Agency in s ".ie
System, Board and Public Agency h eby agree as follows:
Q
A. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are hereby stricken from said contract as execnto,
effective September 22, 1980, and hereby replaced by the following para-
graphs numbered 1 through 9 inclusive:
All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public,
Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein
unless otherwise specifically provided. °Normal retirement age" sr.a_t
mean age 60 for local miscellaneous members.
2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retiremen•.
System from and after January 28, 1978 making its employees as
hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions
of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on
election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein an:
to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except such as by
express provisions thereof apply only on the election of contrgol,.nF
agencies.
3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes she"
members of said Retirement System except such in each such class ns
are excluded ey law or this agreement:
a. Employees other than :coal safety members 'herein refer,°; 1,
local miscellaneous members).
In adaition to the classes of employees excluded from membershir n.
said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall no,
become members of said Retirement System:
NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS
The fraction of final compensation to be provided for each yenr o"
credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous memoer
shall he determined in accordance with Section 21251.19 of said
Retirement Lew (2% at age 60 Full).
4u3
5. The following additional provisions of the Public Employees' Retire-
ment Law which apply only upon election of a contracting agency shall_
apply to the Public Agency and its employees:
a. Section 20024.2 (One -year final compensation).
b. Section 20930.3 (Military service credit) as defined in Chapter
RIO, Statutes of 19'76.
Z
e. Section 21022.1 (Industrial {1��Ability retirement) for local
miscellaneous members only
d. Section 21298 (IncreasedVl�on- industrial disability allowance).
e. Sections 21380- 213 &'7``(441959 Survivors Program), excluding Section
21382.2 (Increased 59 Survivors benefits).
f. Section 20614` latutes of 19713; reduction of normal member
contributio 198
te). From and after September 22, 0, the
normal meml c
e ontribution rate shall be -04.
g. Secti 614 (Statutes of 1980; to prospectively revoke Section
20614, Statutes of 1978).
6. Public Agency, in accordance with Section 20759.1 Government Code,
shall not be considered an "employer" for purposes of Chapter 6 of the
Public Employees' Retirement Law. Contributions of the Public Agency
shall be fixed and determined as provided in Section 20759, Government
Code, and such contributions hereafter made shall be held by the Board
as provided in Section 20759, Government Code.
7. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
R . With respect to miscellaneous members, the agency shall con-
tribute the following percentages of monthly salaries earned as
miscellaneous members of said Retirement System:
(1) 9.227 percent on account of the liability for current
service benefits.
12� OJ lC percent on account of the liability for the 1950
Survivor Program.
b. A reasonable amount per annum, as fixed by the Board to cover the
costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of
Public Agency, not. including the costs of special valuations or
of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
C. A reasonable amount as fixed by the Board, payable in one instsil-
ment as the occasions arise, to cover the coats of special value -
tiona on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the
periodic investigation and valuations required by law.
t�C
S. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall hF
subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Punli^
Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under tm--
Retirement System As determined by the periodic investigation and
valuation requited by said Retirement Law.
9• Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be
paid by Public. Agency to the Retirement System within thirty days
after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or aG
my be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the
correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper
adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances, nr
adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any
employee may be made by direct cash paymenta between the employee am
the Board. Payments by Public Agency to Board may be made in the fort
of warrants, bank checks, bank drafts, certified checks, money oriers
or cash.
B. This amendment shall be attached to said contract aid shall be effective on
the day of
19_•
4:
Witness our hands the
day of R0 19
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
CITY COUNC'I'L
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE
��
CITY OF RJAS"O CUCAMONGA
C,
z
BY
BY
Carl J. Blechinger, Executive Officer
Presiding Officer
H
0
Approved as to form: ^
Attest: r
Be�eme , Legal Office, Date
Clerk
/
PFRS CON - 102
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981 c
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Ordering Annexation f5 to L ndscape Maintenance
District No. or Tract 9 ��-
Attached for Council approval is a resolution ordering the work
in connection with annexation 15 to Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1 for Tract 9638, located at the northwest corner of Lemon
and Archibald Avenues.
Crismar Development Co., developer of the tract, has been notified
of the public hearing by mail.
The Engineer's Report, tentatively approved by Resolution No. 81 -137
on September 2, 1981, has been amended to reflect the addition of
the landscape island area within the Metropolitan Water District
right -of -way as shown on the attached map. The attached resolution
to order the work will also approve the amended Engineer's Report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution
ordering the subject annexation to Landscape Maintenance District
No. 1 and approving the amended Engineer's Report.
Respectfully submitted,
i7
LSH:BK:jaa
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. C /- a %
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ORDERING THE WORK IN
CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NUMBER 5 TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NUMBER 1 FOR
TRACT NO. 9638
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did
on the 2nd day of September, 1981, adopt its Resolution of Intention No.
81 -137 to order the therein described work in connection with Annexation
Number 5 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1, which Resolution of
Intention No. 81 -137 was duly and legally published in the time, form
and manner as required by law, shown by the affidvait of Publication of
said Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the City Clerk;
and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notice of the passage of
said Resolution of Intention, headed "Notice of Improvement ", was duly
and legally posted in the time, form, manner, location, and number as
required by law, as appears from the affidavit of Posting said notices,
on file in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, after the adoption thereof, notices of the adoption
of the Resolution of Intention were duly mailed to all persons owning
real property proposed to be assessed for the improvements described in
said Resolution of Intention No. 81 -137, according to the names and
addresses of such owners as the same appears on the last mailing or as
known to the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which said
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 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 annexation to the district and the ordering of the work, and said
City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in
said Resolution of Intention No. 81 -137, 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 further resolved that the assessments and
method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved.
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4: Be it finally resolved that said assessments shall
not begin until after 60 percent or said tracts have been occupied.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
PC u
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Engineer's Report for
ANNEXATION NO. 5
to the
Landscape Maintenance District Number 1
(Tract 9638)
SECTION 1. Authority for Report
This report is in compliance with the requirements of Article 4,
Chapter 1, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California
(Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).
SECTION 2. General Description
This City Council has elected to annex all new tracts into Landscape
Maintenance District No. I. The City Council has determined that the
areas to be maintained will have an effect upon all lots within Tract 9638
as well as on the lots directly abutting the landscaped areas. All
landscaped areas to be maintained in the annexed tracts are shown on the
Tract Map as roadway right -of -way or easements to be granted to the City
of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 3. Plans and Specifications
The plans and specifications for the landscaping have been prepared
by the developer and have been approved as part of the improvement plans
for Tract 9638. The plans and specifications for the landscaping are in
conformance with the Planning Commission.
Reference is hereby made to the subject Tract Map and the assessment
diagrams for the exact location of the landscaped areas. The plans and
specifications by reference are hereby made a part of this report to the
same extent as if said plans and specifications were attached hereto.
SECTION 4. Estimated Costs
No costs will be incurred for parkway improvement construction.
All improvements will be constructed by developers. Based on historical
data, contract analysis and developed work standards, it is estimated
that maintenance costs for assessment purposes will equal thirty ($.30)
per square foot per year. These costs are estimated only, actual assessment
will be based on actual cost data.
f, `{
Engineer's Report
Page 2
The estimated total cost for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
(including Annexation No. 6 comprised of 130 lots is shown below:
Total Annual Maintenance Cost
$.30 X 227,721 square feet = 68,316.30
Per Lot Annual Assessment
68,316.30 : 1160 = 58.89
Per Lot Monthly Assessment 4.91
Assessment shall apply to each lot as enumerated in Section 6 and
the attached Assessment Diagram. Where the development covered by this
annexation involves frontage along arterial or collector streets, which
are designated for inclusion in the maintenance district but will be
maintained by an active homeowners association, these assessments shall
be reduced by the amount saved by the District due to said homeowner
maintenance.
SECTION 5. Assessment Diagram
A copy of the proposed assessment diagram is attached to this
report and labeled "Exhibit A ", by this reference the diagram is hereby
incorporated within the test of this report.
SECTION 6. Assessment
Improvement for Annexation No. 6 is found to be of general benefit
to all lots within the District and that assessment shall be equal for
each parcel.
The City Council will hold a public hearing in June, 1982, to
determine the actual assessments based upon the actual costs incurred by
the City during the 1981/82 fiscal year which are to be recovered through
assessments as required by the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. Order of Events
1. City Council adopts resolution instituting proceedings.
2. City Council adopts Resolution of Preliminary Approval of City
Engineer's report.
3. City Council adopts Resolution of Intention to Annex to District
and sets a public hearing date.
4. City Council conducts public hearing, considers all testimony
and determines to Annex to the District or abandon the proceedings.
5. Every year in May, the City Engineer files a report with the
City Council.
6. Every year in June, the City Council conducts a public hearing
and approves, or modifies and approves the individual assessments.
/ 0,
ASSESSMENT DIAGW
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
t
DISTRICT N0.1 �-
ANNEXATION NO. S
t
y
F =yV,'e i it tr;+ ".rrr pzary"i(.ir' �y/,z"sne �� •I
»gel �/��: /�il�s� u... Ii • ,,.�� i el •J '....... �;: ...:"I4 •I �o
z 4 xs zn z3 A a � •a,.�..«a . g.7 , I . i i
•,.e „„ may+ It Its .�
v� ; III— ^' ,,;�' °�;;7 °� __.< :”- _de.:...IF� I• �' ���
� ); �!II; �:I r`I:4y �• r�I: Sh 1 qs'i is �L :.: 6�1
i i ,I I' rt I , , •, IN �; 'ant // '�, � /�•::: * ^' S I li
!- 'I.
Y � fRnc-� N:: I ^a -:3:; � M1t @ LSd;'2: LY•. ♦ n
CITY Of RANC11O CUCA \10 \C,\ titll�;TRACT
N0. 9638
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1G:1�•tl VICINITI' NIAP ''
''IB'
•21s
r i•
�'
%Is
I r V
11
�•
'Nla•s F�$
Q10 �nli�
I •
..n.a.9 S
.
?' "'
..\ !�
i's �
� I
I
F =yV,'e i it tr;+ ".rrr pzary"i(.ir' �y/,z"sne �� •I
»gel �/��: /�il�s� u... Ii • ,,.�� i el •J '....... �;: ...:"I4 •I �o
z 4 xs zn z3 A a � •a,.�..«a . g.7 , I . i i
•,.e „„ may+ It Its .�
v� ; III— ^' ,,;�' °�;;7 °� __.< :”- _de.:...IF� I• �' ���
� ); �!II; �:I r`I:4y �• r�I: Sh 1 qs'i is �L :.: 6�1
i i ,I I' rt I , , •, IN �; 'ant // '�, � /�•::: * ^' S I li
!- 'I.
Y � fRnc-� N:: I ^a -:3:; � M1t @ LSd;'2: LY•. ♦ n
CITY Of RANC11O CUCA \10 \C,\ titll�;TRACT
N0. 9638
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1G:1�•tl VICINITI' NIAP ''
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT
I, Lloyd B. Hubbs, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is
the duly appointed, qualified Superintendent of Streets for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, and that pursuant to Resolution No. 81 -136
of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cali-
fornia, he on the 25th day of September, 1981, posted the "Notice
of Improvement" of the City Council's intent of consideration of
Annexation No. 5 to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 which notice
is attached hereto and made a part hereof; that Notices were posted
not more than three hundred (300) feet apart in a consipicuous place
along each parcel of property affected by Annexation No. 5 to Land-
scape Maintenance District No, 1.
s
Sups' en of Streeta o- te - -�
Cit of Rancho Cucamonga
Date:
Sworn and subscribed
to me this day
1981
Notary Public
/20
Affidavit of Mailing:
I, Judy Acosta, Engineering Secretary for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby swear that I deposited in the City's outgoing mail located
in the administration building at approximately 4 :00 pm on September 23,
1981 the attached letter to Chevron Construction Co. /Crismar Develop-
ment Corporation regarding Annexation #5 to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 1 for Tract 9638.
Signed: f T 4 '/ • 4.�-
m y Acosta, Eng neering
Secretary
Dated:
CITY OF RA \CI 10 CUGV\MGA
SrNFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES FOR ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS
Under the school fee regulations which the City Council has adopted
through Ordinance 30, each elementary school district having impac-
tion statements has a different school fee based upon conditions
that were prevalent shortly after the City incorporation. At that
time there were holdover County- approved housing projects but no
City- approved housing projects. Thus the fees were based on a
finite number of units. Over the last three years, these County -
approved housing projects have been built, and school districts
are starting from a "clean slate ". The school districts are now
requesting adjustments of the school fee to reflect this "clean
slate" situation and now establish a uniform fee for all future
residential projects. Furthermore, the school districts have re-
quested an adjustment of the fees to reflect the current cost
of providing the temporary facilities. Current elementary school
fees are:
Alta Loma $893
Central $908
Cucamonga $700
Etiwanda No prior school fee under
Ordinance 30
Please find attached resolutions of request from each elementary
school district requesting a uniform fee of $1100 per unit for all
single - family homes, $550 per mobile home space or multiple - family
unit which contains two bedrooms or more. Please also find attached
the reasons and justification for the request. Although this in-
formation is transmitted by the Alta Loma School District, it re-
flects the similar circumstances of the other elementary districts.
The school superintendents from each of the elementary school
districts will be present to discuss with the City Council said
request and to answer any questions.
I ec tf' ly submitted,
La
Community Development Director
JL:jk
Attachments: Ordinance 30, as amended by Ordinance No. 69 -8
Resolutions from Alta Loma, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Central, S
Justification package from A.L.S.D. applying to all Elem. D
ORDINANCE NO. 69 -8
AV ORDIM.NCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT[ OF RANCHO
CCCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CL'CAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE, OWTER 16.24 FTSANCIYO FOR IS:TwRIN
SCHWLS, SECTION 16.24,080 AMOUNT OF FEES, TO REQUIRE
THAT M001LEHOMS ON SINGLE LOTS BE CLASSIFIED AS A
_
SINGLE - FAMILY DUELLING AND PAY THE ESTABLISHED FEE
FOR S19CLE- FAMILY DWELLINGS.
The City Council of the City' of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does amend as follows:
'
5EMON 1: 16.24050 Amount of fees and time o 7cnt.
A. when Fees are required by this chapter such fees shall be
as follows:
1. For development within the Alta Loma Elementary
Schaal District, eight hundred ninety -three dollars
per eingle- family duelling or a mobilehome on
single lot and four hundred forty-six dollars per
mobilehome apace o r unit of a multiple -unit
dwelling strviceurewhich contains two of more
bedroom..
2. For develonment within the Central School Distrlcu,
nine r. red elgnt au bars per smgie- winery dwm.ing
or a mubilehome on a single lot and four hundred
-
fifty-four dollars per mobilehome spare or each unit
of a multiple -unit dwelling .structure which contains
No or more bedroom%,
I. For development within the Cucamonga Schaal District,
seven hundred dollars per afngle- family dwelling o
a mobilehome o single lot and three hundred fifty
dollars per mobile here space or each unit of a
multiple -unit dwelling b'truccuro which contains two
of more bedrooms.
4. Far development within the Chaffer Joint Union High
School District, it hundred dollars per single -
family dwelling or a mobilehome on a single lot and
three hundred dollars per mobile home space or each
Unit of a multiple -untt dwelling structure which
contains two or more bedrarnas.
i ??'%M1tYr:.Y�M
P. Any room which is destgnatsd for sleeping which has A
Closet 11 a bedroom for the purposes of this chapter.
C. The Cit, Council may [¢quire ded(catinn of land in lieu
of fees, or a purtln thereof, with rerpect to any subdivision
contniniog nore than it(,, parcels.
D. When fl— ore regmfired ny 1h1c ehepeer, such fee, shall
be paid at the time the building permit is uh proved and
/
is%ued. Fees ,hall be held in trust for the CEty until
transferred to the aff.cted sfhool district nr district..
Ordinance IL:. 69 -8
E. go disbursement shall he made to anv scol district
until such district has complied with covererent Code
Section 65976.
F. Vhen a building permit Is issued by an a `.nrr.inR agency
other than the City, the fees required by this chapter
shall be paid directly to the City Building Deparrnent
and not on the enforcing age,,". (ord. 74 51, 1979; Ord
69A.01 51, 1979; Ord. 69A 51, 1979: Ord. 69 51, 1979:
^ Ord. 56 S1, 1979: Ord. 80 51, 1978).
