Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/12/02 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CLICANKX%rA �~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1071 Lion's Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road December 2, 1981 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. a. Pledge to the Flag. b. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, and Schlosser_ c. Approval of Minutes: .October 29, 1981 and November 4, 1981. . 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Thursday, December 3, 7:00 p.m. -- Adjourned City Council Meeting -- Lion's Park Community Center. F =D G'AAl7✓ 1_ b. Tuesday, December 15, 6:00 p.m. ntermediat3ho 5col. or 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. 3 '^1 -tA. ft16• The following Consent Calendar items controversial. They will be acted u, discussion. •- Etiwanda Specific Plan -- Etiwanda expected to be routine and non - �n by the Council at one time without a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -12 -2, in the amount of $210,624.45. b. Mail -In Recreation Program Modification. Request Council's Ste- authorization to change receipting and registration process- ing method through equipment purchased and financed from recreation fund, not to exceed $12,600. 2 c. Approval of Resolutions regarding procedural documents for 5 the previously authorized park acquisitions. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -180 _ 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARROW HIGH- WAY. -Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development. Monumentation Bond $ 2,600.00 - Parcel Map 4907 - located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: Kacor Development. Labor 8 Material Bond (road) $92,000.00 City Council Agenda -2- December 2, 1981 RESOLUTION N0, 81 -181 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON HERmnSA AVENUE. d. Acceptance of Parcel Map 6651, Improvement Agreement, and 8 Improvement Security - Diversified Investment Co. - located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -182 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6651, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. e, Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security 11 for Director Review 81 -21 - Christeson Co. - located at 11000 Jersey Blvd. (northeast corner of Jersey and Vincent). RESOLUTION N0, 81 -183 12 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -21. f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security 18 for Director Review 81 -17 - Socco Plastic Coating Company; located at 11251 Jersey Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -184 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -17. g. Release of Bonds: 24 -Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development. Monumentation Bond $ 2,600.00 - Parcel Map 4907 - located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: Kacor Development. Labor 8 Material Bond (road) $92,000.00 • City Council Agenda -3- December 2, 1981 h. Revision to the Annual subscription resolution. Staff is recommending that fees for the mailing of agendas and minutes be increased to reflect increases in over- head and mailing cots. This represents the first cost increase for subscription rates which were established in April, 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -66 -A 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CERTAIN FEES FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND CODES. i. Set December 18, 1981 for public hearing on: City Environmental Guidelines - Guidelines setting forth procedures to implement State required environmental review. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL • ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -07 TT 11869 - ROBERTS GROUP. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -23, 25, b 26. TAc ic B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-08 T SHAFFER /WESTLANO VENTURE. A proposed panne deve opment of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald .Avenue - APN 201- 252 -32. C. APPEAL OF PLANNI_NO_ COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE REQUIREMENT 28 OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR P.D. 81 -03 TT 1973)- WOODLAND PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT. A development of a total planned residential development of 185 single - family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -10 TT11734 . DLV. A change of zone from A -1 to R -3 /PD for a total planned residential development of 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres located at the north} corner of Vineyard Avenue an�o ue - APN - ORDINANCE NO. 162 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NU113ER 207 - 211 -28 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE FROM A -1 TO R -3/ PD. • • 0 City Council Agenda December 2, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -05 32 TT9369 and 11113 - M. J. BROCK. A change of zone from R -3 multiple family residential) to R -3 /PD (multiple family residential /planned development) for a total planned development of 117 patio homes on 18.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202- 181 -23 and 24. ORDINANCE NO. 161 (second reading) 34 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -23 AND 24, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM R -3 TO R -3 /PD. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -01 35 (TT 11853) - AMERICAN NATIONAL /BARRET IRVINE. A change of zone from R- -8500 to R -3 /PD for a total planned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202 - 171 -42. ORDINANCE NO. 163 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 171 -42 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA FROM R -1 -8500 TO R -3 /PD. THE FOLLOWING ITEM REQUIRES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE _ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CONUUCT A JOINT PUBL HE R NG CONCERNING THE DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP RE POR FOR THE PROPOSED RANCHO REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT. The redevelopment plan is a funding mechanisam for implementing capital improvements. The redevelopment area is generally between Haven and the east city limits, south of Highland Avenue and between Haven Avenue and the west city limits, south of Foothill Boulevard. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. SELEC1"' Q F FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT _ DISTRICT 79 -1. Staff report by Llloyd Hubbs. Staff recommends that Council retain William Fieldman to act as financial consultant in the selection of bond underwriters for the Industrial Assessment District. B. REPORT TO COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS' CONCERNS. An oral report by Bill Hol ey. 37 61 63 1981 City Council Agenda _5- December 2, C RESOLUTI FOOTHILL FREEWAYNG RIGHT-OF-WAY rt byY LloydEHubbs,FOR A resolution requesting that the California Transportation Commission allocate $1,000,000 in the current fiscal year to provide for protection of the Foothill Freeway right - of -way. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALFIORNIA, URGING THE CALI- FORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCREASE FUNING OR ROUTE IN THE 1981 -82 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. • 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting to adjourn to Thursday, December 3, 1981 for a meeting to review the city's drainage issues. 40 • • • CFCY OF RAN'CI -10 CCCA.MQ \U% S AFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Joan A. Kruse, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: FORMAT FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Attached is the format to be followed in conducting the joint public hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at the December 2 City Council meeting. Complete binders containing all documents, staff reports, memorandums, etc., pertinent to the Redevelopment Agency will be made available to all Council members on Monday, November 30. If you will be unable to come in for your binder, please contact us so that arrangements can be made for their delivery in order to allow you to review them prior to Wednesday's meeting. :fully suimitted, p4 6 JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director JL:jk Attach. n .A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. Announcement of Joint Public Hearing MAYOR: Calling of Item No. CITY CLERK: 'Pursuant to the appropriate sections of California Community Redevelopment Law, Notice was duly given that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga curd the Redevelopment Agmcy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga have authorized a Joint Public Hearing to consider the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Plan." Said Notice was published in a newspaper of general • circulation on November 6, U, 10, D, 1991. The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, for the City Clerk, mailed by certified mail, Notice of said public hearing to the last known assertion of each parcel of land in the Project Area." AGENCY CHAIRMAN: Agency Roll Call 2. aninR of Joint Public Hearin MAYOR: "This is the time and place set for the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Proiecq hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Plan," and the proposed Environmental Impact Report on the Rancho Redevelopment project, hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Report." At this hearing all persons who wish to speak for or against the proposed • Redevelopment Plan and on the Environmental Impact Report will have an opportunity to speak. 1 now declare the City Council Public Hearing open" AGENCY CHAIRMAN: "I now declare the Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing open." MAYOR: "The record contains the following documents: a. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project; and b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and c. Environmental Impact Report; and d. Assessment of Conditions Report, Before I ask those who wish to speak to come forward, 1 would like to request Mr. Lauren Wasserman, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to 1) introduce the Agency staff members who will respond to questions • to take the oath; and I) present the Redevelopment Plan to us." EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Mr. Wasserman introduces Agency Counsel, consultants, and appropriate staff members. CITY CLERK: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm), that the evidence you are about to give in this matter, shall he the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Gel." EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. MAYOR: "I will now ask the Director of Community Ikvelopment for a summary of the Environmental Impact Report." DIRECTOR OF Shall then give the Summary of the Environmental COMMI INITY DEVELOP. Impact Report. -2. J. NeadmX of Written Communn:atiuns in Favor of the Proposed Redevelooment Plan MAYOR; "Will the City Clerk please read any written communications received in favor of the proposed • Redevelopment Plan." CITY CLERK: City Clerk reads written communications, if any. -2. 0 a. Oral Statements by Persons W'shmg to Speak m Favor of the Pu,polld Red I t Plan MAYOR: "All persons wishing to speak in favor of the Redevelopment Plan will now have an opportunity to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clerk to administer the oath. Will all those Persons wishing to speak in favor, please stand and allow the City Clerk to administer the oath to all of you at one time. After the oath, please respond by saying, "I do." CITY CLERK: "You do solemnly swear for affirm), that the evidence you are about to give in this matter, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, m help you God:' MAYOR: "Please approach the microphone and state your name and address and then address your comments directly to the Redevelopment Plan." SPEAKERS: — • 3. Read'ine of Written Communications Objecting to Adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan MAYOR: "Will the City Clerk please read any written communications received in opposition to the proposed Redevelopment Plan" CITY CLERK: City Clerk reads written communications, if any. 6. Oral Statements and Ouestions by Persons Wishing to Speak A a+r t the Proposed Redevelopment Plan MAYOR: "All persons wishing to speak in opposition of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, or those having questions regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan will now have an opportunity to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clerk to administer the oath. Will all those Persons wishing to speak against the Redevelopment Plan, or those having questions regarding the Redevelopment Plan, please Rand and allow the City Clerk to administer • the oath. Alter the oath, please respond by saying "1 do." -3- CITY CLERK: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm), that the evidence you are about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and rothing but the truth, so help you God." MAYOR: "file. approach the microphone and state your name and address and then address your comments directly to the i Redevelopment Plan." SPEAKERS: — y. Oral Statements by Persms W'sh'ng to Speak pn the Environmental Impact Report MAYOR: "All persons wishing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report now have an opportunity to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clerk to administer the oath. Will all those persons wishing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report please stand and allow the City Clerk to administer the oath. After the oath, please respond by saying, 11 di • CITY CLERK: "You do solemnly swear (m affirm) that the evidence you I are about to give in this matter, shall he the truth, the whale truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." • MAYOR: "Please approach the microphone and state your name and address and then address your comments directly to the Environmental Impact Report." SPEAKERS: S. Continuance of the Joint Pnhiic Hearing MAYOR: "1 now declare the City Council Public Hearing continued to Derember 16, 1981. at AGENCY CHAIRMAN: "I now declare the Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing continued to December 16, 1981, at -4. • October 29, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA90NGA CITY COUNCIL MIWTES Adiourned Meeting 1. CALL, TO ORDER. An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held In the Lion's Park Community center, 9161 Base Line Road on October 29, 1981. The meet- ing was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D, Schlosser. Present w Councilmen James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Arthur M. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip De rSchlosser. Also present were: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager; Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; lack Lam, Community Development Director; and Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer. Absent: Councilman Michael A. Palumbo. 2. PALO ALTO STREET At the October 21 city council meeting, Council appointed Councilman Frost and Councilman Mikels to a subcommittee to meet with representatives of the Central School District'a Board of Trustees to work o e a passible Joint funding of the northerly portion of Palo Alto Street which runs the front of Dana Merced School. The subcommittee met with school board members was wan unable to reach a conpromise • colut Jun. The issue before Council was whether to assume full responsibility and ompiece the street as a gesture of en n for community safety and as a service to the children; or, deny funding and allow ea substandard street to be constructed, refuse dedication, and maintenance. In essence, the street would become a private drive to the school. Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the problem was that the State Allocation Board would only approve paving 20 feet from the centerline. Mayor Schlosser asked Council what they wished to do. Councilman Frost read Section 1921. paragraph 2 on page 2 (excerpts from the State Allocation Board's Policy Handbook) which stated "a school district may not include off -site development costs in a application which benefits other properties; however, if the district should be required to provide such off -site development by other agencies, all costs directly attributable to that off -site development, including planning, teat, and inspection must be borne by the district." Mr. Frost continued by reading, Section 2112, Extracts from the Streets and Highways Code, "...if a different plan of improvement of higher standards than that recommended by the State Allocation Board is required by the governing body of the city, city and county, or county the additional cast thereof shall be horned by the city, city and county, or county in which such school building is situated." Mr. Frost stated that these are contradictory atatemente. Connoflman Frost aimed that the read needed to be completed. He asked the nice attornev if we wer e legally required to complete the street. and if so, would this set a procedent Mr. Dougherty replied that in his opinion we were not legally required to complete the street. Canncllman bridge stated that we have to he concerned with the liabillty issue. Dismission fnilewed between Council and the City Attorney regarding whether we would • be setting a precedent if the city completed the street. CourtMan Frost c ented that re gardleas of wbar else needed to be done, the city needed to first complete the street. Councilman Bridge asked that if we could at the idea of protest across, would this help to show we are not petting a precedent' Mr. Dougherty stated that any action we took, it would not require us to take Binllar action in the future. , City council Minutes • October 29, 1981 Page 2 Mayor Schlosser asked if the school district had sought all avenues of getting monies to pave he street? Both Councilmen Mikels and Frost expressed that they did not know. Councilmen Mikels inquired that if we pass the resolution, would is be passible to include to the resolution that we were doing so under protest and for emergency reasons and to cite Section 1923. Mr. Wasserman stated that we should have the city attorney draft some appropriate language for us. Mr. DoughertY stated that go a om e not in a position to c pet anyone to provide improvements. These eetionea a difficult to r Solve.An interpretation is needed, and the One to give such an interpretation would be the State Attornev General's office, and that Would require one of car state legislators to make such a request for the city. Roth Councilmen Frost and Mikels concurred that the resolution should be approved in order to get the street completed. Mr. Wasserman expressed concern chat we .Old have A similar problem With chaffey High School District with the access road the city is requesting. Mayor Schlosser asked if W could include in our protest to the School District that the money be repaid if we found a loop hale in these two sections. Mr. Dougherty spaced that It did not appear that we could require the school district to put in the other half of the street at their expense. He seated chat these two sections needed to be tested. To test this in court would cost the city more than the $11,000 to complete the street, It is really a situation of whether a school district or a city can compel the other to fund that half of the street. Councilman Mikels stated that he felt we had grounds to compel the State Allocation Board to amend the contract to complete the northern side of the street. Mr. Doughertv stated that he doubted we could get very far. He felt it would not be the best use of the tax dollar to have a court aciton. Councilman Frost suggested that the resolution include a dollar amount. Mr. Hubby stated the amount would be $11,4000 with a IOA contingency. Councilman Frost suggested that the word, "policy," be changed to "opin inn." Councilman Mikels stated the words, "an a ergency, "should also be included. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Mikels to approve Resolution No. 81 -166 and waive the entire reading. Motion c a rried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Bridge. and Schlosser, NOES: dean. ABSENT: Palpmbo, City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81 -166. RESOLUTION No, 81 -155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALtFORN1A, AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PALO ALTO STREET. Councilman Mikels requested that staff get a complace version OF the State Allnrotfen 3suird'a Palicv Manual and see how it commares with the Street and High- ways C.ado. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Fmst to adjourn. Motion carried unocimcusly.• The meeting adjourned at 5:1,5 p.m. Respentfully submitted, Beverly M1let Deput ytl Cit y ry• C clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga vas held In the Lien's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, November 4, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present were Councilmen: James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palumbo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present v City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hulls; Finance Director, Barry Empty; and Community Services Director Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: Councilman Frost and Councilman Mikels did not receive copies of the October y, 1981 minutes. Council concurred In continuing the approval to the November 18 meeting. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Mayor Schlosser announced the Founders Day parade and Wine Festival an November 14. b. November 4, 1901 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga vas held In the Lien's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, November 4, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Present were Councilmen: James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palumbo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser. Also present v City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hulls; Finance Director, Barry Empty; and Community Services Director Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes: Councilman Frost and Councilman Mikels did not receive copies of the October y, 1981 minutes. Council concurred In continuing the approval to the November 18 meeting. E. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Mayor Schlosser announced the Founders Day parade and Wine Festival an November 14. b. Councilman Frost announced there would be a Flood Control Advisory Committee • meeting, November 5.08:30 a.m., Ontario City Hall. c. Councilman Mikels bad attended an Omnitrame Board meeting that morning. One issued which was raised was the impact the passage of Senator Ayala's bill reducing the fare box ration would have. The reducing of 20 percent of the fare box ratio requirement by the Percentage of elderly and handicap would make an impact on our 325 contribution to Onnttrana. He rs.ues led staff to investigate this for him and to have the Information before the December Board meeting. d. Mayor Schlosser announced that there are presently vacancies on the Advisory Coumiaslnn - n ape , ing far Alta Loma wad o opening for Cucamonga. Anyone wishing to volunteer for service could do so by contacting a councilman or calling city hall. e. Mayor Schlosser congratulated Steve Wheatley and John Lyons in their successful election to the Fire District Board of Directors. I. Mr. Wasserman reminded Conncil that Mayor Schlosser and Councilman Mikels had been appointed to an Architectural Selections Comaictes, and they were to appoint two planning cmmmtealoners to also serve. Mavor Schlosser said the Council would discuss the item under the staff reports, Item 5F. g. Mr. Wasserman requ ^ated chat Public hearinit item ;d. Appo.,l of Planning Cammisalon decision for the p,.,parctic, of an nvf ronmental impact report for the develop- ment of renouive tract 11933 - Woodland Pnv(fic, he continued to December 2, 1981. This uns a request of tive anpiicana. Council concurred. h. Mr. Hul,bs recommended that council select a date the first of December to meet in a special session to review the master drainage plan. Couneil c rred that Thursday. December 3, 1981, at 7:00 P.m. In the Lion's Park Cammunicy Center, 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -I1 -4, in the amount of $2:1,605.67. b. Alcoholic Bovernge License Application for Smart Corp., 8443 Haven Avenue, for Off -sloe beer and wine. C. Alcoholic Beverage License Application for NnrArco, Inc., 9533 Foothill Blvd., for off -aa to beer and wlot. City Council Minotea November 4, 1981 Page 2 ►l d. Acceptance of Honda and Agreement for Conditlonal Use Permit 81 -08 - Sharma. Recamm,end that Council accept the bonds and agreements for CUP 81 -08 located at 9113 Foothill Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- . MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT 81 -08. e. Acceptance of Banda and Agreements for Director Review 81 -31 - Reiter Develop- ment. Located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIV OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE - MENT AGREEMENT AND LMPROVIHEYT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW M. 81 -31. I. Acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for Director Review 81 -31 - Reiter Development. Located south of Arrow Route, vest side Of Archibald Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL • PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM A. H. REITER DEVELOPMENT AND AMORIZ14G THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME. g. Acceptance of Offer of Dedication. It is recommended that Council accept offer of 40 foot dedication on Vincent Avenue far Director Review 81-21 located on the northeast earner of Vincent Avenue and Jersey Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING 40 FOOT DEDICATION ON VINCENT AVFW. E AS OFFERED FOR STREET AND RELATED PURPOSES. h. Avard of Street Swooping Contract. Recommend than Council award the street rrpin8 contract to the iw bidder, R. F. Dickerson Co., Inc., for the low bid anount of 51,650 a month. I. Planned Clorortty Maintenance Policy. It is recommended that a sepantte Landscape Maintenance District be Formed to cover maintenance owl thin each planned .:mmaun t ;v. 3. Acropranrp of Traffic Signal Project at Archibald and C.horrh and at Base Line and Heitman Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAI. PROJECT AT ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AM AT BASF. LINE ROAD AND HE.LLMAN AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK AND FINAL PAYMENT. • k. Release of Bond: Site InnzTnval. r9 -01: located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street. Amer. Community Baptist Church. Reduction of Improvement Security Instrument from 551,000 to 425,500. • City Council Minutes November 5, 1981 Page 3 1. See Public Hearing DaV of November 18, 1981 for the following - Environmental Assessment and Planned Develooment No. 81 -05 (TT 9369 and 111]3) M. J. Brock. A change of zone from R -3 to R- 3 /P.D. for a total planned develop- ment of 119 patio homes on 18.2 a res of lead in the R -3 ...a to be located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald - ASH 202 - 181 -23 and 24. - Environmental Assessment and Planned Development No, W -10 (TT 11734) - DLV. A change of x e from A -1 to R- 3 1P.D. for a total planned development of 98 twunhwers on 8.5+ acres of land located at the northwest corner of Vineyard and "row Highway APN 207- 211 -28. - Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision on Environmental Assessment and Planned Development No. 81 -07 and Tentative Tract 11869 - Roberts Group. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located ou the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201- 252 -23, 25, and 26, - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Environmental Assessment and Planned Development No. 81 -09 and Tentative Tract 11928 - Shaffer /Westland Venture. A proposed planned development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue - AIN 201 - 252 -32. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. • 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4A. REDDEST FOR CONTINUANCE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE PREPARATION OF AH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 - NCODLA,CO PACIFIC. Applicant had requested a continuance to December 2, 1981. Council had concurred with this recommendation at the beginning of the meeting (see item under Announcements). 4B. EWIRONYENTA). ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE. NO. 81 -01 - IAWLOR. Councilman Bridge requested in be excused from this item. He stepped down from his c000ril ace, A request for a change of zone from R -1 -14 acres to R- 1- 20,000 for the development of Tentative Tract No. 10210 - APN 1061- 172 -03e Related item: Tentative Tract No. 10210. Jack Lam presented the staff report. City Clerk Waseemman read title of Ordinance No. 159. ORDINANCE. NO. 159 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RdNCHO CU NMONGd, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 1061 -172 -01 LOCATED GENERALLY ON THE NORTNWFST CORNER OF SAPPHIRE. AND ALMOND, FRLCE R -1 -14 ,ACRES TO R- 140,000 SQUARE FEET. Motion: Moved by Palombo. seconded Av Ernst to valve further reading of Ordinance Nn, 159. Mutton a rrfed By the followint vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, and •SOIL os5or. NOES: Non,, ABSENT: Bridge. Mayor 5chlneerr opened the meeting for pnbllc hearing. Addressing Council were, Leon Ee dAi nR, of C.M. Engineering Associates and representing Cregg Levlor, weer of the prate rt Y• City Council Minutes November 4, 1981 Page 4 Council discussed the proposed lot sizes in the hillside a s Councilman Mikels expressed concern over the 10% slope in the area. He felt r it was rather steep to put half acre lots on. He said he would like to see this continued in order to walk the are. by daylight. Catherine Bridge, a property owner near the development. She wanted to go on record a strongly opposing a re 20,000 square foot lots north of Almond Streets Mr. Kedding said he had a slope map he would be willing to show. He said the available land was only 15% slope. The 30L slope area was actually in the open areas. Chock Horgan, owner of the property immediately to the Past. He said he was Opposed to this development because of the density. There being no further public response, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo that the item be continued until the next Council meeting in order to give the Council time to look at the area first hand. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Peost, Mikels, Palembe, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Bridge. 4C ENVIRONMENTAL planned residential PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 81 -Ofi (TT 111441 - S 6 M • BUILDERS. A [anal planned re slocated development of 62 [Vineyard units on 5.4 rem of land to the A -1 zone locate. on the west slim of Vineyard Avenue north of Arrow Route - rt. 208-211- 025 and 26. Michael Valrin, Associate Planning pressured the staff report. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance Ho. 160. ORDINANCE NO. 160 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1717 OF RANCHO MQVIONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 208 - 211 -25 AND 26 ON THE HEST SIDE OF VINEYARD AVENUE, NORTH OF ARRCW ROUTE FROM A -1 TO R- 31P.D. Motion: Moved by Palomobo, seconded by Mikels to valve further reading of Ordinance No, 160. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public bearing. Addressing Council vas: Terry Chris Hanson, cf T A M Development. He said he vas present to answer any questions. There being no rurther public response, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Councilman Frost inquired about the flood control areas to the vest. He asked if perhaps some land would be released at sometime in the fu[uro' Mr. Vairin sold that the Plood Control District had not shown any Interest In releasing the Lind. Councilman Frost asked If any public usage of the flood control land had been con - algered in the presentation of the project. Mr. Vairin stated we have .asked, .as we always do with all project along the channels, to have the design set to allow for access from the development onto the flood • control areas which we hope will eventna LLV be developed as trails for public use. The developer has indicated they vourd he willing to do so. There being no further questions by Council, Mayor Schlosser se[ the second melding of Ordinance No. 160 for N'ovemb.r IS, 1981. City Council Minutes November d, 1981 Page 5 4D. CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF 7TH STREET. Staff report by Lloyd Hobbs, The troccounidation before Council was that Council order the vacation of 7th Street between Center Avenue and the San Bernardino County Flood Control Easement. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was cloned. Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Frost, to approve Resolution No. 01 -173 and the vacation of lch Street between Center Avenue and the San Bernardino County Flood Control Easement, and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -1. City Clerk Wasscrman read the title of Resolution R., 81 -173. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO BE VACATED, A PORTION OF 71H STREET BEIVIEEN LFNTER AVENUE AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT. 4E. UNIFORM SCHOOL FEES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Staff report presented by Mr. 4.r.erman. Item was before Council for second reading. The request was to make the school fees uniform to all school districts and t. inn rea.e the fee to $1100 per single family • dwelling, and $55O for all multi- family dvellinge of two bedroom. or more and for mobite Nome.. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance 40. 69 -C. ORDINANCE NO. 69 -C (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CIV COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. AMCNDING SUBSECTION "A" OF INS SECTION 16.24.080 OF INS RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICTFAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IX THF. FEES IMPOSED FOR THE FIBAN<I9$ OF INTERIM SCHOOLS. Motlen: Moved by Falombo, seconded by Frost, to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 69 -C. Rotten rarrisd unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the ,all,, for public bearing. Three being no ramous,, the public hearing vas closed. Motion Moved by Mikels, secom'ed by Palumbo to approve the uniform fee and increase, by approving ordinance No. 69 -C. Motion Cereird by the folLovloR vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels. Palonbo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. our riln i Frnat eiggevred thde Kaff pc••p.rt• " donn e,,, fur now school board m.n -ors to inntnu-C "ln, Of rho fee aen:ecurv. And Its Pocooses. ALL11n%TION of HfiVfNUF. $tfAft l-5^C F1;!`D5. Staff report by Lenten Naa.erman. Mr. Yngsnrman stated that at the last mcettng some senior eici tens had brought some rcpnests before Ceunril. He said these had been dealt with at the staff level and a fall report u,n:W be Riven under City Mannget's Staff Reports No. 5A. Mayor Schlosser opened the mcettng fee public hearing. There being no reereani, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Mike" stated that he concurred with staff's rerommundatioo to an' this addltional 551,000 teworda the aherlff's contract. He said he would like to see as egml amount not Loco B cantingency fund for unia,tered cequesca. City Council Minutes November 4, 1981 Page 6 0 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to allocate the additional revenue sharing funds of $57,000 to the sheriff's contract. Councilman Bridge expressed that he wished this item could be addressed after Item 5A. Mr. Wasserman stated that the report under item 5A c misted of solutions to the kitchen and packing problems. He said the city had already sent in a proposal for a grant to the Regional Council for the Aging. He stated that it Would be best to earmark the revenue sharing to some service. Councilman Frost asked what the current amount of revenue - sharing was and the current amount of the sheriff's contract Mr. Fees, staled chat the original a una allocated far general r n m sharing by the federal goverent was $196,000. The sheriff's contract and the additional sheriff's costa t ome to approximately $2.5 million. Councilman Frost said the purpose of the question a s to indicate that the staff could save incurring additional administrative costs if all of the revenue sharing merles were allocated to one specific fund. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 to approve the allocation of the additional funds of $57,000 to the sheriff's contract and to waive the entire reading of Resolution No. 81 -174. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Revolution No. 81 -124. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -174 A RESOLUTION OF THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF REVENUE SHARING IN FJTCE55 OF THE AMOUNT BUDGETED. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palumbo to direct staff to come m beck with a • recommendation for the placement of an amount equal to the additional revenue sharing fund in a appropriate reserve aunt. No Lion carried by the fallow, nR vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palumbo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None, ABSENT: None. 40. ORDERING ANYEN,STTON NO. 6 TO LAMSCApF. MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 10. 1 FOR TRACT 10045 -1 An TRACT 11350. Staff report presented by Lloyd Hobbs. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Ed Byer, reotdent ea Hidden Farm Read. He wanted to s e map of she District. He expressed c ocern that the neighborswou ld have a nice looking area while theirs would be run down. John Bannister, resident of Hidden Fares Road. Also Wanted to knew why their tract was not included In the District since is looked so terrible. Mr. Hobbs pointed out that they could get together with their neighbors and request to Join the NTlatenance District, Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Bridge to approve Resolution Ne. 8l -172 and to waive the entire reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81 -11C. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CRY COL' %GfL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, ORDER1gG THE WORK IN CO %S'CECTlOS WITH ANNKRATIO% NUMBER 6 TO LAND- SCAPE MAC :TENANGF. DISTRICT %V.13F.R I FOR TRACT N0, 10045 -1 AND TRACT NO. 113 i0. • 0 City Council Minutes November 4, 1981 Pa Re 7 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. SENIOR CITIZENS' NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PROBLEMS. Staff report presented by Lauren Wasserman. Mr. Wasserman vent over briefly the problems in the kitchen. He said that Mr. Halley had submitted a proposal for some grant mantes. He said Mr. Holley was present to elaborate further. _ Mr. Holley stated that he bad a meeting scheduled at 8:00 a.m. in the morning with members of the VIP Club to talk about some very specific ways to mitigate some of the probleme. He said they have heard that their grant has been received, but no final decision has been made. Councilman Mikels stated that is why he asked for the establlslsent of a contingency fund for ,lust such unbudgeted requests as these which came up and funds have not been allocated. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was: Jim Hunt of the VIP Club. Me thanked the Council for the prompt attention to their petitions regarding the lack of parking at the Neighborhood Center. He said at the present time there Were only 31 parking spaced available arount the Center. • Councilman Bridge asked What the situation Was with the Chino Basin Water District in regard to the excess land which they owned. Mr. Holley stated that about a year ago the VIP requested additional parking. At that time we graded the land. However, it was not satisfactory -- during the rain It was s too muddy and there was not a curb cut made. Chino Basin has indicated the land is available to the city either by lease or by sale as surplus land. As to the actual cost, it would depend on has the city council completed the project. Council concurred in having Mr. Holley came back to Council at the next meeting with some options after talking with the Chino Basin Municipal 'dater District. Mayor Schlosser called a break at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. with all members of the Council and staff present. 5B. ADVISORY CO3MI5010N RECOeMENDATIONR ON Cb'DERGROOND M7l= DISTRICT PRIORITY. Mr. Robinson presented the .ldviosry commission's recommendations. Councilman Hikels recomessuded that when considering farming the district that some alternatives he given for absorption of the costs. Councilman Bridge conrnrred sea ttng that this certainly would be a hnrdahip on the home ��ne rs. / Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response. J the public hearing was closed. v/ Notion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by P.slombo to approve Resolution No. 81 -175 which establishes priorities for Rule 20 undergrounding and to direct work to begin on the number 1 priority prnlect, Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Base line Read, and to wetve the entire reading of Resolution No. 81 -175. Motion • carried unantnou.sly 5 -0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81- 175. City Council Minutes November 4, 1981 Page 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -175 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 UNDE9CROVNDING PROGRAM, JC._ URBA.v FORESTRY GHAXT. Staff report was presented by Richard Marks, Assoc tare Planner. The City Council approved the original urban forestry grant at the November 5, 1980 city council meeting. Before Council was a revised grant. These revisions were necessary due to the fact that the city was awarded leas money than it had applied for from he State Division of Forestry. 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 apprnve Resolution No. 81 -176 and to direct staff to forward it and tl:e grant revisions to the State Division of Forestry for processing, and to waive the entire reading of Resolution No. 81 -176. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Resolution No. 81 -176. RESOLUTION No. 81 -176 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE CITY'S REVISED APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM. 5D and E. Items _ handled to¢ ether. HE- UFST AUTHORIZATION FOR CWOMXTTY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO OPEN ESCROW PROCEEDINGS FOR ACQUISITION OF ARROW PARR SITE AND F:EiTOSA PARK SITE. Stiff report was presented by 0111 Holley. Staff requested aOthorts.,ton to open escrow prnceeJtngs no a 4,.5 acre patcel to be des ignited as Arrow Park, located north side of Arrow Highway between Vineyard and Hellman Avenues; and on a 4.97± acre parcel cc be designated as Hermosa Park located east side of Hermosa Avenue between Base Line Read sad 19th Street. Mayor Sohlc.sser asked what wn•l LI he put in those parks. Mr. Hillev stated they .old be putts nS in at hr @tic fields, parking arc a,, ptcnlc table,, tot Iota et the Ilermusa Park s Arrow lark would be going in is conjnnctton with the school. In his van va woul.1 be g,t,[,g Joint Oubii, use of the land. Mayor SrhI sae, asked if the school would pet romp lute ly m 00,1Itce he park use. Mr. Lau, .o ;erred that he di .I runt feel it von 61 L.in ^e n. hue wa would havr to wore Olt these details by ,Free •.,in, fine (loan Urid ae in trd chat we slmu It n ' wh,.t manI,, v v h.me available t0 ue which cane the Park fee nnncv and buy these t.0 pieces of property mrtrtght. Mntlom Movud by R,idee, s onded by Frnat to purchase .,aright the Arrow and He can;, Pnrk sl[es and 0 teinsfer $606,000 from rceetvea to the Park development fund. Mutlnn carried nnnninnusly 5 -0. 5F. A�L1eJ It[•n : APPU_INT4FNT OF T 40 PI.ANNI %C. LO4MIS9 TONERS TO THE Li :rT ARCNIi CfTCR, \L . SEwN5 - CnN,y1T_FE, Cnunciiman M:kcls recommended that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Planning Com lad en be appeinted en serve nn the committee. Councilman Bridge disagreed. He stated he would like to see Peter Tolstoy and Herman Hempel be appointed to that committee. • City Council Minutes November 4, 1981 Page 9 Councilman Frost concurred with Councilman Bridge in that Peter Tolatey and Herman Rempel would be a goad balance. Councilman Mikels pointed out that the c n cil should rescind their Previous motion from the last meeting which was to let the council representatives appoint the two planning remoicsioners. Motion: Moved by Falcate, seconded by Bridge to rescind the notion of the council made on October 21 to have the council representatives, Mayor Schlosser and Council- man Mikels, make the appointments. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Palumbo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES Mikels. ABSENT: None, Marion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Frost to .,,nine Planning Commissions Peter TPIe I.Y and Herman Rempel to the Architectural Selections Committee along with Mayor Schlosser and Councilman Mikels and three staff representatives. Motion carried by the following voce: AYES: Frost, Palumbo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Nan.. ABSTAINING: Mikels. Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson, announced that on Monday, November 16, at 10:00 a.m. staff would be reviewing the final revisions on the site plan. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. Mr. Dougherty stated he had nothing to report. Y. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to a Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting of • November 4, 1981 adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Beverly Auchelet Deputy City Clerk • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM L TO: City Council FROM: Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Warrant Register November 25, 1981 The Warrant Register had not been received at the time the Agenda went to press. It will be forwarded to you when it is received. • • • Date: To: From: 9 ATn TTn nTTn n TRnAT!_ A _.VA. -. MEMORANDUM December 2, 1981 City Council and City Manager Bill Holley, Director, Community CI'i O F„ Z 1977 Servic Department Subject: Authorization for Community Service Depar ent to Bid and Purchase Microcomputer RECOMMENDATION: The Community Service Department requests authorization to bid and purchase a Vector Graphic 2600 microcomputer, Qume Sprint Printer, ancillary support equip- ment and related program not to exceed $12,600 and funded solely through the recreation "revolving" account (not a part of the General Fund). BACKGROUND: As Council is aware, last Summer CSD changed our recreation class registration format from one of a "walk -in over- the - counter" variety to a "mail -in" system with great success. This resulted in a 268 increase in offerings and participation during that session along with popular public reaction to our modified service. The other side of the coin, however, is that it consumes more staff time to conduct mail -in than walk -in registra- tions due to mail handling (incoming and outgoing) and a tighter fiscal security system in anticipation of the audi- tor's scrutiny. This of course means increased costs asso- ciated with the additional staff time involved. The benefits gained from this system, however, make it a great trade off, well worth the added expenditure. CURRENT STATUS: With our goals of running the most cost effective and efficient service possible, we began last Spring to explore methods to reduce the then anticipated increase in staff time commitment to the program. The research has been intense, the education broadening and results rewarding. Without going into the detailed mechanics of the program and system, ].et us summarize the principal benefits to the CSD registration process: 1) Will totally eliminate the manually written communica- tion with the client (a most time consuming and there- fore costly procedure); 2) Will totally eliminate envelope stuffing and stamping for outging information; c� Authorization to Bid and Purchase Microcomputer December 2, 1981 Page 2 3) Will establish a virtually "air- tight" fiscal accountability for funds handled through the recreation "revolving" account; 4) Will provide rosters, class information, instructor infor- mation, client information, and all related financial infor- mation; 5) Will reduce staff time commitment to process by a minimum of 75%; 6) Will enable us to handle a minimum increase of 2008 of current client load; and, 7) Will in consideration of the above, and most importantly, enable us to provide a higher level of service to the client at a lesser cost commitment that is currently the case. Aside from the principal benefits to CSD listed above, several of the ancillary benefits to CSD are also worth mentioning: 1) Centralized registration; 2) Trip registration; • 3) Parade scheduling and roster /line -up design (the roster line -up during the last Parade had to be redone manually eleven times due to last minute community entries. The Vector would handle this very simply in a matter of only a few seconds compared to several hours when done manually. Also, once the system is in place and fully functional within CSD, the Finance Department has indicated that they would like to explore remaining availability of time, if any, to log the City's fixed asset program on the Vector. We would anticipate that CSD and Finance would have all appropriate applications completed by late Summer of 1982. At that time, we would explore other possible City applications for any remaining time availability. SUMMARY: We would anticipate, with Council approval of CSD's request, making our trial registration runs in January 182, full speed runs in April 182, and by June of '82 having the system a part of "normal" CSD functions. It will save specific staff commitment to this activity while increasing service. Funding is entirely from recreation "revolving" fund, which is provided by the "users" of our program. In other words, the client who specifically use our service is paying for it's • improvement. This principal is the same use for gym matts, card tables, basketballs, the portable stage, trophies, etc. No budgeted general funds are used. "4 ti. � Authorization to Bid and Purchase Microcomputer December 2, 1981 Page 2 • Lastly, this item was not included in the current budget for two reasons. The first, we didn't fully understand at budget preparation time what was possible or how much it would cost. Second, it doesn't involve the General Fund but the recreation "revolving" fund. The alternative is going along as we are doing now which is as good as anyone else and better than most. However, we are now reaching a limiting factor to further improvements simply through logistics. We know we can do better and our philosophy is if you aren't moving forward you are moving backward. I am excited about this project and ask for Council's support on this request. If I can provide further information please give me a call. WLH:nm • • I./d/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT :40 Date: December 2, 1981 To: City Council 6 City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department Subject: Resolutions regarding procedural documents for previously authorized park acquisitions The two attached Resolutions are procedural documents required in the escrow processing of the purchase of both Arrow and Hermosa Parks describing who is going to buy what from whom and for how much. The matter is rather straight forward and self explanatory. If you have any questions please give me a call. is WLH:nm r1 LJ r'' RESOLUTION NO. 