SECT IDR 2: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinmwe 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 n vspaper of
gene rai r <via ROn published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated r in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Californ {a,
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 1981
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palumbo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
A35E::T: Nona
PhilVp D. Schlosser, Mayor
AT-MT:
,,ran M. City Clerk
i
L
Established 1885
Alta Loma School District
9350 F Baseline Road • Post Office Box 370 • Alta Loma. California 91701 . 714/987.0766
JOHN E. McMURTRY
supenotmarnt
v STORK
September 25,ClB9DF RANCHO CUCy Fo4onr so,port m
res
AMOyY NELSON
B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE ess s,,,i,
BOARD OF TPUSTEES � M1LLY
J 6TRAiV
ROBERT S FROST 1981 Cumaulum /speaia! F,a,.
ROBERT I\' T.ANGE %IAV City of Rancho Cucamonga AM PM
MRS. NkNCI K RErTLF P. 0. Box 807 718190011144112 M1516
MRS SANDRA A OERLY Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
JOHN C. ROOK i
Attention: Messrs. Lauren Wasserman and Jack Lamm
Subject: Revision of 201 Fees
Gentlemen:
Some months ago, I submitted to you and to the superintendents
of the four elementary school districts in the city, the formula
used to arrive at the school fee for new housing. All district
Boards should now have submitted their resolutions to the city.
I would like to further review this formula with you.
One amount ire this formula is comparatively easy to establish;
that is, the average cost of a relocatable classroom. This
averaqe cost was set at $42,000. I believe that the building
industry will agree to a $40 to $42 per square foot cost. Most
classrooms are approximately 1,000 square feet.
When a district leases or lease /purchases a relocatable classroom,
it must take into consideration the uses to which it will be put
and how often it will be necessary to move it. These considerations
will determine the size needed, the additional features needed
(for example, plumbing or those features necessary for handicapped
compliance), and the design needed to withstand frequent and
economical moves.
The 54,000 allowance for furniture and equipment will cover, for
the most part, items such as student furniture, teacher furniture,
file cabinets, cabinet space, and essential equipment such as
overhead projectors and other instructional aids.
The amount of 51,500 per relocatable classroom for installation
and relocation was based on the Alta Loma School District's
experience over the past few years. This amount may be low,
based on Central School District's recent bid of $75,000 to
relocate five classrooms. The cost on this item can only be
estimated because of so many variables, such as:
cy '07
City of Rancho Cucamonga September 25, 1981
Attention: Messrs. Lauren Wasserman Page 2
and Jack Lamm
Subject: Revision of 201 Fees
A. The type of building construction (some types of buildings are easier to
move than others).
B. The distance of the move.
C. The site preparation required on the new site.
0. Availability of new utilities (electrical circuits on the new site).
E. Fire regulations as to the placing and spacing of the new buildings.
The three year estimated financing cost of a $42,000 relocatable classroom
was based simply on financing the entire amount for three years at 10 per cent.
Here, especially, there are all types of variables. In 1979, on a seven year
lease /purchase contract, the Alta Loma School District's financing costs were
54,000 per building for three years, or $8,000 per building for the seven
years life of the contract. With today's interest rates, the same contract
would be written at a higher cost. However, if the district needed to lease
or lease /purchase a classroom in 1983, financing costs could also be less.
If a school district had sufficient building fees collected, it could purchase
a building outright and have no financing costs at all.
The most difficult element to project is the length of time and the number of
these facilities which would be needed by growing school districts. This is
directly dependent on classroom construction funds made available by the State
of California and the speed with which school district applications for these
funds are processed. Every school district which qualifies under current
State regulations does not promptly receive construction funds but, instead,
must wait to qualify under a State - established priority system. It is
impossible to determine with any accuracy the length of this wait.
Those school districts which find it necessary to purchase sites prior to
building schools will need temporary facilities for a year longer than would
be normally necessary.
Despite the efforts of the building industry and growing school districts, the
State has as yet not adopted a long -range comprehensive plan for financing the
necessary construction of new schools or the necessary renovation of older
schools.
Very truly yours,
AL.TA LOMMA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Floyd M. Stork
Administrator, Personnel /Support Services
FMS /jh
Alta
Loma
School
District
9310•F easeli ne Road
a Post office Box 370 . Alto to ma. California
91701 a 7141987 0766
June 3, 1981
Established 1085
BOARD OF TROSTEFS
ROBERT S. FROST Cucamonga School District
ROBERT W. TANGEMAN 8776 Archibald Avenue
MRS. NANCY K. KETTLE Cucamonga, California 91730
MRS. SANDRA A. OERLY
JOHN C. BOOK Subject: Revision of "201" Fee
Dear Sir:
JOHN E. McMORTRY
SvyrnnirnAenf
FLOYD M. STORK
Praonwls.pp.d Smlrn
STACY NELSON
Butlntu Srmrri
Nil LLY STRAIN
Cumeuk,WSpoenll Pro,co,
The following formula has been used in computing the cost of
temporary housing for students gonerotcd by new housing tracts.
In order to arrive at an Oqui.table fiquro, we based the formula
an the following:
The average cost of a portable classroom
$42,000
Financing costs for three years at 10 per cent
12,600
('fltrou years financing is uucl in thec;o
calculations s,.. o t,hi:; .. ,.;11 b: t.,,.
average time portable:: are used until .
regular classroins are availabin.l
Furniture, Equip ont, and Cabinetry
4,000
Site Preparation, Initial Building Luca t.i.tn,
and one relocation
7,500
s66,100
566,100 • 30 students (One elan,) x .5 (cn;npo:;ito
yield
of one home) = $1102, rounded to $1100
If we use the current fees and add the two year inflation rate
(Lovember 1979 - November 1901), we arrive at about the same
figure.
We are, therefore, ruc*tmoonding a foe of $1100.
FMS /jh
Very truly truly yours,
Floyd M. Stork
Administrator
Fersonnnl and Support Services
U//
Alta Loma School District
93 SO -F Baseline Road • Post Office Box 370 • Alta Loma California 91701 • 716/987.0766
Established 1885
BOARD OF TRO'S F.S
ROBERT S. FROgT
ROBERT 'N TANGEMAN September 9, 1981
MRS, NANCY K KETTLE
MRS SANDRA A OERLY
1011N C BOOK
JOHN E. McMURTRY
Supennfendenr
FLOYD M. STORK
PersonneOSupport Serriees
STACY NELSON
Business Services
MILLY STRAIN
Cum.ftm. /Sperlal ft"ar
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Lauren:
Attached is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Alta
Loma School District Board of Trustees at its regular
meeting Tuesday, September 8. This resolution requests
that the City Council amend Ordinance 69.
1 would appreciate this request being placed on the City
Council's agenda for its consideration at the earliest
appropriate time.
"The Alta Lana School District requests that Section Ba
of City Ordinance Number 69 be amended as follows:
'When fees are required by this ordinance, such fees shall
be as follows for all elementary school districts: $1,100
per single family dwelling and $550 per mobile home space
or each unit of a multiple dwelling structure which con-
tains two (2) or more bedrooms.'
No changes are requested in the remainder of this section."
ncerely, /
V-7
—7
. John E. McMurtry
J EM:nd District Superintendent
I, e
of O
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Resolution Number 81 -1
September 10, 1981
CITY OF RANCHO C "
COMMIINITY CEVE' AMONGA
OPMr
NT DEpr.
J
A l
M
718,911011111211i2ig 4 PM
i iSt6
A motion was introduced by Member Collins, seconded by Member Solorio,
and carried by a unanimous vote. The motion called for the following
resolution:
... that the following recnmmendacion be sent to the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga:
The Etiwanda School District requests
that Section 8a of City Ordinance :lumber 69 be amended as follows:
':men fees are required by this ordinance, such fees shall be as follows
for all elementary school districts: $1,100.00 per single family dwelling
and $550.00 per mobile home space or each unit of a multiple unit dwelling
structure which contains two (2) or more bedrooms. 1'
No changes are requested in the remainder of this section.
I certify that this is a true and exact excerpt from the officical
minutes of the September 10, 1931 meeting of the 6tiwanda School
District Board of Trustees.
1�#�
Carleton P. Lightfoot, pe mend ent
��j
Cucamonga School District
B01flG OF TRUSTEES
8776 Archibald Avenue
CAROL CONFER
Rancho Cucamonga. Calilornia 91730
WILLIAM ERAwfGRo
Telephone (714) 987 -8941
WI6 M GONIALES
GEORGIA GRI'IIN
MANUEL M LUNA
September 8, 1981
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ATTN: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager
9320 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Mr. Wasserman:
The Superintendents of Central, Etiwanda, Cucamonga, and Alta Loma School
Districts met Thursday afternoon, July 30, 1981, and agreed to the follow-
ing resolution to be presented to the Boards of Trustees of the above dis-
tricts at a September Board Meeting:
..that the following recommendation be sent to the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga...
The Cucamonga School District requests that Section SA of City Ordinance
Number 69 be amended as follows: 'When fees are reouired by this ordi-
nance, such fees shall be as follows for all elementary school districts:
$1,100.00 per single family dwelling and $550.00 per mobil home space
or each unit of a multiple unit dwelling structure which contains two
(2) or more bedrooms'...
No changes are requested in the remainder of this section.
1 ,
Ro Brto Velasquel 1
Superintendent
Carol E. Confer
Clerk of the Board of Trustees
�a
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
9457 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
RESOLUTION No. 3 (81 -82)
On motion of Member Ruth Musser seconded by Member Diane Rivord
the following resolution is adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of the Central School District and
hereby requested that:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga amend Section 8 of Ordinance 30 amended
by Ordinance 69, as follows:
SECTION 8: Amount of Fees and Time of Payment
(a) When fees are required by this Ordinance, such fees shall be
as follows:
For development within the elementary school districts,
$1,100 per single - family dwelling, condominium or town-
house, and $550 per mobile home space or each unit of a
multiple -unit dwelling structure (apartment) which con-
tains two (2) or more bedrooms.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this sixth day of August , 1981. by the Board
of Trustees of the CentraiSchool District, San Bernardino County, California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
I, Dr. Norman C. Guith, Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the Central
School District of San Bernardino County, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution adopted by
the said Board at a R:Vu ar meeting thereof held at its regular
place of meeting at the time and by the vote above stated, which resolution
is on file in the Office of the said Board.
..S�tr a yr!'YLet.� e
Central School District
Board of Trustees
7/23/81
nt.�
dv_
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
2�cvGMOYC9
+ 'n
o', h
A
UI: >
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and Redevelooment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND: Attached is a memo from John E. Brown, Attorney for the
Redevelooment Agency, discussing action necessary by the City in order
not to form a Project Area Committee. It appears from his memo that a
Project Area Committee is not necessary because the proposed Redevelop-
ment Plan does not call for a displacement of low or moderate income
households. The accompanying Resolution has findings which determine
that the Project Area Committee is necessary. However, in order to
assure for broad communication od the Redevelopment Plan, the City
has been in contact with the North Town CPAC to explain the purpose
of the Redevelooment Plan and how this may affect the North Town Com-
munity. It is intended that additional opportunities will be made to
discuss the Redevelopment Plan with residents of the Redevelopment Plan
with residents of the North Town area in order to answer any questions.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redeveloo-
ment Agency adopt the attached Resolution determining lack of necessity
for a Project Area Committee.
Respectfully submitted, suubm�itted,
_.J 1Jt/� +"+
JACK. LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL:TJB:jr
Attachments: Resolution
Memo From John E. Brown
a.�y
1977
• s c �i ar�o.ca
OALNS . �
ac
raa.(Xa xRl
zw use Ar�w now ml
_AW OrFICCS Or
BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER
♦200 OXAXOC STRCCT.
r.o.eox Iola
RIVERSIOE,CALIF04NIA 92502
*CaCXXOX [ (n.) see -IZSo
September 3, 1981
Lauren M. Wasserman
Executive Director
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Jack Lam
5ke �o•
.LX „aa arl�c[
eoo [.er ow rz.XLUUUX w.
.A.N ....XC S.uu,o +Xln szxea
p�.)aza -xze.
X GIM1 OrIIC[
zeezo cwun. XILS eouacv.no
r or ncc wX L
suX c n.cA Uroraw rzau
bIq erX.naa
Laa AM. Ella .11W.
sn soul. rsewu ar.,aunc r000
Lm w.ac us,uuroaX�. anon
(zu) en -zczs
Re: Lack of Neccessity to Form Project Area
Com -ittee (PAC)
Dear Lauren:
Since it has been determined that a substantial
number of low- and - moderate income families would not be dis-
placed by the Rancho Redevelopment Project, we thought it best
to briefly review the legal requirements set out in the
Community Redevelopment Law with respect to the formation
of project area cotmittees and recommend the adoption of
"lack of necessity" resolutions by both the Agency and the
City Council,
Health & Safety Code Section 33385 requires the
City Council to call for the formation of a project area
committee ( "PAC ") for each redevelopment project area,
"within which a substantial number of low- and moderate - income
families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project..."
The phrase "substantial number" is not defined by statute or case law,
however, the City Council would clearly not be required to
call for formation of a project area committee for a project
area which does not contain any low -and moderate - income
families or which is otherwise uninhabited.
�?,2 5
IAw orriccs or
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
Lauren M. Wasserman
September 3, 1981
Page Two
Where all or most of the residential owner
occupants or tenants within a proposed project area are
low- and moderate - income families and are to be displaced
we recommend that the City form a PAC. Given the scrutiny
typically applied to the redevelopment process, we also
recommend that a PAC be formed when any significant number
of low- and moderate- income families are to be displaced.
Since neither statute nor case law give us any hard and
fast rule to apply in such cases, we recommend that
serious consideration be given to forming a PAC when either a
numerically large number of low- and moderate - income families
are to be displaced or when some significant percentage of
residential owner occupants or tenants within a proposed
project area are to be displaced. For your information,
a number of redevelopment agencies use a rule of thumb
in this instance of forming a PAC whenever approximately 25%
or more of the low- and moderate - income residential owner
occupants and tenants are to be displaced.
It is our understanding that the Rancho Redevelop-
ment Project will not displace a substantial number of low -
and moderate- income families and the Agency has elected to
consult with, and obtain the advice of, residents and community
organizations through a "Citizen Participation Program ".
We would recommend at this time that both the City Council
and the Agency adopt resolutions determining a lack of
necessity to form a PAC within the Rancho Redevelopment Project
area. These resolutions should be adopted sixty days after
the project area is selected or no later than the middle of
October.
Finally, you should note that nothing prevents
either the City Council or the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga from creating any other advisory
cometittee for a project area, even though it may determine
that a PAC is not otherwise required by law. Should you have
any additional questions regarding this matter, please feel
free to call me.
Yours sincerely,
John E. Brown of
JEB:bjs BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
Enclosures
CC: Municipal Services, Inc.
dr�
RESOLUTION NO. 81- Fn
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS RE LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A
PROJECT AREA COh1MITTEE FOR THE RANCHO/REDEVELOP-
MENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ( "Agency ")
are in the process of adopting a Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has received the following titled resolution from the Agency:
"A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Making
Findings and Determinations Regarding Lack of
Necessity to Form a Project Area Committee for
the Rancho Redevelopment Project ";
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
deems it necessary at this time to make certain findings and determina-
tions as to the lack of necessity to call for the formation of a
Project Area Committee pursuant to California Health and Safety Code
Section No, 33385,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
Section 1: This City Council hereby finds and determines
that:
(A) The Rancho Redevelopment Project area does not contain
a substantial number of low- and moderate - income
families which will be displaced by the Rancho Redevel-
opment Project;
(B) The Rancho Redevelopment Project area is presently
being principally utilized for purposes other than
residential uses;
(C) The anticipated uses in the Rancho Redevelopment
Project area will include certain residential uses,
in addition to commercial and /or industrial uses as
is intended by the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project; and
Jd
Resolution No.
Page 2
(D) For the above reasons, it is impractical for this
City Council to call upon residents and existing
community organizations to form a Project Area
Committee as provided for in Section 33385 of the
California Health and Safety Code.
Section 2: This City Council further finds and determines that,
for the reasons set forth in Section 1 hereof, no state policy as found
in the Community Redevelopment Law will be contravened by the failure
to form a Project Area Committee due to the nature of the Rancho Redevel-
opment Project.
Section 3: The City Council hereby directs the Agency to
dispense with the formation of the Project Area Committee, but the
Agency shall consult with, and obtain the advice of, residents and
community organizations as provided in Sections 33385 and 33386 of the
California Health and Safety Code, and provide such persons and organia-
tions with the Rancho Redevelopment Plan prior to submitting it to the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for final approval.
Section 4: The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Redevelopment Agency for
the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
aul_ ren f4Wasserman, City Clerk
C/c/
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
I TMV n1 D A AT� n 0"0 A TAIAT A
STAFF REPORT
F'
J' p
19ii �
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE TO REVIEW PROPOSED REDEVELOP-
MENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, a joint meeting
between the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency is necessary in
order to receive public input on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The
Draft Environmental Impact Report will also be reviewed at this meeting
in accordance with California Environmental Law. This meeting will be
held December 2, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment
Aycncy adopt the attached Resolution establishing the date of public hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Develooment
JL:TJB:jr
Attachment: Resolution
J�
RESOLUTION NO. � I- •56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSENTING TO A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAA TO CONSIDER
THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO l:tur.vu
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33355 of the California Health
and Safety Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga may
consent to hold a joint public hearing with the Recevelopment Agency
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the purpose of considering the
Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to hold a joint
public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency to consider the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project on December 2, 1981.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby consents to a joint
public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga to consider the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental
Impact Report for the Rancho Redevelopment Project.
SECTION 2. That such joint public hearing be held on December
2, 1981 in the Council Chambers of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and
that the Executive Director take all appropriate actions and notify
those persons required to be notified by law of such public hearings
including publication of the legal notices regarding such hearing.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
ATTEST:
Phillip 0. Sch oss�er, ayor
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
d ?J
MTV ! c D 1k✓YJ(1 11'l�\ \ V 1V � VCAA4n
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: COUNTY REVENUE MORTGAGE BOND ISSUE
Goo �
K i f
C i
F "
L i
1977 �
The County of San Bernardino is currently undertaking a second tax -
exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond Program under AB 1355 ($100,000,000)
to provide below market interest rate financing for owner - occupied
dwelling units. As you recall, the first issue was implemented last
year with participation by many communities in the County, including
Rancho Cucamonga. The formal vehicle for participation by the City
is the attached Resolution and Cooperation Agreement by the City
Council. This process is similar to the one the City went through
for the first program. The only difference in the Agreement is a
statement regarding the assignment of City bond amount allocation
to the County. This assignment of City allocations would not adver-
sely affect the City's ability to undertake an SB 99 bond program
of its own at a later date. The City would not be in a position
to issue such bonds even if it wishes to until after the adoption
of the Redevelopment Plan and only in the year 1982. The assign-
ment of allocations only relates to allocations in 1981; therefore,
the assignment of our City's allocations to the County for its 1981
program would not adversely affect the City's future capabilities
of enacting an SB 99 program. As for a City only AB 1355 program,
it could not be undertaken until 90 percent of the County issue has
been taken just like the first County program.
Under the new federal guidelines, the focus of mortgages under the
AB 1355 program are for first -time home buyers and provisions have
been made to limit the value of the home that can qualify under the
program. The value for San Bernardino County is $80,370. As you
can see, whether the City participates in the County's program or
a program of its own, the amount of mortgages that would actually
be eligible in the City would be determined not just by allocation
amount, but by the number of available first -time homeowners and
available housing units at or below $80,370. However, participating
with the County has a number of benefits to the City. The City
would not need to provide any administration of the program and
the larger County issue would have more beneficial effects in get-
ting much better rates. Because the City now has a great number
of potential housing projects on the shelf, there is a greater
opportunity for our city to gain a fair share of this program pro-
vided that the housing units can be priced at or below the stipulated
figure.
October 7, 1981
County Revenue Mortgage Bond Issue
Page Two
The AB 1355 program is an excellent program which can benefit first -
time home buyers in Rancho Cucamonga. The County program seems to be
a good vehicle through which the cities can enjoy the benefits of the
program without having the administrative headaches of managing a pro-
gram of its own.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution
No. 81- '7, authorizing a Cooperative Agreement between the County of
San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding the Housing
Finance Revenue Bond Program, issue B, and approve the Cooperative
Agreement. A representative of the Office of Community Development
will be available at the meeting to answer any technical questions
about the program. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate
to contact me.
R speecctffouuIl submitted,
K LAM, AICP
Community Development Director
Attachments: Resolution
Cooperative Agreement
Data from County Issue A
7h
RESOLUTION NO. j
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN CONNECTION WITH
ISSUANCE OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO HOUSING
FINANCE REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE B, PURSUANT TO
THE HOME FINANCE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino (the "County ") adopted
a Housing Finance Revenue Bond Program (the "Program ") by Ordinance
No. 2496 on November 17, 1980 pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act ") to ease
the shortage in the County of decent, safe and sanitary housing, particu-
larly of housing affordable by persons in the lower end of the purchasing
spectrum, to encourage the construction and rehibilitation of hones
affordable by such persons and to otherwise increase the housing supply
in the County for such persons;
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City) also adopted
the Program on October 15, 1980 by Resolution No. 80 -92 and determined
to cooperate with the County pursuant to the Act in the exercise of its
nowers under the Act for the purposes of the Program;
WHEREAS, the County issued the County of San Bernardino
Housing Finance Revenue Bonds, Issue A, on December 31, 1980;
WHEREAS, the County has determined that a substantial housing
need exists in the County and that issuance of County of San Bernardino
Housing Finance Revenue Bonds, Issue B, ( "Issue B ") is necessary to
meet said need under the Program; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to cooperate with the County
in the issuance of Issue B pursuant to the Act in the exercise of its
powers under the Act pursuant to the Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, as follows:
1 The cooperative agreement, dated as of October 15, 1981,
between the County and the City (the "Agreement "), in substantially the
form submitted to this meeting, is hereby approved, and the proper officers
for the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver
said Agreement, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, and to
approve any additions to or changes in the form of said Agreement submitted
to this meeting which they deem necessary or advisable, their approval of
such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by their execution
of said Agreement as so added to or changed. The proper officers of the
City are further authorized to enter into such additional agreements with
the County, execute such other documents or take such other actions as
they may deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent
of the Agreement or to cooperate in the implementation of the Program.
� 33
Resolution No.
Page 2
2. The City hereby agrees not to engage in any competing
home mortgage finance program under the Act until at least 90`1" of the
home mortgages to be financed by the County under the Program with the
proceeds of Issue 8 have been made or required.
3. The City hereby assigns to the County all of the principal
amount of qualified mortgage bonds which the City is allocated pursuant
to Section 4(a) of the Proclamation of the Covernor of the State of
California, dated August 6, 1981, for the calendar year 1981, all as
set forth in the Agreement.
4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren 19. Wasserman, City Clerk
r
(
JK
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is
hereby made and entered into as of October 15, 1981 by and
between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdivision
of the State of California and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
a political subdivision of the State of California,
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the County of San Bernardino (the
"County ") adopted a Housing Finance Revenue Bond Program (the
"Program ") by Ordinance No. 2496 on November 17, 1980
pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety
Code of the State of California (the "Act ") to ease the
shortage in the County of decent, safe and sanitary housing,
particularly of housing affordable by persons in the lower
end of the purchasing spectrum, to encourage the construction
and rehabilitation of homes affordable by such persons and to
otherwise increase the housing supply in the County for such
persons;
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City ")
also adopted the Program on October 15, 1980 by Resolution
No. 80 -92 and determined to cooperate with the County
pursuant to the Act in the exercise of its powers under the
Act for the purposes of the Program;
n
WHEREAS, the County issued the County of San
Bernardino Housing Finance Revenue Bonds, Issue A, on
December 31, 1980;
WHEREAS, the County has determined that a
substantial housing need exists in the County and that
issuance of County of San Bernardino Housing Finance Revenue
Bonds, Issue B, ( "Issue B ") is necessary to meet said need
under the Program; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to cooperate with
the County in the issuance of Issue B pursuant to the Act in
the exercise of its powers under the Act pursuant to the
Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
SECTION 1. The terms used in this Agreement shall,
for all purposes of this Agreement, unless otherwise defined
herein, have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Act.
SECTION 2. The County agrees to undertake the
Program and to issue Issue B therefor pursuant to the Act as
soon as practicable.
SECTION 3. The City hereby agrees that the County
may make or acquire home mortgages under the Program, all as
more specifically set forth in the Act, with respect to
property located within the geographic boundaries of the City
in connection with Issue B.
2
40319 - 0005- 098 -0672d 09/10/81
0
SECTION 4. The City further agrees that any or all
of its powers for the purpose of financing home mortgages
pursuant to the Act with respect to property located within
its geographical boundaries may be exercised by the County
throughout the term of this Agreement. The City further
agrees not to engage in any competing home mortgage program
pursuant to the Act until at least 90% of the home mortgages
to be financed by the County with the proceeds of such issue
of bonds have been made or acquired.
SECTION 5. The City hereby assigns to the County
all of the principal amount of qualified mortgage bonds which
the City is allocated pursuant to Section 4(a) of the
Proclamation of the Governor of the State of California,
dated August 6, 1981, for the calendar year 1981. Such
assignment is solely for use by the County to provide
financing for properties located within the territory of the
City (including a proportionate share of costs of issuance,
underwriters discount, capitalized interest, reserve funds
and similar expenses associated with the financing), provided
that such assignment shall not be deemed ineffective if,
after issuance of the bonds and for reasons beyond the
control of the County, the County is unable to use any
portion of the proceeds of such bonds to provide financing
for properties located within the territory of the City, as
3
40319 - 0005- 098 -0672d 09/10/81
0?
required by such assigned allocation, and such proceeds are
instead used to redeem bonds or to provide financing for
properties located within the County.
SECTION 6, The City agrees to undertake such
further proceedings or actions as may be necessary in order
to carry out the terms and the intent of this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the County from
entering into one or more agreements with other political
subdivisions within the County, if deemed necessary and
advisable to do so by the County.
SECTION 7. This Agreement may be amended by one or
more supplemental agreements executed by the County and the
City at any time, except that no such amendment or supplement
shall be made which shall adversely affect the rights of the
holders of any bonds issued by the County in connection with
its home mortgage finance program.
SECTION 8. The term of this Agreement shall extend
until the bonds issued to finance the Program are fully paid
and retired, or, if bonds are not issued to finance the
Program, through December 31, 1981.
4
40319 - 0005- 098 -0672d 09/10/81
a3�
U
9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper
officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals
to be hereto affixed, all as of the day first above written.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
[SEAL] By
Chairperson of the
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
( SEAL I By
ATTEST:
City Clerk
5
40319- 0005- 098 -0672d 09/10/81
d � /
o1&1w&JAL ls5uE-
COUNTY OF San Bernardino
.. ROME AND LOAN PROFILES
OVERALL
Average Sales Price $ 60,668.38
Average Down Payment $ 7,557.42
Average Loan Amount $ 54,910.69
PRICE OF ROME
Aof Loans
TYPE OF UNIT
A of Loans i
Single Family
Detached
49
23.11
Condominium
F
41
19.34
Townhouse
$59,999
99
46.70
$60,000-
$75,000
23
10.85
TYPE OF UNIT
A of Loans i
Single Family
Detached
131
61.79
Condominium
$49,999
81
38.21
Townhouse
b,
YV
LOAN AMOUNT
i of Loans i
Under
$40,000
15
7.08
$40,000-
$49,999
55
25.94
$50,000-
$59,999
52
24.53
$60,000-
$75,000
90
42.45
I Bedrooms A of Loans 8
1
2
3
103
49 59
4 or
more
17
0
COUNTY OF San Bernardino
DEMOGPUIPRIC AND ECOI;O.'-IIC PROFILE
Se;)teMb
Period Ending
_
,d E g
Total Loans
Avg. Family Size
Avg. Age of Head of
Household
Avg. household Income
During Period
212
2.20
30.23
$__24,119.25
OVERALL
Page I of 2
Sex of Head of Household
I of Loans
Male 178 83.96
Female 34 16.04
Marital Status
Family _Income
Income
of Loans
%
22,000-
163
76.89
28,700
Married 124
22,000
49
23.11
or less
Separated
Page I of 2
Sex of Head of Household
I of Loans
Male 178 83.96
Female 34 16.04
Marital Status
"a ily. size
or Lootir,
size
of Lo;111S
Married 124
58.49
1
86
40.57
Separated
2
69
32.55
Unmarried 38
41.51
3
39
18.40
4 or
more
18
8.49
ELI I
COUNTY OF San Bernardino
ne-MfcPArulC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
September 22 1981
Period Ending
OWNERS vs. RENTERS
ETHNIC BREAKDOWN
I. of T.nanc a I
American Indian
1 of Loans
9
Previous
1
.47
Renters
1a4
86.79
Previous
9
4.25
Owners
28
13.21
ETHNIC BREAKDOWN
I. of T.nanc a I
American Indian
Alaskan Native
1
.47
Asian Pacific
Islander
9
4.25
Black
4
1.89
Ilispanic
21
9.91
white
131
61,79
Other
Fast Indian
.47
Not Given
45
21.23
NEW CONSTRUCTION VS EXISTING
Construction Typ ¢I !j of Loans
New 1 146 192.45 1
Existing I 16 1 7.55
jua
:7rA r f:; r f r;.f, :f I';'i^r:i'C
September 22. 1931
I1P,i +'� eu'!I ('�'.•. f, i>f:: ri2l: C!7 f�..'J
We C 1'(Y
CLYY N".. 1P.
Apple Valley
....--- --- - --
1)loomingt0n
Chino
11 �)!•• O)ANS
9
``
2
7
583,750
75,550
428,100
2,669,305
"- ~-- ___ ..--
4.25
.94
3.30
26.42
- - ----
Fontana
56
._._.. - -
P.esperia
6
264,950
2.A3
Highland
I 1
35,300
I .47
Joshua Tree
- --�
i
1
50,500
471,950
47
1 3.77
Loma Linda
I
Los Serranos
1
67,450
.47
Ontario
24
1,564,450
11.32
Rancho Cucamonga
11
475,950
5.19
Redlands
22 I1,2
^9,975
10,38
Rialto
41 `2,286,210
19.33
. Twenty -Nine Palms
3
134,600
1.4
Victorville a
20
1,036,250
a
;
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C GhiON
STAFF REPORT
si
5 % r
DATE: October 7, 1981
Lm i
z
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Underground Utility District Priority
Attached for Council review is a memo to the Planning Commission
explaining the use and availability of Edison funds under Rule 20
of the P.U.C. To date the City has built up a fund of $293,111.
These funds are currently increasing at a rate of $90,000 per year.
The purpose of the Planning Commission memo was to establish
priorities for the expenditure of these funds. The Commission
reviewed the Staff recommendation and modified the priorities
as shown in Resolution No. 81 -112. The Commission program dif-
fered from the Staff recommendation in three areas.
- Archibald project limits were reduced to only the portion
between Foothill Boulevard and Church Street.
- The section of Haven between Arrow Route and Foothill was
added.
- Grove Avenue was eliminated.
In addition the Commission recommended that the Council develop
a means of relieving homeowners of cost involved in undergrounding
service connections. The Commission suggested that this might
be done by either City funds or by provision of low interest loans.
Staff concurs with the Commission changes with the exception of
boundaries for the Archibald project. Commission chose to limit
the length of this project to from Foothill to Church street in
order to reduce the impact on existing residences served from
the overhead lines. It remains Staff's opinion that the limits of
the project should be extended to Base Line Road in order to take
advantage of planned resurfacing of the street. The provision
for residences will remain a problem for the program and should be
addressed now. If undergrounding is not coordinated with paving
it will likely be 10 to 15 years before this opportunity will occur
again. In addition to paving undergrounding the Archibald lines
now will coordinate with future planned extension of these lines
by Edison in the next few years.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt the attached
Resolution establishing priorities for Rule 20 undergrounding and
direct work to begin on the number one priority project.
Respectffuu
LBH:blq/
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PRIORITIZED LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ACTIVE UIIDERGROUNDING
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Public Utilities Commission
Rule 20, the Edison Company makes available each year funds to cities
for the purpose of undergrounding overhead utility lines; and.