'F )_i " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARROW HIGHWAY The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, California, hereby authorizes the purchase by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, from the owner(s) thereof, the estate of Rosaria L. Cutuli, the real property located on Arrow Highway, City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, more particularly described as follows: portion of Sub. Lot 10, Cucamonga Vineyard Tract, Map Book 20, Page 44, San Bernardino County Records. Owner of Record: Rosaria Leotta Cutuli (deceased) SUBJECT TO: All reservations, restrictions, rights and rights -of -way of record. SECTION 2: With respect to real property referred to hereinabove, the City Council hereby authorizes the City of • Rancho Cucamonga, California, to pay the amount of $356,000 in cash, upon close of escrow, to the estate of ROSARIA L. CUTULI. 11 SECTION 3: The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare all conveyances and other instruments necessary to effectuate the exchange of land, and the same shall be signed by the City Clerk as to acceptance on behalf of the City. The City Clerk is authorized and instructed to accept and record in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, Cali- fornia, a deed of trust with respect to said real property herein - above described. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. �. ) - j', I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON HERMOSA AVENUE The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cali- fornia, hereby resolves as follows: SECTION It The City Council of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, California, hereby authorizes the purchase by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, from the owner thereof, MICHAEL J. ALEX AND BARBARA S. ALEX, ET AL, the real property located on Hermosa Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, more particularly described as follows: All that portion of the SWk of the NEh of Section 35, TIN, R7W, SBBM, according to Govt. Survey, described as follows: Beginning at a point of the East right -o£- way line of Hermosa Avenue, (66 ft. wide) distant N 00 36145" W, 2819.92 ft, from the intersection of said East right of way produced with the center line of Baseline; thence North 89° 23'15" East, at right angles to said . East right of way line, a distance of 599.97 feet; thence North 00 36'45" West parallel with said East right of way line, a distance of 360.49 feet; thence 89" 23115" West at right angles to said East right of way a distance of 599.97 feet, to a point thereon; thence South 00 36'45" East along said East right of way line, a distance of 360.49 feet to the point of beginning. Owner of Record: Michael J. Alex and Barbara S. Alex, et al SUBJECT TO: All reservations, restrictions, rights and rights -of -way of record. SECTION 2: With respect to real property referred to hereinabove, the City Council hereby authorizes the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to pay the amount of $250,000 in cash, upon close of escrow, to MICHAEL J. ALEX AND BARBARA S. ALEX, ET AL. SECTION 3: The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare all conveyances and other instruments necessary to effec- tuate the exchange of land, and the same shall be signed by the City Clerk as to acceptance on behalf of the City. The City Clerk is authorized and instructed to accept and record in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, a deed of trust with respect to said real property hereinabove described. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Pi • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: Demceber 2, 1981 FIB S U TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map 6651, Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security - Diversified Investment Co. The subject parcel map, located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Archibald Avenue, is submitted by Diversified Invest- ment Company for final Council approval. This subdivision divides 16.96 acres of land into 2 parcels and received tentative Planning Commission approval on January 28, 1981. Tract 11797 approved by the Planning Commission on May 27, 1981 as a 24.0 unit condominium project will be constructed on Parcel 1, Parcel 2 is within the A -P zone with no present plan for development. An improvement agreement and security bond has been submitted by Diversified Investment Company in the amount of $5,500 for re- moval of existing buildings on -site. Street plans will be sub- mitted at time of development. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving Parcel Map 6651 directing the City Engineer and City Clerk to sign said map and forward same to County for recordation. LBII jaa 3 I RESOLUTION NO. 13 1 -. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6651, (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6651) IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 6651, submitted by Diversified Investment Company, and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald, being a division of Lots 11 and 12, block 6, Cucamonga Homestead Associated Lands, per M.B. 6 -46 as recorded in County of San Bernardino was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 25, 1981; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 6651 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an improvement agreement guaranteed by acceptable improvement security by Diversified Investment Company as developer; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said improvement agreement and • said improvement security submitted by said developer 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; and that said Parcel Map Number 6651 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 9 ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor 5) ��• \- 1EN1A11VE PARCEL MAP f `nsf'Ai2GEL MAPy N °6G1 �`hl, lost tl t ... _lam � —�.T 4�--� --z ' —��� • _ � _ I � - -`1 . -- —• —��. _�.+�r_y. AK(IN I_ AL�`.•TNY%'�'.•�. -_ l� --j = —! I • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 Old TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement A reement and Improvement Security for Director Review 8 -21 - Christeson c:o. Christeson Company (AStro Cast) has submitted the attached improve- ment agreement and improvement security for the construction of off - site improvements at the northeast corner of Jersey Boulevard and Vincent Avenue. A resolution is attached for your approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council accept the improvement agreement and improvement security for Director Review 81 -21 and adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully su mitted, LBH:BK:jaa Attachments 4 RESOLUTION NO. ) - 1=!3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -21 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration and Improvement Agreement executed on December 2, 1981 by Christeson Company as developer, for the improve- ment of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 11000 Jersey Boulevard (north- east corner Jersey and Vincent); 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 re- ferred to Planning Commission, Director Review No. 81 -21; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient improvement security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City • of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Improvement Agreement and said improvement security be and the same are hereby approved and the Ma,,or 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 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City C erk Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor I r. 0 E CIT\' nF KANCh10 Cl.'CA� \10 \GA title; ,: D. R. 81 -21 ENGINEERING DIVISION - VICINITY NIAP �� 11 0 CITY OF RANCHO CCCA):01IOA Irl?ROVEi ".ENT AGREEMENT KNOW ALL HEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreeent is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the :aunicipal Code and Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, 'a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and Q¢istaasam Cvgaysy hereinafter referred to as .the Developer. "I NITNESSETH: i l THAT. WHEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer !as rgquested approval by the City of, Director Review 81 -21 1 in accordance with the provisions of the report of the COmm,nity De elapa^nt Director thereon, and any anendaents thereto; located at the northeastyCp rner of Jersey 91vd. and Vincent Avenue and, WHEREAS, the City has established cer Lain requirement to be met by said developer prior to granting the final approval of the Idevelopmentl and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting if improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by the City Attorn }y, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements fir the purpose of securing said approval; HOW, THEREFDRE, it is hereby agree.; by and between th City and the Developer as follows: 1. The developer hereby agrees to construct at dove oper's expense all • impryyue'uents described on page 3 hereof within won the from [he date hereof. 2. The tern of this agreement shall be 9 months _,,commencing on the date of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on the day following the last day of the term stipulated, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter provided. _ 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provi- sions 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 reserses the right to review the provisions hereof, including construction standards, cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjust-en; thereto when warranted by substantial. changes therein. 4. if the Developer fails or neglects to comply with, the provisions of this ogre,renq the City snail nave the rignt at any tine to cause said provi- sions to be eumpieted by any lawful means, and Utureopon to recover from said Caveloper and /or his Surety the full cost aql axpense incurred in so doing. S. Encr-.:r„hrent permits shall he obtained by the Oeveioper from the office of the City Cris iurer prior to start of any work .(ithm the public right - of -way, and the r; veluper shall ronduct such work' in full compl lance with the renulatlons contained therein. Non - compliance nay result in stopping of the work by the City, and ass, ssm,nt of the pJalties provided. b. Public right-of -way improvement work rrauirrd shall be constructed in confnrmance with ivprnved improvement plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Dpawings and any special amendments therein. Construction shall include any transitinns and /or other incide.nta Y uurk deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. • J'� . J Y l IMPROVEt:SNT ADREE:,_NT 7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued to comple- tion: the City shall have the right to co.-.plete 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 meant. B. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or re- moval of any component of any irrigation water system in conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose rock and other debris from the public right -of -way resulting from work done on the adjacent property or within said right -of -way. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Co:mnunity Development Director. 11. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the teens of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. The principal amount of said improvement security shall be not less than the amount shown below: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY SUBMITTED: IW240CNatE tE11LR W CIU.DIT $30,000.00 •IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to he duly executed and acknowledged with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth opposite their signatures: , DEVELOPER CN2 /l�90✓ C c - BY; WITNESS' _ DATE: CITY OF RANCHO CUC=14GA, CALIFORNIA a municipal corporation MAYOR ATTEST:___-, CITY CLERK DATE: I� CC'.BT'CCTIO:f ;t9 ECI:D V.CRCAC:1:: ENT 'E ":I? FEE 56:!000 LE (:.mach to °InsJecto is Copy") DATE: 9/15/81 PEi91T No. CO:TUTED BY Joe $to Fa, Jr. File Re(e re nee O.R. 81 -21 City Oravin6 'IO.s Astra CaSt 0749 NOTE: Does n oclele currenL fee for v1111r.1 polTuil or Pave-eor lulleca- .Tot deposits. COYSTRUCTIOV COST ESTI.LATE - IT-' OCAATI -1 -- I I; RST COST 5 yr 1 FATTIO'UL PF.TFMLL NCE 1L91® (100.1) E. IRM2Y•VCE IL R OF =IT S/` LABOR ARIL !t %TERIAL IDDS 00%) 10.000 P. [. C. C,�rA _ 8•' r�, P` I L.F. .C.C. ruff only A" LF. PA. MONI,^IE:.TATlON B0D (CSN) L.F. [. 