WHEREAS, since incorporation, Rancho Cucamonga has accumulated
$293,111 in this account; and,
WHEREAS, the Engineering staff has undertaken to acquaint the
Council with the existence of these funds, the procedures involved in
the development of a project and recommend a priority for projects for
implementation under the program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, that the fallowing seven potential projects
alono major arterial streets are adopted in priority order for implemen-
tation of an active undergrounding program:
1. Archibald Avenue - Foothill to Base Line Road.
2. Foothill Boulevard - Haven to Ramona.
3. Haven Avenue - Foothill to Arrow.
4. Base Line Road.- Carnelian Street to Turner Avenue.
S. Carnelian Street - Base Line to 19th Street.
6. Nineteenth Street - Haven Avenue to West City Boundary.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council directs staff to
implement the following project with currently available funds:
1. Archibald Avenue - Foothill to Base Line Road,
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 81 -112
_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A PRIORITIZED LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR iM-
PLEPIENTATION OF AN ACTIVE UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Public Utilities Commission
Pule 20, the Edison Company makes available each year funds to cities
for the purpose of undergrounding overhead utility lines; and,
WHEREAS, since incorporation, Rancho Cucamonga has accumulated
$293,111 in this account; and,
WHEREAS, the Engineering staff has undertaken to acquaint the
Commission with the existence of these funds, the procedures involved in
the development of a project and recommend 'a priority for projects for
implementation under the program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that the following seven potential projects
along major arterial streets are recommended in priority order to the
City Council for implementation of an active undergrounding program:
1. Archibald Avenue - Foothill to Church.
2. Foothill Boulevard - Haven to Ramona.
3. Haven Avenue - Foothill to .Arrow.
d. Base Line Road - Carnelian Street to Turner Avenue.
5. Carnelian Street - Base Line to 19th Street.
6. Nineteenth Street - Haven Avenue to West City Boundary.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council be urged to immediately
implement the following project with currently available funds:
1. Archibald Avenue - Foothill to Church.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1981.
PLANNING =11ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
ng, chairman
�y�
Resolution No. 81 -112
Page 2
ATTEST: _
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 23rd day of September, 1981 by the following vote
to -wit:
AYES: . COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Sceranka, Dahl, Tolstoy, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
r4 7
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 23, 1981
T0: Planning Commission
FROG: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Selection of Utility Undergrounding Project
c! �
�9
197-
Under the provisions of Public Utilities Commission Rule 20, the Edison Company
makes available each year funds to cities for the purpose of undergrounding
overhead utility lines. Since incorporation, Rancho Cucamonga has accumulated
$293,111 in this account,
The purpose of this report is to acquaint the Commission with the existence of
these funds, the procedures involved in the development of a project and rec-
ommend a priority for projects for implementation under the program.
Rule 20 Procedures
Rule 20, as shown on the attached copy, established the utility responsibility
to provide funding, the method of funds distribution and guidelines for agency
responsibility in a proposed project. These provisions direct that the local
agency find that such, undergrounding is in the general public interest for one
or more of the following reasons:
1. Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration
of overhead electric facilities;
2. The street or read right -of -way is extensively used by the general public
and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and
3. The street or road right -of -way adjoins or passes through a civic area or
public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general
public.
In addition, the City must have "adopted an ordinance creating an underground
district in the area in which both the existing and new facilities are and will
be located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing overhead
communication and electric distribution facilities in such district shall be
removed, (2) that each property served from such electric overhead facilities
Shall have installed in accordance with the utility's rules for underground
service, all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to receive
service from the underground facilities of the utility as soon as it is avail-
able, and (3) authorizing the utility to discontinue its overhead service."
�l(G
I I,ii'lllllg comil'11ss1Cn
STAFF REPORT: Selection
of Utility Undergrounding Project
September 23, 1981,.
Page 2
This provision indicates that the utility will underground distribution lines
but that property owners within the District will bear the cost of undergrounding
service laterals. Implementation of the program will therefore create some coor-
dination and financial responsibilities with the local property owners. The
extent of these costs would depend on the partie:lars of any given project.
Attached is Municipal Code Chapter 13.04 "Underground Utility Districts" outlining
the procedures for district formation.
Project Priorities
In order to establish project priorities, the Staff has inventoried the various
overhead utilities within the City, which are shown on Exhibit "A ". Electrical
lines along arterial streets within the City are currently either 12,000 volt
(12KII) or 66,000 volts (66KV). Past history with undergrounding has shown that
the costs involved with undergrounding of 66KV lines substantially exceed those
of 12 KV, The Edison Company has given estimates of costs for 12KV ranging from
$65 -5135 per lineal foot and for 66KV $189 -$284 per lineal foot. On the average,
these costs would equate to $528,000 per mile of 12KV and $1,300,000 for 66KV.
It can be seen from these costs that funds are most productively spent underground -
ing the 12KV lines.
In developing the list of recommended projects, it has been assumed that no attempt
would be made at this time to deal with the 66KV lines. The Staff has selected
seven potential projects along major arterial streets, which are felt to most
enhance the City environment. These projects are listed below in a recommended
priority with a brief discussion of factors considered in theirselection As you
can see from Exhibit "A ", there are several other areas for potential projects
which the Commission may also wish to consider.
1. Archibald Avenue - Sixth Street to Base Line Road.
Tnisprojecf would be phased beginning with the segment between Foothill Boule-
vard and Base Line Road. This project is recommended as the top priority
because it will take advantage of approved developments on the east side from
Foothill to Church. It can be coordinated with planned street construction on
Archibald and would not disrupt any significant landscaping. In addition,
Archibald is the highest volume street in the City.
2. Foothill Boulevard - Haven to Ramona.
Tfiis project wou d be a relatively inexpensive improvement which would eliminate
the last remaining piece of overhead line along Foothill. This project can
be coapleted substantially by development interests. Scheduling of the project
should therefore, be sensitive to development activity adjacent to the line.
3. Haven Avenue - Church Street to Lemon Avenue.
Tfils project will impact the major entry street to the City but, because of
extensive existing landscaping, should be coordinated with development activities
in the future and street resurfacing projects. Again, phased construction will
be scheduled in the future.
Pianning Co:mnission
STAFF REPORT: Selection
of Utility Undergrounding Project
September 23, 1981. -
Page 3
4. Base Line Road - Carnelian Street to Turner Avenue.
Base Line Road is one of the primary city streets and should be of high
priority in future projects. It would be best, however, to coordinate
with future street maintenance which, because of recent construction,
will not likely occur for 10 to 15 years. Another disadvantage to early
undergrounding of these facilities, is the limited development potential
which would assist in reducing costs. Because Base Line is primarily a
commercial street, eventual underground district formation will be less
sensitive than the other areas such as Carnelian.
5. Carnelian Street - Base Line to 19th Street.
Priority on this street has been placed lower to reflect the lack of
developnent assistance and the recent street construction. In addition,
considerable residential property is served from the street which will
complicate district formation,
6. Nineteenth Street - Haven to 'West City Boundary.
Thi> stree— t, because of its significant residential development, has been
placed with a recommended lower priority. Attention should be given to
segmental undergrounding in conjunction with remaining development.
7. Grove Avenue - 8th Street to Foothill Boulevard.
This street is on the fringe of the City and is highly developed with
older residential homes.
As can be seen in Exhibit "A ", several lesser traveled streets could be considered
for undergrounding but have not been included at this time in order to concentrate
on major streets, as is the intent of Rule 20.
Scheduling
At such time as the Conunission and the Council select the top priority project,
Staff will begin the process of District formation and coordination with other
planned constuction. The first segments would likely be completed within two
years.
Funds currenity accrue at a rate of $75,000 per year, indicating that a five year
period would be required to accumulate funds for each major segment. This
scheduling can be increased if the City develops an active undergrounding program.
Where Rule 20 allocations are not expended or are carried over continually for
so;ne communities, they may be reallocated to cities with active programs.
RECOMFIE UDAT I ON:
It is recommended that the Commission approve the attached resolution establishing
priorities for utility undergrounding and recommend that City Council pursue Dis-
trict formation for the top priority project.
Re ectfu11 submit d,
LBH:ja
fo
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A PRIORITIZED LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR IM-
PLEMENTATICiN OF AN ACTIVE UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Public Utilities Commission
Rule 20, the Edison Company makes available each year funds to cities
for the purpose c.f undergrounding overhead utility lines; and,
WHEREAS, since incorporation, Rancho Cucamonga has accumulated
$293,111 in this account; and,
WHEREAS, the Engineering staff has undertaken to acquaint the
Commission with the existence of these funds, the procedures involved in
the development of a project and recommend a priority for projects for
icpler,entation under the program.
NO:I, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, that the following seven potential projects
along major arterial streets are recommended in priority order to the
City Council for implementation of an active undergrounding program:
1. Archibald Avenue - Sixth Street to Base Line Road.
2. Foothill Boulevard - Haven to Ramona Avenue.
3, Haven Avenue - Church Street to Lemon Avenue.
4. Base Line Road - Carnelian Street to Turner Avenue.
5. Carnelian Street - Base Line Road to 19th Street.
6. Nineteenth Street - Haven Avenue to West City Boundary.
7. ;rove Avenue - 8th Street to Foothill Boulevard.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council be urged to immediately
implement the following project with currently available funds:
1. Archibald Avenue - Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road.
APPRO;EO "NO ADOPTED THIS 23HO DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1931.
C0�1 ?!I;SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIONGA
BY: _
Jeffrey King, Chairman
i
C
"`- °' - •.,.: _,,... ,�ISCrV Ci,`.t ?ANY
2744 W.Iuw Grovt Avenue Revised GL P.U.C. Shrt No 4657 -E
Resemecd, Califarm. 91770
C. cclliry Original Cal. PV.C. Shcc[ No. 3935 -E
Rule No. 20
REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACMITIES
ahe W;in;: vv r!! a' i'- ca pe!:se, rea ace its eais�ing ovc head el «trie iacililies :with underground electric :ariG:ip
Ico: cary:ic sr«ct and road;. andron public lands and private pro, ?rty across whlcS :iq!srof :way _ati;factup
to :Se :n:!i:y !:a,e been obaincd by the tiliry, provided tha,
1. The tore; aieg body of 11, city or eeuoty in which such d1c!n, ( :uiities are and mil! he !ormd qu:
a. Ue : :f_!.7<d, niter ccnsvl:a :ion wits the .!Mw a.d afttr Lclring puSl:c ! :casings on the aubjec :. :Sat such
is in the
_al Public imcrcs: iar ore or -ore of :Sa ioiio:aicg ra .o b
(1) S::cS ur.;Icrgcur :dtug wii! amid c: c'iv,inax .:n
iarde:y: �..�_� !:easy concentration. of ov<. ,.wad c!ecric
12; "' - or rot, nr nit; E -vva :: 6 e. < :rnsF :eh' usu! 'r' tr.e .r.
`oi..n,. i p.d < =rian o. se....... :ra ttia, and ;en<; a! pohiie mA car; ies a Sear:
l�' 'Cite _ :eet o: rmd or :zit- oin.ay zdjeihe or pnan tl;ro•' is n a; ea o i:ic reerca :inn area or
., . rr. ai y„ � •
h .1 !n•r<d an on :irunre c;cming ar, vndraroueda district in :he area i•: which bu ` :!:e ezisticq and vew
i;c: ba;c are and 'ill S<!eated rec ur:r. z. an;or,g other thirt Ga,
.a. : ;d Jeer c nis ri'cminn fa: 'i:i<+ 'n r (! ) llut a!I <xistin; over ^.ad oamr..uo
' s'roc ict shall oe ;e. -r : :d, l21 •!•at•aeh orapernr
<.'ed iron: such electric ovr. head iaci!i: its shall have insta!Iud in aecarta. :m wieh the utility's rvlea;
gar vndv. oucd sent ice, aII e!c<:ria1 ruii::y than. -cs on the prenisn necessary ;o receive se .112,
Facilities o! thc.u@lity as scor. as it is avaipSle. to recc :he e"ic.
•'•%s teal i 1114 i hudy <ted ao: a u n f:r undtrgrou a d in a :: i;Sin any city or the
vnircorpanned a: ca
e' -.v Iv .o :nq' ; u'i be al!oa;za in !t: ,a:. rlio ;`a; !tae r. v:nS <r of ncsw :ocrs 'ia snC: c •.. or u ncen, ^e-
:: r -a :eon to thz teal sys•crn oxtar.:c;. 1'he anew ^.ts vo a �catcd may See cc'dId where •ht u'
=e:SP :^f :rs'!:'t ad•li: ional Da;•. ici:ai ion on a D: n;rt is a'arran: ed. Such a!!o<sc: amc sets may `e nrr:
Davies ni Ti,:', i. ;a; :r; ::r ies uiar ,.'e uncle:.; r'"a: ::
as :or,: n: unit; wit!: as a. Y prc;r4rn s. L: ord4r to
"lza:ou -.1 u:4 �aor ;Sa yoccrn ia,; :edy °, :have a:o Dtrd
cr o; dinr:ces aa rr.f;or disr:c!s a
a ..l a a.. a: a ^sszrc m :1.•r 4n m. e. as do.et_."rel'ya tD 41'•
a •.p..L. nr :,,J 'n c 4y ;: h
•D." r�"..: '':ro a :h!i :iu�ralrr .+;�:- io' °a rm:.::: �.r �arc iu :iailp' allcua:ed they
:: �r .0 rgron:'.
rl. Pu..,..u;o•: n;: a ;eo;cRi: swa:nm:d or ;hoc ::ud :u mna:u'i!i¢s
r. . �, -�a 11u :nle
]. The_vr.dara•c : :nd :ns u- ten�Is for a mivi. -.mm distance of one block ar EOU feet s
vhi<Srv<: is e.e e
(Cvednvdl
ITa `e .:.r -: 1r -rdarl su.r4 b
alJ•.::: L;:;:r \'a. 4 ?3•�_ __. F,h_u! A. \F..:,, )r.
95754
- -..-
! >:. -
SCUf!,EhN CAL;fOR ^:IA ED:501,1 COMPANY
Rc•
:244 Wol—t Grave Avenue :ised G:. P.U.C. Short No. 4658-E
Roserneed, California 91770
Canccllirg Ori,gin.al Cal. P.U.C. Shent No. 3936 -E
Rule No. 20
REPLACEMENT OF OVERHEAD WITH UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES
(C..s ... t)
U. In nca od:er than those covered by A above, the utility will :;dace its ,x6tirg ovchcad electric
(]L'Jtss•t .. - :nd e!ee;ric facilities aht g public streets and road. or other locations rectoally agreed
..r.... � eAM rby an applicant or app:icxnis when all of the following condition are met
on1. a. All Property owners served front the overhead facilities to be removed prat agree in writing to have
the changes made oo their premi;cs so tint , may be furnished iron she trade: ground
di,;rr.'u ::ion system in accordance 'with the Utility's rules and that the Utility may diarnntlnac its
cs ...cd se; vice upon completion of the underSreuttd fac.Il;.e J. or
b. :abi: '• ;station is in effect regvirirg such n'-rosary wirp:g changes to be made and author.Jing
the polity to discor;inue its ovencc,d ecrvicc,
2. The a,plicant has:
a. Pur..66 ^: and ics,.'.led tire pal, and viols For ::ansioraers and vsociared eCvipmen;, eandults, dies,
be;u, ;e!t bases and pefor r..ed et.`.er avrk related to structures and sub ;teact-,ra ivtuding breaking
of ;aee:neoq trenching, hack4!::.g, and repavin; r,grir ,! in cornec:fon with the ins;aiia : :on of the
ucd :rg :pied sya;em, all in a <cc :. :arc with utility's spceiccz:ions, or, in lieu thereof. Paid ;he utility
to E .o,
b. Tramfr :red ownership of such facilkita, in good vomit..., to the utility: and
e P:H a nonreton :abb sum e;ual :n the axcess, if any, of the estir..ated cos., eAcbvi,n of tranth.,o ers,
me ,n: services, of mmp :etieg tFe vr.d :rg:our.d ;;'stem and ir'lbr% a new egoFra:ent acerhtad
yrtc..
rTA to 'ue ordcrgroendod inc:udes both sides o street for at !cast one Stock or 60 feet. whicSner
is t.-, le;vr, and all C.:jtm� ov:e:.ea,[ mmmvnication aid Nm;dc distribotion facilities within the are,,
w... .. came: d'
C. -,are. :er those entered 'try A or R a"wc..1 :c; nut :ally agreed open by the utility and a
.., o. a r:: ea!• a lac;t.cnfacili :i's' repinc,I v it't e., grmmd e cinch Torn;, provided the app. :cant
.. ,pay ides... aer.onria-.. !a`�.I au- leenual to ^.e��e:t(nta :cd cost of tht
.....,... '!osste mated nett salva-.e valae and •$;.r < : ^a :ion of the replaced overhead fscil:ire;. Undergvuml
and oral n:i :red At provided is the n,ihr.'s rules ai Pi "lle d1creto.
sys:...t niC: all w.r ,.,tarnd um!ergrotuvd, czar Pt
ti'.c.! C, .... o• :...ace mwC:B: eV`.'p meth.