1 vnl L.F. 6" , dT, P.C. C. C. L Sidewalk 1 2580 S.F. .5 l,o,U 5" Dri ee L. ach 1 1095 s. F. I a ql:e W. P.C.C. Cross cucter 1 S.F. Street 'c ` .tion 1 1 C. Y. lcoorted E ^Soban ent I Prronr:.: ion ofub� de rA -. —d ter, R,— toe ,eA r hi,k ) A.L. lover 1300 Tens) I TOR I A.C. 1900 to 1300 tons) TOR C !under 500 to 900 mns) I i0S I A. ( nder 0o Tons) TOR Parch A.C. ftrench) I S.F. V. Thi <A T.C. Werlav 1 4 G S.F. 1 .30 I 4.1lu Adln[t S r n. N. To rrnde I Adiust Sever C.O. To Grade I rp EA. 1 I Ad' st I:uer Valves to Grade I I EA. SIT—, U h,, 1 I EA. 150b. ff 1,x,v Street eicns 1 I EA. 1 srreeT Trees I cA . I I R Curs S _Gutter R Aooroarn I I 11. lo.vu I Semove Existlno Aooroacb 1 ea 1 jr, 1 • a I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 _ 1 I I CONSTRUCTION COST 17 1r5 CONTINUNCY COSTS 2,29, TOT.V. CONSIRUC.TION COSTS _ 2D,030 1 FATTIO'UL PF.TFMLL NCE 1L91® (100.1) 2 a0 600 IRM2Y•VCE IL R OF =IT S/` LABOR ARIL !t %TERIAL IDDS 00%) 10.000 ESGISFE::1NG INSH"ION FEE. (FEE SCpDULE) _0 MONI,^IE:.TATlON B0D (CSN) • Iln INTERNATIONAL Hox 310, Los BANKING DIVISION UN ON 1�Y1 00 No. 7100. Cos Anyelei, Calr/orrrra 90051 MARK ❑ V. O. 6o. 45500, Sun Franusco, Calrinrnia 94145 lCeble Address "UNIONBANK" Telex 6145121 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9320 BASELINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 GENTLEMEN. ORIGINAL m DATE WOVEN BER 5,1931 WE HEREBY AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRAW ON OURSELVES FORACCOUNTOF ) CHRISTESON COMPANY, 17922 FITCH AVENUE, SUITE 100 L IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 -"UP TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THIRTY THOUSAND AND N01100 DOLLAR,' ($30,000.00 US FU ?DS) U 0 AVAILABLE BY YOUR DRAFT AT SIGHT c .' TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT A STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR CITY CLERK CERTIFYING THAT 0 CHRISTESON COMPANY HAS NOT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE 14ITH THAT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENT 0 AGREE:IENT, BETWEEN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAfONGA AND CHRISTESON COMPANY. © IT IS A CONDITION OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT THAT IT SHALL BE DEEMED mI AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED WITHOUT AMENDMENT FOR NINE (9) 14ONTHS FROM THE PRESENT OR d„}i ANY FUTURE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, UNLESS THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO ANY SUCH DATE WE SHALL NOTIFY YOU BY REGISTERED LETTER THAT WE ELECT NOT TO CONSIDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT RENEWED FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR PERIOD. UPON RECEIPT 11)i BY YOU OF SUCH NOTICE, YOU MAY DRAW HEREUNDER BY MEANS OF A SIGHT DRAFT DRAWN C..i: ON US ACCO IPANIED BY THE ABOVE STATEMENT. DRAFTS UNDER T1115 CREDIT MUST BE MARKED "DRAWN UNDER" UNION BANK, XX LOS ANGELES 71 SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA CREDIT NO 150393 DATED NOVENMER 5, 1981 AND PRESENTED AT OUR OFFICE NOT LATCH THAN AUGUST FIFTH NINETEEN HUNDRED EIGHTY — TWO------------ - - - - -- AT 3,00 P, Id, THIS LETTER OF CIE DI MOST ACCOMPANY DRAFT' AND DOC,UM ENTS PH F.SENT €D TO U5 TOR PAYMENT UN F.SS 0 IF CHltlISC E.'PPE$SLY STATE U „TH 15 CHEDIT IS SUBJECT TO TIIE "UNIFORM CUSTObI AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDI IS 11914 REV ISIONI INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PUBLICATION NO 2901 ". WE HEREBY UNOL R T A K THAT DRAFTS DRAWN IN COMPEL IANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CREDIT WILL HE DULY HONORED HY US ALI HANKING CHAHGLS IN CONNECTION WE NI THIS LETTER or CRf OIT ARE FOR ACCOUNT OF BENEFICIARY rDN�O /NK r� �-r' /•1�,���' o. AT .e /CB 1 —7 ..eP.1.P. e,...... • 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Rubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 81 -17 - SOCCO Plastic Coatrng Company SOCCO Plastic Coating Company, developer for Director Review 81 -17, has submitted an improvement agreement and improvement security for the installation of a street light and also the repair of a barrier and asphalt. A Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $3,500 has been submitted. RECD }1MENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving said improvement agreement and improvement security. Respectfully submitted, LBH:BK: jaa Attachments c Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Now, more than ever, public agencies facing the financial strains and problems of daily operations are additionally burdened with the problem of finding mechanisms with which to fund new projects. By developing innovative financing techniques and refining traditional methods, Fieldman, Rolapp 8 Associates has assisted numerous clients whose projects seemed impossible to finance. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates. a California Corporation, is an independent municipal financial consulting fine with experience in this highly specialized field dating back to 1954. Hundreds of public agencies, with diversified projects, have benefited from our services — resuhing in the successful issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax - exempt securities. We are proud of these accomplishments. Project financing or funding, however, does not always necessitate the issuance of bonds. Fieldman. Rolapp 8 Associates also has in- depth experience in the financial alternatives available to finance a project. including short-term borrowing and the Intelligent use of cash reserves. We consider professional financial planning one of our most impor- tant functions. In this regard, we analyze our clients' long -term borrowing requirements and prepare a "Financial Road Map" as a guide for financing capital improvements. Our objective is to main- tain our client's fiscal integrity and credibility We stated that we are an independent firm — this is by choice and intent- Our size enables us to provide clients with direct. personal consultation by senior members of the firm. Further, as an independent entity, we are neither encumbered nor obligated by organizational ties to an underwriting firm_ We feel that both these attributes are essential, and offer positive benefits to current and prospective clients. Benefits, first in the caliber of experience directly available to clients. and second. in the total freedom to explore all funding options and objectively pursue the financial package which is best suited to client needs. An overview of the services offered by Fieltlman. Rolapp 8 Associ- ates follows. Inasmuch as projects vary, all services outlined may or may rot be required. Prior to any client commitment, all services to be performed are clearly set forth and defined. Project Requirements Survey 1. Confer with managers, governing bodies, legal staff and engineers involved in the project and gather all financial data. 2. Formulate a coordinated financing plan to implement the project. 3. Assess clients immediate and projected financial position, and all practical considerations which have a bearing on the project. Financial Feasibility and Financing Alternatives 1. Analyze all input and data resultmg from the Project Requirements Survey. 2. Prepare a Financial Feasibility Report. which would include an outline of specific financing methods or combinations thereof, which could satisfy the financing requirements of the proposed project. 3. Set forth a professional opinion as to the best financing approach to achieve the desired results at the lowest possible cost. 4. Outline the requirements necessary to coordinate the recommended approach. Meetings, Consultation and Advice 1. Upon adoption of a financing program, meet with elected officials, managers, anorneys. engineers and staff as required, to expedite the project. 2. Attend, it deemed necessary, public meetings, workshops, and /or hearings pertaining to the financial aspects of the project. Prepare factual data, if required, for dissemination to the electorate. 3. If the financing program requires the issuance of bonds — provide data on current bond market conditions affecting timing of bond sales. Make recommendations as to the technical details of the bond issue which, in our opinion, will make the proposed bonds most acceptable to prospective purchasers, and therefore market- able at the lowest possible net interest cost. 4. Recommend bond marketing technique (sealed competitive bid or negotiated sale). Official Statement 1. If required, accumulate and compile Into an Official Statement ail pertinent economic, financial, legal and statistical data. The Official Statement may include the legal notice inviting bids. 2 Prior to final production of the Official Statement, allend a due diligence meeting of all involved and assist In complying with full disclosure requirements. 3. Under client supervision, produce the Official Statement and dis- tribute copies to representative bond underwriters and Investors. Marketing. Publicity and Bond Rating Assistance 1 u�mpf sis ethics reputable rs includ g nderwrrtersand t n hddg the holding of Information meetings when appropriate 2. Publicize the offering In trade publications. 3. Work with recognized bond rating service(s) to obtain the most favorable rating on the bonds to be offered 4. Assist in obtaining Insurance guaranteeing principal and Interest payments. 5. It appropriate. negotiate the sale of the bonds Bond Sales and Bond Closings I _ Assist In all computations and evaluation of all bids. 2. Compute all closing figures. and participate at the closing. 3. Prepare tables of debt service. Following are some of the diverse types of projects for which we have provided financial consultant services. A representative list of clients is available upon request Buildings Administration buildings. student unions, city halls, hospitals, police and firefighting facilities as well as municipally sponsored commercial and industrial structures Water Supply, distribution and treatment facilities: lake acquisitiom flood control channels and storm drains - Wastewater Sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities, including recla- mation. Transportation Streets. roads. parking. airport and harbor facilities. Power Hydroelectric and underground utilities. Developer Related Subdivision improvements and other in -tract facilities. Principals of the Firm William L. Fleldmao is a recognized expert in the held of public finance He entered the invesimenl banking i'duslry in 1946. has been a municipal Inenaal conwnara m California since 1954. antl founded our predecessor I hrm in 1966 In the course of his Career . he has developed and refined maM innovative methods of financing public projects He is a graduate of the Wharton School of Fiance aril Commerce. University of Pennsylvania Lawrence G. nolapp IS IB p Hell has nload feYpenanCe public Improvement rioters working with puhllc agencies and developers to create financing plans for capital improvement financing Recenlly. he has been pamculady active in tie formation and morning of speciai assessment district, and has expedi is in lease revenue financing He s o gr of the Graduate School of Business Adonnus"zoon. University of Southern California I 1 l Memherships. Associations and Affiliations of the Firm and/or its Principals jl • California Society of Municipal Finance Officers . Los Angeles Munmlpal Bond Club j • California Special Districts Association . Association of California Wale' Agencies �I . Southern California Water Utilities Assooanon . California Assoaiatlon of Sanitation Agencies a Orange County Water Association . San Bernardino Count, Special Districts Association li •Inland Counties Water Agencies . Independent Special Districts of Clang e County II you need professional financing advice — or if you have any questions regarding the services we offer, please contact us. We welcome your inquiry Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 2061 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 203 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE: 714) 752 -2781 _ City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Loyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Six Three- quarters (3/4) of One Percent of the first Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) assess- ments levied to finance the project, plus One -half (1/2) of One Percent of the assess- ments levied in excess of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00); provided, however, that fees based on this schedule shall not exceed Twenty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500.00). EXPENSES It is contemplated that we will pay our own out -of- pocket expenses and that the City will reimburse us for costs incurred in connection with paragraphs A. 3), 4), 5), and 8) above. PAYttENT 1) Fees based on hourly rates shall be due and r rr� payable monthly; and 2) Fees based on a percentage of assessments levied shall be due and payable upon confirmation of assessments. 3 3 TERMS S S This a r e g ,� until such ime as the Project has been completed or �a-til whicheverh,�shyall first occ.(ur.hef.l% yrON '!O E4rS nfi'� H'- •tk, i.lY -� 6- It is expressly understood that this agreement does not intend to and is not under any circumstances to be construed es requiring us to perform any services which constitute the practice of law; we are employed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. RESOLUTION NO. s -I- y A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -17 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on December 2, 1981 by Socco Plastic Coating Company as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 11251 Jersey Boulevard; 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 -17; 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 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren ll Wasserman, City Clerk lb Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor fC? • • 9 3 51.93 AC.M/L .JERSEY awo.' 11 1 ti I .I �• Z774 C M/t I. ;!O,OZAC I006AC 67a0 M/L • Ilq e� ..;.r X97 eau a L.Ol F 24 (j( 257 AC • I a 1 `/MAP 804-36-7K-1 07 36-7K- 17 6 �•` 6 j 16 4.53AC MA I PV GJ `5 ;` 1�1;635A 7 'MAP 804.36 - 211 "TCA6703 'MAP 804-36.7 PAR No. 26 " PAR NO '1 27 1 CITY OI' RANCHO CUCA1MONGA ENGINHERING DIVISION 7. VICINITY MAP 1„ i r� AI 1 JERSEY t 8N 1 '- MAP604 :36 -7K . PAR. NO 19 2 O v '3 7 3 63 AL M/C 5.63 AC MA: . 