Gs :...rot er 'or"' Iu..c t,
Advae l.c::e;
No 423E U-,rJ A. >h.cn, Jr.
Dcctsitn Nu. 85-1S9
P: � t
_
(T, tr ,name a, e.t. P c; t
Date P.I.d Jerc 2, 19'E
Erieche Joly 3, ter
k
13.04.010
Title 13
PUBLIC SERVICES
Chanters:
13.04 Underground Utility n Districts
13_08 Storm Drainage Pla
Sections:
13.04.010
13.04.020
13.04.030
13.04.040
13.04.050
13.04.060
13.04.070
13.04.080
13.04.090
13.04.100
13.04.110
13.04.120
Chapter 13.04
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS
Definitions.
Public hearing by council.
Underground utility districts designated by
resolution.
Unlawful acts.
Exception -- Emergency or unusual circumstances.
Other exceptions.
Notice to property owners and utility com-
panies.
Responsibility of utility companies.
Responsibility of property owners.
Responsibility of city.
Extension of time.
Violation -- Penalty.
13.04.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter
the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set
out below:
A. "Commission" means the Public Utilities Commission
of the state.
B. "Person" means and includes individuals, firms,
corporations, partnerships, and their agents and employees.
C. "Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures" means poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors,
guys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces, transformers,
insulators, cutouts, switches, communication circuits,
appliances, attachments and appurtenances located aboveground
with a district and used or useful in supplying electric,
communication or similar or associated service.
D. "Underground utility district" or "district" means
that area in the city within which poles, overhead wires, and
associated overhead structures are prohibited as such area
is described in a resolution adopted pursuant to the provi-
sions of Section 3 of this ordinance.
i,
153
_3.03.020 -- 13.04.030
E_ "Utility" includes all persons or entities supplying C
electric, communication or similar or associated service by
means of electrical materials or devices. (Ord. 11 51, 1978).
13.01.020 Public hearing by council. The council may
from t e to time call public hearings to ascertain whether
the public necessity, health, safety or welfare requires the
removal of moles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures within designated areas of the city and the
underground installation of wires and facilities for supply-
ing electric, communication, or similar or associated service.
The city clerk shall notify all affected property owners as
shown on the last equalized assessment roll and utilities
concerned by mail of the time and place of such hearings at
least ten days prior to the date thereof. Each such hearing
shall be open to the public and may be continued from time
to tune. At each such hearing all persons interested shall
be given an opportunity to be heard. The decision of the
council shall be final and conclusive. (Ord. 11 52, 1978).
13.0 4.030 Underground utility districts desi nated by
rose Lu Sze -. .. If, after any such public hearing the council
f-ncs t..« the public necessity, health, safety or welfare
requires such removal and such underground installation within
a designated area, the council shall, by resolution, declare
such designated area an underground utility district and
o rior such removal and underground installation.
B. The council shall also make one or more of the
following findings:
1. That such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate
an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facili-
ties;
2. The street or road right -of -way is extensively
used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
3. The street or road right -of -way passes through
a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual
scenic interest to the general public.
C. Such resolution shall include a description of the
area comprising such district and shall fix the time within
which such removal and underground installation shall be
accomplished and within which affected property owners must
be ready to receive underground service. A reasonable time
shall be allowed for such removal and underground installation,
having due regard for the availability of funds, labor,
materials and equipment necessary for such removal and for
the installation of such underground facilities as may be
occasicned ti;e re b:. (Ord. 11 53, 1978).
' 154
13.04.040 -- 13.04.060
13.04.040 Unlawful acts. Whenever the council creates
an underground utility district and orders the removal of
poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures
therein as provided in Section 13.04.030, it shall be unlawful
for any person or utility to erect, construct, place, keep,
maintain, continue, employ or operate poles, overhead wires
and asscciated overhead structures in the district after the
date when said overhead facilities are required to be removed
by such resolution, except as the overhead facilities may be
required to furnish service to an owner or occupant of pro-
perty prior to the performance by such owner or occupant
of the underground work necessary for such owner or occupant
to continue to receive utility service as provided in Section
13.04.090, and for such reasonable time required to remove
the facilities after said work has been performed, and excent
as otheroise provided in this chapter. (Ord. 11 34, 1978).
Notwit :standing the provisions of this chapter, overhead
__cil ±t' -es may be installed and maintained for a period, not
to exceed ten days, without authority of the city engineer
_n order to provide emergency service. The city engineer
may grant special permission, on such terms as deemed appro-
priate, in cases of unusual circumstances, without discrimin-
ation as to any person or utility, to erect, construct,
install, maintain, use or operate poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead structures. (Ord. 11 55, '1978).
13.0 -.060 Other exceptions. In anv resolution adomted
-�rsua to Section 13.04.030, the following are exempted
unless specifically included in the resolution:
A. Any municipal facilities or equipment installed
under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the city
engineer;
B. Poles, or electroliers used exclusively for street
lighting;
C. Overhead wires (exclusive of supporting structures)
crossing any portion of a district within which overhead
wires have been prohibited, or connecting to buildings on
the perimeter of a district, when such wires originate in an
area from which poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures are not prohibited;
D. Poles, overhead wires and associated overhead
structures used for the transmission of electric energy
at nominal voltages in excess of thirty four thousand five
hundred volts;
E. 0•:erhead wires attached to the exterior surface of
a buiidinc by means of a bracket or other fixture and extend-
4n': ,i cne location on the building to another location on
the same building or to an adjacent building without crossing
any public street;
155
atc
_3.04.070 -- 13.04.090
F. Antennae, associated equipment and supporting struc-
tures, used by a utility for furnishing communication services;
G. Equipment appurtenant to underground facilities,
such as surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal
boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts;
H. Temporary poles,'overhead wires and associated
overhead structures used or to be used in conjunction with
construction project. (Ord. 11 56, 1979).
070 Notice to property owners and utili
r° � �+• u ++ +u ceu guys azzer Lae errecrive Gate or a
resolution adopted pursuant to Section 13.04.030, the city
clerk shall notify all affected utilities and all persons
owning real property within the district created by said
resolution of the adoption thereof. The city clerk shall
further notify such affected property owners of the necessity
that, if the,; or any person occupying such property desire to
con- n,-,e to receive electric, communication, or similar or
associated service, they or such occupant shall provide all
necessary :" acility changes on their premises so as to
recel e such service from the lines of the supplying utility or
utilities at a new location.
B. Notification by the city clerk shall be made by
nailing a copy of the resolution adopted pursuant to Section
13.04.030, together with a copy of the ordinance codified
in this chapter, to affected property owners as such are shown /
on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected C
utilities. (Ord. 11 97, 1975).
13.04.080 Responsibility of util'_ty companies. if
uncergrccnc construction is necessary to provide utility
service within a district created by any resolution adopted
Pursuant to Section 13.04.030, the supplying utility shall
furnish that portion of the conduits, conductors and asso-
ciated ecuipment required to be furnished by it under its
applicable rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the
ccmmissicn. (Ord. 11 99, 1979).
.04.090 Responsibility o£ prooerty owners. A. Every
person owning, operating, leasing, occupying or renting a
building or structure within a district shall construct and
provide that portion of the service connection on his property
between the facilities referred to in Section 13.04.090 and
the termination facility on or within said building or
structure being served. if the above is not accomplished by
any person 'within the time provided for in the resolution
enacted pursuant to Section 13.04.030, the city engineer
shall give notice in writine to the person in possession of
such premises, and a notice in writing, to the oomer thereof
as shc.;n on t e last ecualized assessment roll, to provide
the repaired under.^,roucd facilities '.within ten days after
receipt of such notice.
155
a�7
13.04.090
157
a��
B. The notice to provide the required underground
facilities may be given either by personal service or by mail.
In case of service by mail on either of such persons, the
notice must be deposited in the United States mail in a sealed
envelope with postage prepaid, addressed to the person in
possession of such premises at such premises, and the notice
must be addressed to the owner thereof as such owner's name
aepe_rs, and must be addressed to such owner's last known
acaress as the same appears on the last equalized assessment
roll, and when no address appears, to General Delivery, City
of Rancho Cucamonga. If notice is given by mail, such notice
shall be deemed to have been received by the person to whom
it has been sent within forty -eight hours after the mailing
thereof. If notice is given by mail to either the owner or
occupant of such premises, the city engineer shall within
forty - eicht hours after the mailing thereof, cause a copy
thereof, printed on a card not less than eight inches by ten
inches in size, to be posted in a conspicuous place on the
_ramises.
C. The notice given by the city engineer to provide the
required underground facilities shall particularly specify
. at wo.-}c is required to be done, and shall state that if
work is not completed within thirty days after receipt
ofd
such notice, the city engineer will provide such required
ndergrou-d facilities in which case the cost and expense
C
thereof will be assessed against the property benefi_ed and
becc-e a lien upon such property.
D. If upon the expiration of the thirty day period, the
said required underground facilities have not been provided,
the cit:: engineer shall forthwith proceed to do the work;
provided, however, if such premises are unoccupied and no
,electric or communication services are being furnished thereto,
a city engineer may in lieu of providing the required
facilities, authorize the disconnection and removal of any
and all overhead service wires and associated facilities
s':pplying utility service to the property. Upon completion of
tae work by the city engineer, he shall file a written report
with the city council setting forth the fact that the required
underground facilities have been provided and the cost thereof,
tecether with a legal description of the property against
which such cost is to be assessed. The council shall thereupon
fix a time and place for hearing protests against the assess-
of the cost of such work upon such premises, which
time shall not be less than ten days thereafter.
E. The city engineer shall, upon the time for hearing
protests having been fixed, give a notice in writing
to e person in possession of such premises, and a notice
thereof to the owner thereof, in the manner provided
-.. : "s�ciapter for the giving of the notice to provide the
--_.. underground facilities, of the time and place that
ttla council will pass upon the report and will hear protests
157
a��
13.04.100- 13.04.120
against the assessment. Such notice shall also set forth C
the amount of the proposed assessment.
F. Upon the date and hour set for the hearing of pro-
tests, the council shalj,riiear and consider the report and
all protests, if there ny, and then proceed to affirm,
modify or reject the as sment.
a. If any assessment is not paid within five days after
its confirmation by the council, the amount of the assessment
shall become a lien upon the property against which the
assessment is made by the city engineer, and the city engineer
is directed to turn over to the treasurer a notice of lien
on each of the properties on which the assessment has not
been paid, and the treasurer shall add the amount of the
assessment to the next regular bill for taxes levied against
the premises upon which the assessment was not paid. The
assessment shall be due and payable at the same time as the
operty taxes are due and payable, and if not paid when
due"and payable, shall bear interest at the rate of six per-
cent per annum. (Ord. 11 59, 1978).
13.04.100 Responsibility_ of city. The city shall
remove at its own expense all city -owned eeuipment from all
poles recuired to be removed hereunder in ample time to
enable the owner or user of such poles to remove the same
wit: ^.in the time specified in the resolution enacted pursuant
to Section 13.04.030. (Ord. 11 510, 1978).
13.04.110 Extension of time. In the event that any
act required by this chapter or y resolution adopted pursuant
to Section 13.04.030 cannot be performed within the time
provided on account of shortage of materials, war, restraint
by public authorities, strikes, labor disturbances, civil
disobedience, or any other circumstances beyond the control
of the actor, then the time within which the act will be
accomplished shall be extended for a period equivalent to
the time of the limitation. (Ord. 11 5111 1978).
13.04.120 Violation -- Penalty. It shall be unlawful
for any person to violate any provision or to fail tb comply
with any of the requirements of this chapter. Any person
violating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply
with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprison-
ment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and
i- ,orisonment. Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a
separate offense for each day during any portion of which
ar.. violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is
ccmmittad, continued or permitted by such person, and shall
be punishable therefor as provided for in this chapter.
(Ord. 11 512, 1970).
158
p.
a
Z
O
g
U
V
O
x
v
a
a
LL
O
F
u
I
N
W
z
a
J
Z
Z
p
~
3
tNil
o Do
OF OF �
N
O
,3jr
N
0
W
W
J
U'
F
I - = G WF �� Z N m J W
00 ma o v o > �
iz
♦- 1 I 1 , � � T X T ¢ t-
T
r r
r �
1
r.
I I ,
X--T-
im
r i , rl•1 i, �l .f1'`.1� Il �� '113A-
V S
tl' U' .t
1
' •_ I ':�,F T ` ^ .. Il
-�% 3Atl I ^�,i -- f•_V O'1tl6U9Ml ._l K �� l..I •�I .1. ° - �I
6!_ _ wH- -_� .f�..tr�#r L� .i. -,' ...1ilf- Z -"_r -. r�_.ui -' _4''�'!t�.- z - - -. �Ab :n-�•.,,.
i 14 :i'.__.�'i;• ,j I .I ;',r_I _•, ._.I� i1 i _I !ii ?.,i I�
TK -------
`S
ro
i
I -• •�'. "a4g IT- rid'li3rlytlpi- I..'iJ f_' X �:Y r ''t��'i\ T •� � -'
' -'I �' �• �ti,B •!r'I -I (': it
� tt-
I 1, -.- I-• �- ,/I Imo, I �� -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 1, 1981
O p a
Ui >
iFSil
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserman
City Manager
SUBJECT: Selection of Repre4 ative for
Public - Private Sector Coalition
As the City Council is aware, Rancho Cucamonga and all of the other cities in
our area have forced a coalition with the private sector in order to make
known our views on legislation which affects our community. This coalition
would operate on an as needed basis in both Sacramento and Washington. We
do not anticipate any expenditure of funds for membership in the coalition.
Membership in the coalition is limited to a city council representative,
a chamber of commerce representative, and a third representative to be
selected by the other two. Each city will have equal voting rights.
It is recommended that the city council designate a representative to serve
for the city on the public - private coalition.
LMW: baa
d6�
, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
< > Nr PhililF B. seeiOW
Arthv J.. B. Bridge ]on D. Polom
Lamm C. Font MieFeel A. PJomEo
Y L
�J
V VS
1977
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Councilmen and Lauren Wasserman, City Manager
FROM: Phillip Schlosser, Mayor
DATE: September 25, 1981
I attended a meeting today on the Public - Private Sector Coalition for
Clout, at which there were ten cities in attendance. The cities are:
Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Chino, Montclair, Upland, Fontana, Claremont,
Pomona, San Dimas, and Rialto. It was, basicly, attended by their Mayor,
City Manager, Chamber Manager, and Chamber President. All were essentially
in agreement that we should have this sort of meeting whereby various
issues, which affect some and /or all of the cities, could be discussed so
that we could arrive at a mutual agreement whereby these issues could be
presented to Supervisors, Sacramento, or even to the Federal level.
F , therefore, necessary that at our next council meeting, under
ture and Representation, we select a city representative, the Chamber
select theirs. Then, per attached, it states that the third is to
osen by the city representative and chamber representative. The date
he next meeting, that is penciled in the border, is set for Friday,
er 23 at 7:30 a.m. at the Arbor Restaurant in Upland.
ther point, I would like to bring up, is the fact that I will not
le to attend the October 21 council meeting, as I do have to make
ales trip to Europe to contact the engine manufacturers there.
1, certainly, hate to miss any council meetings; however, it is also
necessary that I manage to keep the company running. It is imperative
that I make the trip at this time,
Phillip D. Schlosser
Mayor
PDS:cm
Attachment.
POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 • (714)9894861
PUBLIC - PRIVATE SECTOR COALITION FOR CLOUT
Purpose -- To provide a coordinated effort of the public and private sectors in
developing needed clout on issues of area -wide interest and to provide
a forum for the exchange of information.