11.62 AC k/L •�tJ .307 �. /' .ti� .JERSEY awo.' 11 1 ti I .I �• Z774 C M/t I. ;!O,OZAC I006AC 67a0 M/L • Ilq e� ..;.r X97 eau a L.Ol F 24 (j( 257 AC • I a 1 `/MAP 804-36-7K-1 07 36-7K- 17 6 �•` 6 j 16 4.53AC MA I PV GJ `5 ;` 1�1;635A 7 'MAP 804.36 - 211 "TCA6703 'MAP 804-36.7 PAR No. 26 " PAR NO '1 27 1 CITY OI' RANCHO CUCA1MONGA ENGINHERING DIVISION 7. VICINITY MAP 1„ i r� AI 1 JERSEY t I 8N 1 I 0 Clay or gA\CHO CIIC..V0WA LMgRGVEMEM AGREEMENT INN ALL MEN By TRESE PRESEMS: That rbia ogre"gq(nnn r is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of cbe Mut@cipal Code and Regula- tions of the City of Rancho Cucwong a, S[ace of Ca foeala, a municipal cor- poractan, hereinafter referred to as the Cf cy, by between said City and WMSSESR: SIP!, 511lEREAS, pursuant to said Cede, Oevelepec hose requested approval by the City of, Im x m entn ac 11251 Jersey Blvd. in accordance with the provisions Of repay of the Coxmunicy velapmenc Director thereon, and any amendments threat o; located at 1121 Jersey Blvd. and, VItEREAS, the City has established certain requirements to be or by said developer prior to granting the final approval of fife development; and i REAS, the ageeerion of this agreement and postii of [mp[ovement astocSty as hereinafter cited, and ap, nn ed by the City A[tr4ney, are deemed to be equivalent co 'riot completion of acid cequts m,ent sit far the r,.c of secaci .aid appROVaip !!FF BOW, MEREfCRE, it is hereby agreed by and between phe City and the Developer as follcvs: 11 1. lire developer hereby agrees to construct at developer's expense all improvements described oa D,a d hereof within _ 1 vest from the data hereof. 2. The term of this agreement shall be 1 wear commencing an the data of execution hereof by the City, this %grefinent eha11 be in default on the day following the last day of the term orlpulaced, unless said lemn has been extended as hereinafter prolded, B. 1be Oevelopet may requeet additional time In whI` thSth to complete the provi- alone of this agreement, in writ lag rat less a four weeks prior to the default dace, and including - star anent of pplr comstances of necessity for additional time. in consideration of such fegaesa, the city reserves the right to review the provisions hereof, including coast[uction standards, Cost estimate, and sufficiency of the improvement security, and to require adjustments thereto when warrvrted by subacantijt changes therelm. I 4. 7 the Dewelape, falls Or neglects to 'empty i h the pcavtsions of this agreement. the City shall halo the right at a y time to cans' said provi- sions to he conpleted by any lawful means, and her'v'.o co recover from said Developer and /or his Surety the full cast rid expense Incurred to so doing. 5. Km,ro nth menr perm Qs shall he obtained by the nkve taper from the office of the City Engineer prior to start of .my we f kit within the public tight of way, and the developer shall conduce such work to full Compliance with the regulations contained therein. Yen -ccmpl Mnce may result in stopping of the work by the City, and assessment of the'penalries provided. 6. Publtc right of way improvement work requited shall he cons eructed In • conformance with approved to, ..... at plans, Standard SDect (4 cations, std SCandard praings and any special amendments theruco. Conscructton shall include a n v trans lr inns anJ jar ache, Joelf oaal work deemed necessary far dralnago at publle safety. RCE12A cr • • 9 Page $ IMPROVEMENT ,1GREETIENT 1. 'Work dnnc within a iscing streets shall be diligcotty pursued to comple- tion; the City stall have the right to complete anv and all work in the event of unjul Lified delay in onq, letinn, and to r all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful .cans. g. Tbo Ncvcloper stall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or me- moval of any component of any irrigation water system in .onflict with the required inek to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water s)'ilcm. 9. Thu Delti -per 111111 he 11 sible for le v.,1 of all mole rock and .00ze Johnl from the public right not way r z aulting from work done on n a adja- cent property nr within said right ofway. 10. Me Developer sTLUI plan' and maintain parkway trams as directed by the Wmmnniey Development Director. II. iha improvement security to be furnished by Gm Developer to gaarantee completion of chv terms of this agreement shall be subiect to the approval of the City Attm'ney. Tla, principal a tint of said Improvement aenrrlty shall be not less than the amount shown below: IIIPROVE)IENT SECURITY SUII111TTED: Faithful Performance Bend $3,500.00 TYPE SURETY/AMT PRINCIPAL AMOUNT Nacerial and Lahor Band IN I:TTINESS NCRKOF, the pn Ries barrio hove caused chose presents to he duly almilled and arl,nnwlcdFed with ail formalities required set Earth opposite their signatures: by law an the dates / DEVEWPER BY: ,C6� DATE: [�l�Ly4EL_ BY: _ DATE: / ! CITGE.;S: . l _ DATE: CITY nF RANC00 CUCAIIONGA, GA6IFORNIA a municipal ..arparetnm BY: ATfl.ST: VAIL: �a 1 MYOR CITY CLERK FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE FOUL BOND b9 JB 95 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, and (hereinafter designated as "principal") have enters into an agreement whereby principal agrees to install and complete cer- tain designated public improvements, which said agreement, dated oCroaER 5 19 e1 , and identified a� project feet li­ E ' ' - sIsoai _4Y—__ as hereby reter�retl to ads a part hereof; and, WHEREAS, said principal is required under the Germs of said agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and �q=tncw�gyy , as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Raeoho Cucamonga (hereinafter called "City "), in the penal sum of mI,— eFD Dollars 1 a can no ) lawful money of the nice Eta tes, for the payment of which svm well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, execu- tors 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 covenants, Carl tions and provisions in the said agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their ;art, to be kept and performed at the time and in she manner tbcroin spac- 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 obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. ACKNOWLEOGE%IENT OF SURETY JState of Call heirs 1 Coumy of SM c:ECp r1 u On tnu 5th day nl OC,Trt!F.R 1981 , bear, me aersona'ry aone.md known to me to he the Attorney in Fact of Insurance Cr,m,r, nl the Weil and acknowledged In me that he executed the wtmrn msnument. In witness wM1eren( 1 hereto set my hand and official ieal on the day and year in this certificate first wnnen .hove, shatue 1. wvw�rAnv.A ., ANGEL AI. IAILAM $ c: roes. ruaK we:faa ! ! rrrowr a" rvr40V, 4wry ' ar —.am lra Irl 11 ry5 N'NM V lnwvnv.Ntvvdwln mw Ur. ms19 )st - r � LJ N :/ /L Ji m� • ANGEL H. MIIBM Notary Public M1J ge urf Mr Vr r Jr l CARCLIP STUIF,✓ ATT�GY IY FACS r1 • U w ,i CITY OF P.ANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Consent Calendar, Release of Bonds Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue OWNER: Crismar Development 2120 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Santa Monica, California 90406 Monumentation Bond $2,600.00 Certification from the project engineer indicates that all final monuments have been set and that he has been paid in full. Parcel Map 4907 - located on the northeast corner of Clevland and 4th. OWNER: Racor Development Co. P. 0. Box 755, Industrial Division Temecula, California 92390 Labor and Material Bond (Road) $92,000.00 LBH:bc 0 1� . 0 40 • STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Joan A. Kruse, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -07 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11869 - ROBERTS GROUP - A change of zone from R- - 10,000 to R- 3 /P.O. for a total planned development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land to be located on the northeast corner of Archibald and High- land - APN 201 - 253 -23, 25 and 26. At their meeting of November 18, 1981, the City Council continued this appeal in order to allow the surrounding property owners and the devel- oper to meet and discuss neighborhood concerns with this proposed pro- ject. On November 23 a meeting was held between the property owners, Mayor Schlosser, Councilmember Mikels, and City staff with another meeting scheduled on November 24 between the property owners and the developer. At the time of this writing there is nothing yet to report; however, a memo will be prepared for the City Council prior to the December 2 meeting. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director JL:JK: jk a� • 0 CITY OF RANCHO CL,ICAYTO, \GA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Joan A. Kruse, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-08 TT 11928 SHAFFER /WESTLAND VENTUR - A change of zone from R -1- 0,000 to R- 3 /P.D. for the development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located at the northside of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -31. At their meeting of November 18, 1981, the City Council continued this appeal in order to allow the surrounding property owners and the devel- oper to meet and discuss neighborhood concerns with this proposed pro- ject. On November 23, 1981 a meeting was held between the property owners, Mayor Schlosser, Councilmember Mikels, and City staff with another meeting scheduled on November 24 between the property owners and developer. At the time of this writing there is nothing yet to report; however, a memo will be prepared for the City Council prior to the December 2 meeting. Respectfully sulmitted,e JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director JL:JY,: jk C � 9 • • CITY OF RANCI10 CUGi`IQ \GA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Joan A. Kruse, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMM Mr. Dick Scott, developer of Tentative Tract No. 11933, has again requested a continuance of the appeal filed on the Planning Commis- sion decision of August 26, 1981, requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Scott will forward another letter to the City Council formally requesting the continuance. As soon as this letter is received, it will be forwarded to you. Respectfully submitted, "R�J' JACK LAM, AICP Community Development Director JL:JK:jk r (^ • • • nrmv IL n A Tinvn IT 11 A.1n .TI A STAFF REPORT ° ° '.r � 4I 4 q! 1917 DATE: November 18, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -10 - TENTATIVE TRACT 11 34 - DLV - A change of zone from A -1 to R -3 /PD for a total planned residential development of 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 207 - 211 -28. ABSTRACT: The proposal before the City Council is for a total residential development of 98 condominium units on 8.5 acres of land. In order to approve the proposal, City Council will need to approve the Zone Change from A -1 to R -3 /PD and to issue a Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 14, 1981, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the above- described project and approved the related Tract Map with Conditions as attached and also recommended approval of the Nega- tive Declaration and Change of Zone. Please find attached a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report of October 14, 1981, which fully describes the project. The project, as proposed, is consistent with all related City Ordinances and plans. The proposed density of 11.5 dwellings per arre is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). No adverse environmental impacts are antic- ipated as a result of this project. No correspondence was received by the Planning Commission, nor was there any opposition voiced at the Commission hearing. C7 c PD 80 -10 - DLV City Council Agenda November 18, 1981 Page 2 • RECOhT1ENDAVON: The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council-approve Planned Development Zone Designation No. 80 -10 for the above- described project through adoption of the attached Ordinance. Respecftflully s bmitt�ed, JACK AM, AICP �� Director of Community Development JL:AT:jr • Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report of October 14, 1981 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval City Council Ordinance n ORDINANCE NO. 14 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207 - 211 -28 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE FROM A -1 TO R- 3 /P.D. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the followinn: 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. S. 