Possible topics include:
a. flood control
b. affordable housing
c. economic development of regional significance
d. transportation
e. water
f. tourism
Structure -- A minimum of structure is intended. Sufficient structure is needed
to bring the communities together on an issue and to develop the
resources and responses needed to effectively deal with that issuel
a. Cities Involved - Open invitation, any community concerned with
an issue could be involved. Include both counties recognizing
that some issues will involve only one county
b. Representation - Each community would have 3 voting representatives -
a city representative, a chamber representative and a third chosen
by the other two. Alternates may he appointed.
c. Term of Office - To serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
d. Technical Advising Committee - A non voting Technical Advisory
�✓ ! �u �� Committee will consist of one chamber and one city staff represent-
it
' -- ative from each community. This advisory group shall not act on
behalf of the larger group but facilitate action.
f,ys c. Leadership - Chairmanship and vice chairmanship shall be rotated
ii
annually between public and private sector. The chairman and
vice chairman shall be frnm different sectors.
f. Ex- Officio - County supervisors from time to time may be invited to
serve as ex- officio members.
Structure - cont.
g. Staff - Chairman would provide basic organizational staffing
for the convening of meetings. City and Chamber staff would
provide staffing on specific topics or programs. This minimizes
overhead.
h. Funding - Primary funding would be on a project by project
basis only as needed.
i. Actions - Actions of the group could carry the name of supporting
communities only. Thus minority opinions would not be forced to
go along. This also might alleviate need for veto rights.
j. Meetings - The full committee should meet at least quarterly
with the technical advisory committee, meeting as needed for the
purpose of conducting business.
k. Meeting Notice - Procedure for calling a meeting shall be
(1) All members noticed by mail or
(2) Minimum 24 hour advance phone contact.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AN
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT POLICIES
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO INCREASE RATE OF RETURN.
WHEREAS, the 1980 Annual Financial Report and Report of Operations,
issued by the Public Employees' Retirement System of the State of California for
the fiscal period ended June 30, 1980, revealed that the "Computed Rate of Return"
on the entire $12.85 billion PERS investment portfolio was 7.91 %; and
WHEREAS, the rate of inflation, as determined by the state com-
posite California Consumer Price Index, as computed by the California State
Industrial Relations Board, for the same 12 -month period was 17.5% for all urban
wage earners, and the interest crediting rate which member employers and employees
were granted on their accumulated retirement earnings for the year ended June 30,
1980, was only 6%; and
WHEREAS, 49% of the PERS $12.85 billion investment portfolio as
of June 30, 1980, is placed in bonds, many of which are long -term investments, some
yielding as low as 47; and
WHEREAS, only 4.1% of the PERS investment portfolio, as of June
,30, 1980, was placed in short -term; investments at a time when money market funds
are earning up to 20% for large investments; and
WHEREAS, the "Statement of Investment Objectives and Policies" of
the California Public Employees' Retirement System contains a section entitled
"Investment Objectives," which states the following=
"1) to increase asset coverage of actuarial liabilities;
2) to maintain real dollar value of the assets (provide
inflation coverage);
3) to stabilize current employer contribution rates." ; and
WHEREAS, PERS' actuarials have estimated that a 1% increase
in the PERS' Computed Rate of Return on its investment portfolio would probably
offset a 137 increase in costs to PERS retirement system employers in California; and
WHEREAS, public agency employers, depending, on the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) benefit level they have contracted for, coupled
with their experience, expend from 8% to 12% of their annual operating budget on
PERS employer contributions for employee retirement benefits; and
WHEREAS, public agency employers, such as PERS member cities
and counties, are experiencing continuous employer rate increases following
periodic audits of the financial integrity of the PERS system; and
WHEREAS, current PERS in vestmentpolicies appear too rigid and
unable to respond in a timely manner with a flexible and aggressive investment
policy to capitalize on rapidly changing money market investment opportunities,
such as Federal Treasury Notes, Federal T- Bills, Certificates of Deposit, and
short -term commercial paper which has been yeelding Interest rates ranging from
14% to 20% over the past 30 months; and
i
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares its
support for adoption of the resolution to be considered by the League of
Californ Cities member agencies at its annual conference in San Francisco
to be held in October, 1981, addressing all of the above issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga that it hereby expresses its support and concurs in
adoption of a resolution wherein:
1) It is recognized that while the PERS Board of Administra-
tion has managed its investment portfolio in a prudent and effective manner in
the past, the League of California Cities now supports action to influence the
PERS Board of Administration to change its investment strategy so that a signifi-
cantly higher percentage of new revenue may be placed in Federal T- Bills, Certi-
ficates of Deposit, Bankers Acceptance, and other performance investment vehicles
with high yield when market conditions so justify, in a concerted effort to
maximize earnings from investments; and
2) The League of California Cities supports action to influence
the PERS Board of Administration to examine investment decisions in view of
current market conditions; and
3) Encouragement be given to PERS member cities, member
counties, individual members, and public agency employee organizations to
write letters to the PERS Board of Administration and to personally appear
before the Board to demonstrate wide public agency and employee organization
support for a full review of and change, as appropriate, of current investment
policies; and
4) The effort to maximize interest earnings from the PERS
investment portfolio will directly benefit PERS member cities and individual
members of the California Public Employees Retirement System, and in so doing,
will reduce the need for employer rate increases which would be funded from tax
revenues.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Laruen M. Wasserman, City Clerk
Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor
1Zancho Ciucamoa Cha.m6cr of Commerce
8137 MALACHITE AVE., SUITE A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
TELEPHONE: 714M87-1012
October 1, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
REGARDING: Proposed Budget for Rancho Cucamonga Wine Festival 1981
Honorable Gentlemen:
The City and Chamber of Commerce both desire to promote the advantages of
our community. Therefore, the Chamber desires to take a lead role in the
initiation and perpetuation of a community -wide celebration of Rancho
Cucamonga. A major event would build community pride, generate tourism
revenues, and prevent neighboring communities from capitalizing on the
existing opportunity.
Enclosed is a factsheet for the proposed event, a proposed budget and a
proposed agreement whereby the City might advance the necessary start -up
costs to the Chamber.
PROPOSED BUDGET (ESTIMATES)
(Direct costs only; donated goods, services and administrative expenses are
excluded).
FIVE MAJOR AREAS OF THE EVENT
1) City -wide Retail Promotion:
Gross cost to Chamber ------------------------------ $200.00
(Printing, Postage, Transportation, Misc.)
Gross Revenue to Chamber------------- ---- ---- - - ---- 0
Estimated Loss ------------------------------------- (-8200.00)
2) Third Annual Founder's Day Parade:
Costs - - -(2 parade entries -- -Miss Rancho Cucamonga &
Court and Chamber officers; Banners, car
washes, gasoline, Misc.) ------------------ $100.00
Revenues----------- ---- ------------ ----- ---- ---- - -- 0
Loss ----------------------------------------------- (-5100.00)
y'a
3) Miss Rancho Cucamonga Beauty Pageant:
Costs - - - -- (Technicians, sets, printing, postage,
sashes, trophies, tiaras, prizes,
flowers, musicians, photography,
publicity, consultants, gratuities, misc.) - - -- $3,000.00
Revenues ------------------------------------------------- $4,000.00
Gross Profit --------------------------------------------- $1,000.00
4) V.I.P. Dinner - Dance:
Costs-----(Meals, champagne, service, tips, hall rental,
musicians, printing, postage, decorations,
clean -up, misc.) ------------------------------ $8,000.00
Revenues ------------------------------------------------- $9,000.00
Gross Profit --------------------------------------------- $1,000.00
5) Festival /Carnival:
Costs - - -- -(Wine glasses, rest room rental, booth rental,
permits, licenses, inspections, furniture rental,
hardware, clean -up, supplies, drinking water,
publicity, misc.) ----------------------------- $10,000.00
Revenues ------------------------------------------------- $16,000.00
Gross Profit --------------------------------------------- $ 6,000.00
Total Gross Expenses ( estimated) --------------------------------- $21,000.00
Total Gross Revenues ( estimated) --------------------------------- $29,000.00
Total Gross Profit ( estimated)------------------------------ - - - - -$ 8,000.00
Gross esitmated start -up costs------------------------------ - - - - -$ 7,500.00
a) Estimated loan from City--------------------------- - - - - -$ 6,000.00
b) Estimated impact on Chamber's cash flow------------ - - - - -$ 1,500.00
Estimated Net Profit --------------------------------------------- $ 2,000.00
The Chamber officers, committee chairpersons and staff will gladly answer
any questions you may have either prior to or during the City - council
meeting of October 7, 1981. Thank you for your participation on this
important event for our community. We are pleased and proud of the emerging
cooperative spirit our two bodies have displayed and are continuing to
build with each other.
htl /hp
Sincerely,
Mi hael Executi
kancho Cucamoa Ckam6er of Commerce
8137 MALACHITE AVE., SUITE A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
TELEPHONE: 71419871012
October 1, 1981
TO: All Clubs and Organizations in the Rancho Cucamonga area.
REGARDING: A factsheet about the first annual Rancho Cucamonga Wine Festival
Dear Civic Leader:
Rancho Cucamonga was once the center of the California Wine Industry and still
supports many productive wineries. In times past, we all celebrated the grape
harvest season with an annual festival, but that tradition has been inactive
for many years. The Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce is proud of the
heritage of our famous and fun - sounding community; so it is taking a lead role
in the restoration of our annual festival tradition.
The Chamber's Board of Director's recently decided to proceed with an annual
Wine Festival and to combine the first year's activities with our City's Founder's
Day Parade, a Miss Rancho Cucamonga Beauty Pageant, a semi - formal Dinner - Dance,
a large Festival /Carnival and a city -wide Retail Promotion. The Chamber's
unique role is to generate and coordinate the efforts of hundreds of people
from our City and County governments, local businesses and local civic organ-
izations to produce a successful event for Southern California. A successful
festival would generate funds for participants.
The Chambers hopes your organization will also participate in any or all of
five major areas.
1) Miss Rancho Cucamonga Beauty Pageant: Thursday, November 12, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
to 10:00 P.M. Alta Loma High School Auditorium. The Pageant Committee
has limited contestants to the first 25 applications received. Call the
Chamber for responsibilities and benefits of sponsoring a girl (fee $50.00),
and to reserve seats at the pageant ($3.00 each). Can you suggest a contestant?
2) Semi - formal V.I.P. Dinner - Dance: Friday, November 13, 1981, 7:00 P.M. to
2:00 A.M., Elks Lodge, invitation only, $23.75 per person. Cali the Chamber
for an invitation to a prime rib dinner with all the trimmings, unlimited
champagne and top rated musicians; the place to be on Friday the 13th.
3) City -wide Retail Promotion: November 11, through 15, 1981. Call the Chamber
to learn the plans for and benefits of pooling resources to generate more
consumer traffic for all local merchants through joint advertising, dis-
counts, etc.
-2-
4) Third Annual Rancho Cucamonga Founder's Day Parade: Saturday, November
14, 1981, 10:00 A.M. to 12 noon. It proceeds eastward on Baseline Road
from Alta Loma High School to Archibald Avenue. Call the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Community Services Department at 989 -1851 as soon as you can
to reserve parade space for your entry.
5) First Annual Rancho Cucamonga Wine Festival:
Carnival: Friday, November 13, 1981, 4:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Saturday, November 14, 1981, 10:00 A.M. to ,10:00 P.M.
Sunday, November 15, 1981, 12:00 Noon to 9:00 P.M.
Carnival includes rides, games and attractions all weekend at
the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Blvd., just
north of the new K -Mart facility. Thousands of advance -sale,
half -price ride tickets are currently on sale at the Chamber
office. Please help us sell them so more people will attend.
Wine Tasting Grotto:
A limited access area for local wineries to serve fine California
wines in beautiful souvenir glasses will open at noon on Saturday
and Sunday.
Continuous Entertainment for all ages:
On Saturday and Sunday, afternoon and evening, see mimes, jugglers,
clowns, magicians, acrobats, dancers, and all sorts of performing
musicians. Call the Chamber if you know performers who might
wish to participate.
Civic Booths:
Games, prepared food, soft drinks, etc. on Friday, November 13,
Saturday, November 14, and Sunday, November 15. Booths, games
and prize merchandise can be reserved and rented from the Chamber
for you to staff for between $85.00 to $185.00 plus 8 man hours
of volunteer labor (parking cars, making change, lost 6 found etc.).
The Chamber will provide all licenses and permits for non - profit
organizations. Contact us for a list of games available for rental
and general guidelines for operation.
Commercial Booths:
Licensed businesses may rent space or booths at festival site for
$50.00, plus $30.00 per day. Call the Chamber for reservations.
As you can see, the Rancho Cucamonga Wine Fesitval 1981, promises to be a huge
event. If you or your organization can participate in any or all of the five
major areas, notify the Chamber as soon as possible. The absolute deadline is
Friday, October 30, 1981. Let's all help put Rancho Cucamonga on the map and
have a great time doing it. The following people are filling leadership roles
on committees dedicated to making the event successful.
Bill Davies
Jan Marshall
Jeff Sceranka
Betsy Finazzo
Jon Mikels
Rose Scorsatto
Bill Holley
Bill Nix
Jeff Tarantino
Michael Jauron
Michael Palombo
Tom Wickum
Dave Kiedrowski
Renae Russell
John Mannerino
Bob Salazar
P�'lr'
We would also like to mention
meeting room. It is not used,
to the office itself. It will
to civic groups and clubs for
coffee and telephone expenses.
DH /hp
-3-
that the new Chamber headquarters has a great
most evenings and is keyed to prevent access
hold up to 20 people easily and is available
meetings. The fee is $5.00 per meeting plus
Call us to reserve your meeting dates.
Sincerely,
0 ,// \l �✓1 'e
Don Hardy, Presi nt
Rancho Cucamonga
Chamber of Commerce
cc: All local clubs and organizations
Local print and broadcast media
AGREEMENT
This agreement made this 7th day of October 1981, is between the City of
Rancho Cucamonga ( "CITY ") a municipal corporation, and the Rancho Cucamonga
Chamber of Commerce ( "CHAMBER ") a California non - profit corporation.
WHEREAS the CITY and the CHAMBER are both desirous of an annual festival in
Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS the CHAMBER has special knowledge, experience and capabilities for
producing such a festival, save funding; and
WHEREAS the CITY has the potential to act as a lending agent to provide the
CHAMBER with the necessary start -up costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and CHAMBER do agree to the following:
1. The City will immediately lend the CHAMBER the sum of $6000.00 to be
used to pay all necessary deposits, fees, etc. to initiate the Rancho
Cucamonga Wine Festival program.
2. The CHAMBER will make every attempt to repay the entire $6,000.00 within
a one -month accounting period after the close of the festival on November
15, 1981.
3. Should the CHAMBER, for unforseen reasons, be unable to repay the entire
amount by December 15, 1981, the CHAMBER agrees to pay the legal interest
rate of 7% on the balance due, commencing December 16, 1981, with the
condition that the entire balance due, plus interest charges be repaid to
the CITY within a one -year period ending December 15, 1982.
%j
City- Chamber Agreement
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
APPROVED:
CHAMBER ATTORNEY
DATE:
-z-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MAYOR
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
n �
d �
PRESIDENT
A G E N D A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
October 7, 1981
1. CALL TO ORDER.
A. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, and
Schlosser
B. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 1981.
2. STAFF REPORTS.
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT AND AUTHORIZATION OF
TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Report by Jack Law.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -4 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOW-
LEDGING RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOP-
MENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA RE-
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING ITS
TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
B. SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 3
IMPACT REPORT. Report by Jack Lam.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -5 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOW-
LEDGING RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE
STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CARRY
OUT REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.
C. ADOPTION OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 5
GUIDELINES FOR USE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Report by Jack Lam.
Redevelopment Agenda -2- October 7, 1981
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -6 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTING
BY INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE THE STATE
EIR GUIDELINES AS CONTAINED IN SECTION
15000 ET. SEQ. OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINIS-
TRATIVE CODE.
D. LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE. 8
Report by Jack Lam.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -7 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING
LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A PROJECT AREA
COMMITTEE FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
E. ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -8 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSENTING
TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOP-
MENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
F. AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND SEMINAR ON REDEVELOPMENT 13
ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1981. Staff report by
Lauren Wasserman.
3. ADJOURNMENT.
ing the regular meeting of the City Council. The meeting was called to order at
9:40 p.m. by Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser.
Present were Agency Members: James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo,
Arthur H. Bridge, and Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present were: Executive Director, Lauren M. Wasserman; Consultant, Abe DeDios;
and Attorney, John Brown.
Approval of Minutes: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to approve the minutes
of August 19, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
2. STAFF REPORTS.
2A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT AND AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Mr. DeDios presented the report.
Mr. DeDios presented changes and replacement pages No. 13, 14, 15, and 16 to the
materials already received by Council. He said the changes were minor such as
there were references made to Deer Creek and Day Creek, and they should have been
Day Creek only. There were some repetitions of public improvements, and they deleted
the reference to the Foothill Freeway as one of the public improvement projects.
Mr. DeDios said that once the County Administrative Officer receives the proposed
redevelopment plan, then this commences the time period for the Fiscal Review
Committee to have their hearing on the plan.
Mr. Frost asked questions regarding references to discrimination and non- segre-
gation which implied this could take precedence over CCRS. Mr. Brown suggested
that he prepare a report and come back before the public hearing to elaborate on
this concern.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve Resolution No. RA 81 -4
with inclusion of the new insertions and to waive the entire reading of the Resolu-
tion. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Secretary Wasserman read the title of
Resolution No. RA 81 -4.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING ITS TRANSMITTAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
x'
consu..tants for toe <.ra:t receve..opment plan. Council neeas to approve tie resolution
acknowledging receipt of the draft environmental impact report and authorizing
distribution for public review.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. RA 81 -5 and to
waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Secretary Wasserman read
the title of Resolution No. RA 81 -5.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -5
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE
STAFF OF THE PUNNING COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT RE-
QUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.
2C. ADOPTION OF CLAIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES FOR USE BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Report presented by Jack Lam.
Mr. Lam stated that they are recommending that the Agency adopt the California
Environmental Quality Act by reference. Mr. Lam he had one request that where -
ever it mentions CEQA 1970 that we delete the 1970.
Mr. Mikels requested a copy of those guidelines.
Mr. Brown stated that what the Agency was doing was adopting by reference a portion
of the California Administrative Code which sets out the State EIR guidelines which
essentially elaborates on CEQA. He said they will copy this and see that they are
sent to the Agency.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. RA 81 -6 and
to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Secretary Wasserman
read the title of Resolution No. RA 81 -6.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -6
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADOPTING BY INCORPORATION
BY REFERENCE THE STATE EIR GUIDELINES AS CONTAINED
IN SECTION 15000 ET. SEQ. OF THE CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
2D. LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A PROJECT AREA COM41TTEE. Report by Jack Lam.
Mr. Lam stated that this action needed to be taken by both the Redevelopment Agency
and the City Council.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. RA 81 -7 and
to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Secretary Wasserman
read the title of Resolution No. RA 81 -7.
A
COMMITTEE FOR THE RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2E. ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE TO REVIEW PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Report by Jack Lam.
Mr. Lam stated this was another action that needed to be taken by both the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palombo to approve Resolution No. RA 81 -8
and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Secretary
Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. RA 81 -8.
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81 -8
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSENTING TO A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO
CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2F. AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND SEMINAR ON REDEVELOPMENT ON FRIDAY OCTOBER 16 1981.
Staff report by Lauren Wasserman.
Mr. Wasserman stated that Mr. Lam and Mr. Frost along with himself were requesting
authorization to attend the redevelopment seminar. The meeting would be one day
prior to the League meeting which all were attending.
Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Bridge to authorize Mr. Lam, Mr. Frost, and
Mr. Wasserman to attned the Redevelopment meeting and to authorize funds to come
from the agency. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0.
3. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Schlosser to adjourn to
a City Council Executive Session to discuss pending litigation not to reconvene.
Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully /submitted,
Beverly Aluthele� t
Assistant Secretary
nTmv nc n A unvn nr TO A T nXTr A
STAFF REPORT N'r
�I
} Q
r. 6
U
1977
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT AND AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSMITTAL
OF PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
BACKGROUND: Attached is a draft of the Redevelopment Plan as prepared
by the Consultant in conformance with California Redevelopment Law.
This Plan will be transmitted to the City Council, Planning Commission,
and Chief Administrative Officer of San Bernardino County in order to
complete a review as required by the Redevelopment Law. Future public
meetings will be held by the Redevelopment Agency to consider the Re-
development Plan prior to its adoption.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt
the attached Resolution acknowledging receipt of the proposed Plan and
transmittal to other agencies.
Respectfully IA submitted,
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL:TJB:jr
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. I'. la gI —
�
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT
OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING ITS TRANS-
MITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project conforms to the requirements of the California Redevelopment Law
(Section 33330 et sec. California Health and Safety Code).
NOW THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby authorized and directed to
transmit the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project to the City Council, Planning Commission and Chief Administrative
Office of San Bernardino County for their reports and recommendations as
required by the California Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33346,
33347, 3347.5 and 33386, California health and Safety Code).
SECTION 2: The Secretary of the Agency shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981,
ATTEST:
Lauren N. Wasserman, Secretary
r�C
Phillip D. Schlosser, Chairman
nrmv nc n ♦ wrnnn ITT.I • .
Gv ". "h0
STAFF REPORT'.
y .
F
U.
1977
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: City Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by the Consultants for the Draft Redevelopment Plan. The Environ-
mental Impact Report will be distributed for public comment and will accom-
pany the Draft Plan during the review process.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency approve the attached Reso-
lution acknowledging receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
and authorize distribution for Public review.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
J L: TJ B: jr
Attachment: Resolution
k
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO REDEVELOP-
MENT PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 as subsequently amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Redevelopment Agency adknowledges receipt of
the Oraft Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project.
SECTION 2: The staff of the Planning Commission is hereby
authorized and directed to carry out the procedural steps necessary to
conform to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for assessing
the environmental impacts of the Rancho Redevelopment Project,
SECTION 3: The Secretary of the Agency shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
ATTEST:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Chairman
Lauren M. Wasserman, Secretary
J1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
October 7, 1981
City Redevelopment Agency
Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Director
Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
ADOPTION OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT - GUIDELINES
FOR USE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BACKGROUND: Attached you will find a Resolution recommending adoption
of the Environmental Guidelines for use by the Redevelopment Agency.
Also enclosed is a memo from the Counsel of the Agency discussinq this
action.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt
the attached Resolution incorooratinq, by reference, California State
EIR Guidelines for use by the Redevelopment Agency.
Respectfully submitted,
,.J l wkk'�'
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL: TJB: jr
Attachments: Resolution
Memo from John E. Brown
6-
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
LAWYERS
MEMORANDUM
September 25, 1981
TO: CHAIRMAN, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FROM: COUNSEL
RE: ADOPTION OF LOCAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
Attached please find a resolution of the Redevelop-
ment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopting by incor-
poration by reference the State EIR Guidelines as the local
California Enviornmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Each local governmental agency, including redevelopment agencies,
must adopt its own local CEQA Guidelines. Adoption of the
attached resolution will insure compliance with this legal
requirement and will also take advantage of a State law which
provides that all public and private activities or under-
takings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan
shall be deemed a single project. This means that the Redevelop-
ment Agency will not be required to undertake extensive sub-
sequent environmental assessments of projects contemplated as
part of the Rancho Redevelopment Project.
JOHN E. BROWN
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81- �.
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING BY INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE THE
STATE EIR GUIDELINES AS CONTAINED IN SECTION
15000 ET SEQ, OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRA-
TIVE CODE.
WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide decisionmakers with useful
information on how government actions affect the environment; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has developed environmental
guidelines (State EIR Guidelines) for the implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, as a public agency the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga must implement the provisions of CEQA pursuant
to California Public Resources Code Section 21082, in order to enhance
and protect the environment; and
SECTION 1: Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds the following:
That additional guidelines are not needed at this time to
supplement the State EIR Guidelines for orooer imDlementa-
tion of CEQA.
SECTION 2: The Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts the State
Environmental Review Guidelines by incorporation by reference as now
contained in Section 15000 et seg, of Title 14 of the California Admini-
strative Code and as hereinafter amended.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Phi lip D. Sch osser, Chairman
Lauren M. Wasserman, Secretary
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and Redevelooment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: LACK OF NECESSITY TO FORM A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND: Attached is a memo from John E. Brown, Attorney for the
Redevelooment Agency, discussing action necessary by the City in order
not to form a Project Area Committee. It appears from his memo that a
Project Area Committee is not necessary because the proposed Redevelop-
ment Plan does not call for a displacement of low or moderate income
households. The accompanying Resolution has findings which determine
that the Project Area Committee is necessary. However, in order to
assure for broad communication on the Redevelopment Plan, the City
has been in contact with the North Town CPAC to explain the purpose
of the Redevelooment Plan and how this may affect the North Town Com-
munity. It is intended that additional opportunities will be made to
discuss the Redevelopment Plan with residents of the Redevelopment Plan
with residents of the North Town area in order to answer any questions.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redeveloo-
ment Agency adopt the attached Resolution determining lack of necessity
for a Project Area Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
'__1 XL64�'�
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL:TJB: jr
Attachments: Resolution
Memo From John E. Brown
7
RESOLUTION NO. RA 81-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING LACK OF
NECESSITY TO FORM .A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR
THE RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ( "Agency ")
are in the process of adopting a Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Agency deems it necessary at this time to make
certain findings and determinations as to the lack of necessity to call
for the formation of a Project Area Committee pursuant to California
Health & Safety Code Section No. 33385, and to propose such recommenda-
tions to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: This Agency hereby finds and determines that:
(A) The Rancho Redevelopment Project area does not contain
a substantial number of low- and moderate - income famili ^s
which will be displaced by the redevelopment project;
(B) The Rancho Redevelopment Project area is presently being
principally utilized for purposes other than residential
uses;
(C) The anticipated uses in the Rancho Redevelopment Project
area will include certain residential uses, in addition
to commercial and /or industrial uses as is intended by
the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment
Project; and
(D) For the above reasons, the Agency recommends that it is
impractical for the City Council to call upon residents
and existing community organizations to form a Project
Area Comnmittee as provided for in Section 33385 of the
California Health and Safety Code.
SECTION 2: This Agency further finds and determines that, for
the reasons set forth in Section 1 hereof, no state policy as found in
the Community Redevelopment Law will be contravened by the failure to form
a Project Area Committee due to the nature of the Rancho Redevelopment
Project.
Resolution No. RA 81-
Page 2
SECTION 3: The Agency hereby recommends that the City Council
dispense with the formation of the Project Area Committee, but the
Agency shall consult with, and obtain the advice of, residents and
community organizations as provided in Sections 33385 and 33386 of the
Health and Safety Code, and provide such persons and organizations with
the proposed Redevelopment Plan prior to submitting it to the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for final approval.
SECTION 4: The Secretary of the Agency is hereby authorized
and directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the City Council
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Phillip D. Schlosser, Chairman
Lauren M. Wasserman, Secretary
16
STAFF REPORT 1.10
�I
°i
19ii �
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jack Lam, A.I.C.P., Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedie, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEARING DATE TO REVIEW PROPOSED REDEVELOP-
MENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, a joint meeting
between the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency is necessary in
order to receive public input on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The
Draft Environmental Impact Report will also be reviewed at this meeting
in accordance with California Environmental Law. This meeting will be
held December 2, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency adopt the attached Resolution establishing the date of public hearing.
Respectfully �submitted,
,--] IJIJ�
JACK LAM, A.I.C.P.
Director of Community Development
JL:TJB:jr
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 1 " j
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONSENTING TO A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO
CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO REDEVEL-
OPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33355 of the California Health
and Safety Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga may
consent to hold a joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the purpose of considering the Redevelopment
Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Redevelopment Agency to hold
a joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho
Redevelopment Project on December 2, 1981,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That the Redevelopment Agency hereby consents to a
joint public hearing with the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
to consider the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact
Report for the Rancho Redevelopment Project.
SECTION 2: That such joint public hearing be held on December
2, 1981 in the Council Chambers of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and
that the Executive Director take all appropriate actions and notify
those persons required to be notified by law of such public hearings
including publication of the legal notices regarding such hearing.
SECTION 3: The Secretary of Agency shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1981.
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, Secretary
Phillip D. Sch osser, hairman
la
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
October 1, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: Lauren Wass ermr
City Manager
SUBJECT: Redevelopment Seminar
Authorization is requested for the Community Development Director and
City Manager to attend a seminar on the redevelopment process in San
Francisco. Since the seminar is one day prior to the League of California
Annual Conference, the only additional expense to the city is for registra-
tion and a hotel room which will be shared.
Although no specific funds were budgeted for this seminar, funds are
available in the city manager's meeting and travel account.
LMW:baa
13
A SEMINAR ON REDEVELOPMENT
SEMINAR II
"INTRODUCTION TO REDEVELOPMENT"
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1981
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT HILTON HOTEL
PRESENTED BY
C, CRAM I
Community Redevelopment Agencies Assoclation
Headquarter; 16168 Beech Blvd„ Suite I11, Huntington Beach, CA 92647; (714) 8426477
Sacramento: 1400 X" St, Suite 206, Sacramento, CA 95814 (League Building)
i� I
r'
The Community Redevelopment Agencies Association is
sponsoring a special one -day seminar on the redevelop-
ment process. This will be a primer on redevelopment
designed to acquaint councilmembers, city and agency
staff, and members of the private sector who want to
know what the redevelopment process is all about. It
will be as comprehensive as we can make it in a one
day session. A handout notebook will be presented
to participants detailing the information presented
by the speakers and containing other useful material.
This seminar is being held in answer to the many
requests we have received from city and county staff,
developers and others who have not previously been
involved or would like a refresher course in the
redevelopment process.
REGISTRATION
The seminar will be limited to the first 120 registrations
received. To assure your attendance, you are encouraged to
send in your advanced registration as soon as possible.
Please complete the attached registration form and return it
with a check or money order (no purchase orders) in the
appropriate amount to:
CRA ASSOCIATION
16168 Beach Blvd., Suite 111
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
To process the advanced registration, payment of the fee
must accompany the registration form and be received by
October 9, 1981.
Those who do not wish to register in advance should check
with the CRA office prior to October 14 to determine space
availability. A registration desk will be open at 8:00 a.m.
at the door the day of the conference.
REGISTRATION FEE
The following fees will apply for this seminar:
$100 - For CRA Association members
$130 - For CRA Association non - members
add $ 10 - For late registration
The seminar fee will include lunch, coffee at the breaks,
and the seminar notebook.
r
N
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT
SEMINAR II
"THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS"
8:30
- 10:00 a.m.
REGISTRATION
- Lobby at
the Roosevelt Room
9:30
a.m.
SESSION #1
- "Redevelopment
Overview"
The CRA Association public information slide
program " Revitalizing Our Cities" will be
shown. In addition, a brief overview of
redevelopment as an economic development
opportunity will be presented.
10:00 a.m. SESSION #2 - "The Process Of Adopting A
Redevelopment Plan
The entire process of activating an agency
and adopting a redevelopment plan will be
discussed including the selection of survey
areas, time schedules, determining blight,
the preliminary plan, general plan conformity,
the E.I.R., and redevelopment plan content.
The seminar notebook will contain sample
resolutions, time schedules, and other material
to further explain the process.
11:00 a.m. SESSION #3 - "Establishing A Redevelopment
Project r
A hands -on case study involving participants
will explore the fundamentals of formulating
a project. Potential problem areas and
pitfalls in establishing a project will be
covered.
12:00 noon LUNCHEON - "The Fiscal Review Process"
The luncheon speaker will discuss the
redevelopment law provisions relating to
fiscal review, the current status of fiscal
review with some counties, and the need to
select reasonable project boundaries.
1:45 p.m. SESSION #4 - "Financing Redevelopment"
This session will cover the various methods
available to finance public costs involved
in redevelopment. Funding start-up costs,
land acquisition, street improvements, and
other costs will be discussed. Methods
outlined will include tax increment revenue,
tax allocation bonds, assessment districts,
lease revenue bonds, the use of the housing
set -aside fund. etc.
Financing private development costs will
also be reviewed, including the use of SB 99
residential and commercial mortgage revenue
bonds, industrial development bonds,
municipal lease financing, and other methods
of assisting the financing of private
development.
3:30 p.m. SESSION Y5 - "Project Implementation"
This portion of the program will be
conducted by experienced agency staff and
attorneys who will discuss the various
aspects of project implementation. Included
will be an explanation of disposition and
development agreements, land right- downs,
owner participation, land acquisition,
relocation benefits, and negotiating the
redevelopment deal.
5:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
A
CG
„EITY MANAGER
° 15 111S1
L LY CITY
San Gabriel �
Tuesday, Septen
Statewide Retirement Program Under p
Poor Investments Cited in
Public Employees System
By FRANK FARRAR
7Tib me Staff Writer
The California Public Employees Retirement System,
serving more than 513,000 public employees, with
investments exceeding $11 bill[.., has come under sharp
attack by a growing number of cities and public
agencies. The officials claim poor investments by PERS
are costing, taxpayers unnecessary money.
As an example, the cities point to an investment
return of only 7.91 percent during fiscal year 197940.
They are asking for an investigation into PERS'
Investment policy, which has traditionally opted for a
diversified, but essentially long -term portfolio, with only
5 percent of the holdings invested in higher- paying.
short-term investments. City officials feel that a re-
structuring toward higher return investments may be
7 q /o �t . -Ti 70 SG
possible and could provide some relief from the high
rates they're mow paying.
During the current In fiscal year, for example. Azusa
wig pay ;659,999 to the reltrement fund, while IA
Verne will turn over {119,366. Monrovia will pay
sm'sm; West Covina, 711.9 million.
Said Charles Selman, Arcadia's financial director:
"Every year we've been receiving rak increases.
This year It's costing us 19 percent of our operating
budget.”
The
cities find this in contrast with the retirement
system's investment oblectives which include "To main-
tain real dollar value of the assets (provide inflation
coverage) and stabilize current employer contribution
rates."
The California Legislature created the State Employ.
ees Retirement System in 1931, as a program to serve
some 13,690 employees. In its Wyear span, the system
has grown to ve ser almost 10 times that many workers,
while taking an five additional benefit and retirement
programs.
In 1967, its name was changed to the Public
Employees Retirement System. Among the agencies
now covered by the plan are 559 cities, 35 countles, 1,099
school districts and sae miscetiencous groups. Among .
the cites are Baldwin Park, Covina, El Monk, Duarte,
Glendora, Industry, Irwindale, Son Dimes, San Gabriel,
South EI Monte, Temple City and Walnut, as well as
Arcadia, Azusa, La Verne, Monrovia and West Covina.
The system is funded by money drawn from three
basic sources: employee contributions, employer contri.
butions and accumulated earnings on investments.
The cities point to an investment
return of only 7.91 percent.
Member contributions are set by law and range
between approximately 5 and 17 percent of the employ-
ee's wage, depending on work classification and benefit
plan.
The employer's contribution, however, is based upon
an actuarial evaluation of the system (for expected
income and deductions), hinging the amount upon
cities is that with better '
be more revenue and PE.
Indeed, a PEES staff re
percent increase in the
investnenk could o[fsef 1
However, as PERS Boar
wrote, in a letter to Gov.
problem is not a simple on
illation rate continues to
integrity of defined benef
almost instantaneous bent
timely equivalent investm
with the changing merit
consequences are extremel
The complex dilemma
problems:
(Continued do Pa
PE
(Combined Fmm Bll
AA I
R5 Attacked --
• PERS' long-term Invest-
ments are earning return•
well below the current rate
of inflation (as low as 3
and 4 percent In some cas-
es).
• limbers are generally
living longer, placing a,
growing demand on the
system's payment mgdm
Trrends.
The securities held by
PERS are divided among
long -term notes and bonds
(49 percent), real estate
and mortgage loan (27.5
percent), corporate stock
(23 percent), short -term in-
vestments (4 percent) and
Leonard Eliot, West Covi-
an's finance director. said,
"like any long -term fund
— city, state or private —
they (PERS) would nor-
mally invest a certain
amount in long-term in-
vestments, because they're
balancing their invest -
tnerts an long -term respor-
aibilities."
However, many of the
long-term bonds purchased
in previous Years arc now
maturing at relatively
stall rates of return (cam
pared to the 17 percent
currently available) and
the cities are asking it
As for the necreasing
mortality rate, Sid Mc-
Causland, deputy executive
officer of PERS, summed
it up by saying, "It's very
(avonble, but also very
expensive."
The consequences are bit-
ting troth employer and
employee. While Inflation
for urban wage earners
was computed at 17.5 per-
cent for the 1979M fiscal
period, PERS member em
ployees received an inter-
est crediting rate of only 6
percent on their earnings.
During the same period.
employer contributions to
the system totaled nearly
$1.21 billion.
It was a culmination of
tbese trends — along with
a city employee's questlon-
ing why he could earn
more on his $17.606 at a
savings and loan than with
a $14 billion retirement
system — that led Daly
City, m San Mateo County,
to launch the drive for an
According to Bay Letsin-
ger, assistant city manager
of Daly City, the conveu-
lion will offer an opportuni.
ty for cities to formally
show their support for an
investigation by voting on
a proposed resolution.
1 <tsinger reports recety.
ing letters of support from
60 cities throughout the
state. Among the local cb
ties voting formal support
so far are Azusa. Covina
and Duarte. Duarte', Di.
rector of Finance Don'
Prays commented, "On
the tame of it, 7.91 percent
seems low, but they
(PERS) are (wing a moth
more complex situation
our,. Sun, 1 am r mcr u
a good look into the rove
ment practices would be
anybody's disadvantage.
The issue is on the agen
Initiated with a letter
not while other cores are
planning reviews of the
netted to PERS in April
1969, the Issue has devel-
matter More the Leegae
aped into a statewide cam-
of California Men rnmeo-
tim. The convention begins
prdgrl which may finally
Oct. 79.
come to a head with two
evens scheduled for add.
October: a session of invet
t1gative hearings into the
PEPS investment policy.
to be chaired by Assembly-
man Lads Papan, D-Daly
City, and the annual
league of California cities
conference In San Francis -
M.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: IMPORTANCE OF EIRs AND STATE INPUT
Please find attached a communication from O.P.R. regarding the
implication of a recent court case both for lead agencies and
the State Clearinghouse. This court case stresses the import-
ance of responding to State agencies adequately yet reminds
State agencies of their responsibility under CEQA.
JACK LAM, AICP
Community Development Director
JL:jk
Attach.
cc: Planning and Engineering Staff
,..
hate of Taliforzcia
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1*00 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO DWIA 4 1 4
CITY F E... G. BROWN JR. C MMUNI�y DCV l' CUCAMONGA
wvewwoR (glo) 322 -4245 Eopww DEPT,
'may 4S In;lt
September 2, 1581 aM
71 8 1 9110 11/11211 1 2j3i I5 6
T0: Local Government Plann'ng Directors
FROM: Steve Williamson l
w
State Clearinghouse
SUBJECT: Improving State Comments n Environmental Documents
A recent California Court of Appeals decision will make State agencies -- in-
cluding the State Clearinghouse -- clean up their act in providing comments on
environmental documents you provide for review. A summary of the case of
Cleary v. County of Stanislaus and the court's findings is attached for your
information. The Court of Appeals has not added any new interpretation to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Their decision simply reaffirms the impor-
tance of following the EIR Guidelines in the preparation, review and approval of
environmental documents.
The decision provides important reminders to State agencies making comments on
environmental documents which your office serves as the Lead agency:
• The State Clearinqhouse must insure that appropriate agencies reoly to the
lead agency in time.
s Lead agencies do not have to respond to late comments by State agencies
when there is no request for a review period extension.
There are other parts of the Cleary decision that deserve the attention of Lead
agencies as well. The Court also reaffirms certain responsibilities of the
Lead agency. Lead agencies must:
It Resoond zo State agency comments in the level of detail requested and
provide `actual, ampiricai, and scientific basis for *.heir information.
a 'dhen approving protects where significant effects remain, fully justify
Lie overriding considerations ana explain wny reccff neneaticns for
mitigation were not followed.
Imorove ^..eats in State agenct Involvement
The C'=ar'.ngnouse gas chosen :o use the occasion gf the Cleary decision to re-
mind Stara agencies of several etner oeiicat'.ons :hay nave :o -aad agencies:
dhenever possible to cake reaues's for information and recommendations
of document scope ana on;ec: alterna:'.ves and des'-,n constrairr,5 at
the time o' the Vctice of Precariticn -- rather tnan waiting for the
draft environmental impact report.
-z-
'drite contents that are easy to understand and that justify requests
Z
or new information.
• Explain why torments on draft documents could not have been made at
the time of the Notice of Preparation.
The State Clearinghouse believes that State agencies owe Lead agencies these
considerations when making comments on project planning and on environmental
documents. These steps also emphasize State efforts to use CEQA to help plan
projects, not just to write environmental documents. The Clearinghouse wants
you to bring to our attention any State comments that fail to clearly and
briefly explain their purpose, justify their information requests or recom-
mendations on project design or document adequacy.
It is worth noting that the two State agencies cited by the Court as not
receiving adequate responses did not have permit authority. Therefore, it
appears that all comments deserve the same, detailed attention.
The State Clearinghouse wants to assure Lead agencies that State comments will
not make unnecessary requests for information and that whenever possible par-
ticipation will occur at the time of the Notice of Preparation to avoid delays
at the time of the draft environmental document. To this end you may want to
consider sending Notices of Preparation to departments with functional expertise
related to a project and not just to departments with permit authority. This
practice should 'help avoid late comers to the environmental review process. If
you receive comments from State agencies forwarded by the State Clearinghouse
that are confusing, conflicting, or make unreasonable requests, then let me
know -- because that means I've made a mistake.
There will be times when State agencies want to contact your staff directly to
reduce any paperwork and delays to informally communicate findings and recom-
mendations. We will continue to encourage this interaction -- the sooner in the
process the better.
in summary, Cleary v. County of Stanislaus reaffirms the rights of Lead agencies
to expect comments from State agencies on time and in a single package. The
decision also Emphasizes the importance of all comments not just those of agencies
with permit authority. The State Clearinghouse will work to make certain that
State comments are clear, justifiable and timely. You should notify the Clearing-
house when you believe State comments do not meet the standards set out in this
letter.
;hanx you 'or your cooperst.cn
Enclosure
_rW:nm
:¢
(
--�
kate of Q alifori is
• ;�
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
TENTH STREET
RAMENTO 95510
SACAC gsa,
EOMUNO G 2NOwry Jn,
916/322 -8515
September 1981
ROL? OF STATE CLEARINGROgS "c AND STATE AGENC! COWENTS
GIVEN BOOST BY APPELLATE COURT
by Ron Sass
A California appeals court has recently issued a decision reaffirming the role
of the State Clearinghouse and the responsibilities of lead agencies to respond
to state agency comments in the environmental review process. The case Clear y.
County of Stanislaus, 118 Cal. App 3d 348, which was decided in April 1981 we'd:
• lead agencies must respond in detail to timely state
agency comments;
• late state agency comments do not require responses by lead
agencies; and
• lead agencies must make specific findings when an MR
identifies significant environmental imoacts.
-acts
A Stanislaus landcwner sought approval of the County of a general plan amendment
from agricultural to planned development to permit commercial and recreational use.
The C.:unty prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse a Draft Environmental
Impact Report on the project. The DEI,R was sent to the State Clearinghouse for
rwi w in Oc:oeer 1378, the review oeriod set by the State Clearinghouse in accor-
dance wig CE�A guidelines eneed on November 28, 1978. During the Clearinghouse
-ev'aw :er,nd, several agencies c:mmented an the inadequacy of the CE:R. :n
:ecamcer ? the SC' sent pie ccrments the :aunty Ni:h i s s ual cover letter
',n,c1:a:'nd' :pat :Cate review :f the :E:,R Nas ctmote:e.
:n ^ss--cnairg - ne state agency comments, :he lead agency d.a not soeci` :311J
.,:cress ^dnY -:.9e d:'eged IndCeCUdC' ?5. lie :Ounty'i ^as�cnses :a : -mmr -.s Nere
:ener3 : - -4,n same :ases ingi :3ti•g :gat it tnougn : :he =ncerns a' :-e state agency
'.lere ',ns' :n "irdn:.
?xamo :e, :cmrerts ., :re ,,. -e -as :car: .+ens:
'°ne :cten :'a' a —ec :s :n pin :ua:':y a -e 1c: rs aced, 'tie :tun :y
reads " acgress the a,(Is:'ng em W.,ns :re : -:ect s` :a at :
'ia:e em'sst7ns ;en.e ^attic d'/ :,ne :r :fec . - eis�res as:
:rd:ec: ee :ate: impact :n :ne :is : -':Y s `'Zara :a ^en.: ='an.'
4
-2-
The County's resoons2 aas:
"-he .ARS seems very concerned with the effect of the proposed pro-
ject an air quality. This was not one of the concerns of the (county)
Environmental Review Commission and as such was not discussed ex-
tensively. On a regional basis, the increase in traffic generated
by the proposed use is insignificant. For this reason, mitigation
measures were not discussed."
The County presented no evidence or support for this response.
The Department of Food and Agriculture commented:
there is a lack of detailed information concerning the
extent of surrounding agricultural lands and the present zoning
of the'area surrounding the site. This information is essential
to make a clear analysis of the current growth trends and the
conformance of the proposed use with surrounding areas uses .
The EIR is wholly inadequate in this respect."
Food and Agriculture's comments also indicated that the EIR inadequately addressed
the effect of the project on the 'Williamson Act.
The County's response was:
. The Department of Food and Agriculture is concerned
with the effect on agriculture in the area. This concern has
been addressed in previous responses."
in *-ngae "previous responses" the County did not include any of the specific
factual information suggested by Food and Agriculture, but merely indicated in
very general terms that the land would be converted from agriculture to other uses.
The Deoartment of Health Services, Office of Noise Control, made some very general
comments about noise impacts. The County did not respond to those comments.
In February 1979, the County certified the EIR and approved the general plan amendment.
In Nay 1979, five months after the SCN review was completed and three months after
the project was approved, the State Reclamation Board submitted it me
s comnts to the
County on the EIR. These comments were ignored.
;ssu =s
Cleary, a neiyncor, -' :ed suit cnailenging the County's decision as violating CEGA
on several crcunds, including:
tnat the County `ailed :o respond at all :ne Rec :amation
Bcarc's comments, , ices a lead acencyV have to ^ espond
late _cmnents:
2. .nat the .ounty `ailed to 3deouately re< -oend to state agency
comments in its ?E:R i.e., what is the ,o'iga -lon of a lead .
agency :o resoond :o ccmmen s ; and
3. :hat the count" °ailed to mane the findings lecuired ender :EjA
mnen mere are adverse environmental 'moac-s.
a
Holding of the Court
On these issues the court held that:
The County inadequately responded to the Air Resources Board and
the Department of Food and Agriculture comments. Specifically,
the court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail,
giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not
accepted and factors of overriding importance warranting an over-
ride of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be con -
clusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experi-
mental data, scientific authority or explanatory information of
any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a
good faith, reasoned analysis. However, the court indicated that
there was no need to respond to the Office of Noise Control com-
ments because they were too general, and noise issues were
adequately covered in the Draft EIR.
A lead agency has no obligation to respond to state agency comments
received after State Clearinghouse review is completed. The State
Clearinghouse was created for the purpose of assuring that DEIRs
are distributed to appropriate state agencies and that replies,
if any, are received before the deadline.
3. By certifying an EIR in which signifiqant adverse impacts are
identified, the lead agency has to ,make one of the three
findings se *- forth in CEQA. In this case, the EIR identified
the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses as a signifi-
cant impact and approved the project without making any of the
three findings.
Importance of the Decision
The Cleary decision is a two -edged sword for state agencies. On the one hand,
the decision clearly indicates that state agency comments are to be taken seriously
by local lead agencies. It emphasizes the importance of all agencies, not just
"responsible agencies." On the other hand, however, the decision tells state
agencies in no uncertain terms that late comments will not be tolerated. It re-
affirms the rights of lead agencies to expect comments from state agencies on time
and in a single package. Unless a specific extension of time is granted by the
lead agency, any comments received after the SCH clearance letter do not require
a response by the lead agency.
For local agencies, the message of the Clear,/ decision is also very strong; state
agency comments must be given serious responses. Vo longer can local lead agencies
,,no re state exoert'se just ecause the state agency is not a responsible agency.
:n 'act, the message of the Clear/ iecision is much broader - -that all comments
reserve serious, wel %reasoned and welt - su000rted responses.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 1981
TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
OMNI
Tonight the City Council will be asked to just receive the Redevelop-
ment Plan. The Agency will be provided an opportunity at future
meetings to discuss and make changes, if necessary, in the Plan.
The Staff also encourages Agency members to contact them with any
questions which may be appropriately discussed at the Staff level.
JL:jr