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 Numbers 207 - 211 -28, approximately 8.5 acres in size and generally located on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route, is hereby changed from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to R- 3 /P.D. (Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development). SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shal cause t e 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 18th day of November, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • 3 / L • is nYMv nc. n nATnvn nTTn ., IFnA,n Gw�.nuh STAFF REPORT i o DATE: November 18, 1981 ii TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager 1977 FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -05 - TENTATIVE TRACT 9369/11173) - BROCK - A change of zone from R -3 Multiple Family Residential) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential) for a total planned development of 117 patio homes on 18.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -23 and 24. ABSTRACT: The proposal before the Council tonight is for a total planned development of 117 zero lot line patio homes on 18.2 acres of land. In order to approve the proposal, City Council will need to approve the Zone Change from R -3 to R -3 /PD and to issue a Nega- tive Declaration. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 14, 1981, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the above- described project and approved the related Tract Map with Conditions as attached and recommended approval of a Negative Decla- ration and Change of Zone. Please find attached a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report of October 14, 1981, which fully describes the project. The project, as proposed, is consistent with all related City Ordinances and plans. The proposed density of 6.42 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. To date, one correspondence has been received in favor of the pro- posed project, while none have been received against it. Opposition was voiced against the project concerning the placement of two -story structures behind the existing homes on London Avenue. In response to this concern, the Planning Commission required that the final placement of units along the east project boundary be subject to Desirn Review to eliminate adverse views. 3^ v PD 81 -05 - Brock City Council Agenda November 18, 1981 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended that the City ounc Tl Tl approve Planned Development Zone Designation No. 81 -05 for the above - described project through adoption of the attached Ordinance. Respectful y u mitted, JACK LAN, AICP Director of Community Development • Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report of October 14, 1981 Planning Commission Resolution of Approval City Council Ordinance Correspondence from Property Owner • • 3" ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 181 -23 AND 24, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM R -3 to R- 3 /P.D. 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. Assessors Parcel Number 202 - 181 -23 and 24, approximately 18.2 acres in size and generally located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue, is hereby changed from R -3 (multiple - family residential) to R- 3 /P.D. (multiple - family residential /planned development). SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Q22 • E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT N0. 81 -01 - " change of zone from R -1 -8500 Ingle Family Residential 8500 sq. ft. lots) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family Residential/ Planned Development) and the total development of 72 condo- miniums on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202- 171 -42. ABSTRACT: The proposal before the Council tonight is for a total planned development of 72 condominiums on 5.71 acres of land. In order to approve the proposal, the City Council will need to approve the zone change from R -1 -8500 to R -3 /PD and issue a Negative Declara- tion. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 28, 1981, held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the above described project and approved the related Tract Map with Conditions, as attached, and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and Zone Change. Please find attached a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report of October 28, 1981, which fully describes the project. The project as proposed is consistent with all related City Ordinances and Standards. The proposed density of 13.6 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). No adverse environmental impacts are antic- ipated as a result of this project. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. Also, no opposition was voiced against the project at the Planning Commission hearing. Environmental Assessment /PD 81 -01 City Council Agenda December 2, 1981 Page Two RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve Planned Development Zone Designation No. 81 -01 for the above described project through the adoption of the attached Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, AICP Director of Community Development Or JL:CJ:jr Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report of October 28, 1981 • Planning Commission Resolution of Approval City Council Ordinance • i �� ORDINANCE NO. 1�DJ • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 171 -42 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA AVENUE FROM R -1 -8500 TO R- 3 /P.O. 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. Assessors Parcel Number 202- 171 -42, approximately 5.71 acres in size and generally located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue, is hereby changed from R -1 -8500 (single family residential - 8500 square foot lots) to R- 3 /P.D. (multiple - family residential /planned development). SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Oaily 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 day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 28, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY:' Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -01 TT 11853 - AMERICAN NATIONAL - A cFange of zonz r— o- 8,500 to R -3 /PD for a total planned development of 72 condo - minimum units on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202 - 171 -42 ABSTRACT: The applicants have submitted development plans and a tract map for the above - described project in order to gain consideration for approval by the Planning Commission. Approval of this project will neces- sitate the approval of 4 intergal parts of the project; a Negative Decla- ration, the rezoning of the site from R -1 -8,500 (Single Family Residential) to the R -3 /PD (Multi - family Residential /Planned Development) zone, the site plan and building design, and the tentative tract map. The project has been reviewed by both the Design and Growth Management Review Committees and has passed the Residential Assessment System. Staff has prepared a detailed Staff Report, related Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval for your review and consideration. BACKGROUND: The applicant, American National Housing Corporation, is requesting approval of their proposal in order to develop 72 condominiums on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue (Exhibits A, 8, and C). The application is for a Planned Develop- ment with a density of 13.6 dwelling units per acre. The project site is in the R -1 -8,500 zone and General Planned for medium density residential (4 -14 dwelling units per acre). The project site has two existing residences which will be removed or demolished. The property slopes uniformly from the north to the south at approximately 4; except at the north property line where the southern boundary of a steep knoll exists. The site is a former citrus grove with Eucalyptus windbreaks along the east boundary line. Approximatley 91 trees of various types will be removed with 11 Oak trees to be preserved. The surrounding land uses and zoning is described as follows: a2. C PD 81 -01 (TT 11853) • Staff Report -2- October 28, 1981 LAND USE ZONING North Existing single family residence with R -1 -8,500 Foothill Freeway right -of -way approxi- mately 150' to the north. South Single Family Residential R -1 East Church and Vacant Land R -1 -8,500 West Vacant with approved 200 -unit apartment R -3 complex ANALYSIS: The project is being developed in accordance with the State 5ubdivision Map Act as well as the City's Subdivision ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan. All setbacks, building separation, height, parking, and open space require- ments in the Zoning Ordinance will be complied with. • The project will include 12 six -plex structures. Each structure will have four 2- story, two - bedroom units and two one - bedroom units (Exhibits D and E). All units include a 2 -car attached garage. Thirty (30) addi- tional guest parking spaces are provided throughout the development. Texturized pedestrian crosswalks have been provided as shown on the site plan, but Staff recommends that additional crosswalks and a texturized entry- way into the development be provided to form a continuous pedestrian system. Recreation facilities include a pool, spa, ar.d 2 play areas for children, one with an improved tot lot (Exhibit F). Two points of access have been provided into the project off of 19th Street; the main entrance at the southwest corner, and an emergency access at the southeast corner. Full street improvements will be required along 19th Street, including dedication of 21 feet of additional right -of -way. The interior road system meets the minimum design standards of the Zoning Ordi- nance with 25 feet curb -to -curb. The streets, landscaping, and open space will be. maintained by a Homeowners Association. The preliminary grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the Grading Committee and given conceptual approval (Exhibit G). Landscaping will be provided throughout the development in accordance with standards and policies set by the Planning Commission (Exhibit H), The applicant proposes to install landscaping with patio fences along 19th St. The fence setbacks will vary from 26' to 45' from the face of the curb on • 19th Street. Staff recommends that tho maximum height of fences here be 5 feet. Also, additional landscaping treatment will be required to buffer the grade difference between the street and building pad elevations. 7 i 9 P,D. 81 -01 (TT 11853) Staff Report -3- C October 28, 1981 37 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees exist along the east project boundary and are slated to be removed by the applicant. Staff recommends that they be replaced with a species of Eucalyptus more suitable to residential land use at 15' on center. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans will be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits to assure compliance with these conditions. The Design Review Committee reviewed this project finding it an acceptable style for this area. Detailed colored renderings, site plan and building material sac:ples will be available for your review at the Planning Commis- sion meeting. Please find attached Part I of the Initial Study, completed by the applicant, which discusses various environmental factors relative to the project. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts on the environment due to this development have been found. If the Commission concurs with this determination, recommendation of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in the Daily Report, newspaper on October 16, 1981. 28 public hearing notices were sent to sur- rounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all matters relative to this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings of the Staff, adoption of the attached Resolutions with Conditions of Approval would be appropriate. Respectfully su itted, �7'1 JACI( LAN, AICP, Director of Community Development JL: CJ:cd Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit D Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit N Exhibit I - Vicinity Map - Detailed Site Plan - Tract Map - Elevations - Floor Plans(2 sheets) - Recreation Center Part I - Initial Study. Resolution approving Z.C. Resolution approving Tract map with conditions. - Conceptual Grading and Drainage - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Phasing Plan 4' J �J 0 0 II C TENTATIVE TRACT NO 11853 SITE UTILIZATION AND RADIUS MAP CITY OF RAI CHO CUCANIONGA PLAdNNING DIVISION �l CD ITEM G TITLE: VluNrrY MaP EXHIBIT 'A' SCALE : _SITS \ORTH \ 1 cw.nw nn.t w._ • • TADMAMN rouLa.n assn. wROmn cnn +.ce vve a.e v oarmi:e�a m m»v >t nc TOTAL L.n. r.Mf �q♦ .v! R.n tOr.L ra •OI • ..R +mO n.riO /� \ rii / \� l0i n TOTAL TO 11, / \ V V NORTH CITY OF ITI \1: C RANCHO CUCAIMO\GA • TITLE:rr-�711ILSn ;t -F AH PLANNING DIVISION ECIIMIT:E_SCALE l 11 0 0 TENT VINT TRACT' NO. 11853 T .I CITY OF RAINCHO CUOMMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ........ .... ..... .... LIL NORTH ITEM: TITM 7:rfz-:�- r mkr EXHIBIT. C- SCALE: Wre, C •��ls1' 1��r7+..'nii11 Y�A9:l @6�:5'•ifUYLiI i Wq I CITY OF RA\CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION 4 • • 1 ITEM: C- TITLE: r-j-L- Vy�T CMS S EXFIIBIT: -V SCALE: NTs 0 0 F, A T Ra. i. PR Mw ,F A o) s IMN�f dslldJC bfe4v� CITY OF RA\CHO CUCA1IO GA PLANNING DIVISION ID Q o swan nyn 0 "ter ITEM: G TITLE: lt,&4S EXIIIIIIT: SG \LE: NrS site --Y t I CF L �J C &W CITY OF RANCHO CCCA,NIO \'Gr1 PLANNING DIVISION .,1 to ITEM: C- TITLE ��KF, -ANS EXHIBIT; r-- 8T5 5H6iT Zd= L 0 0 0 0 • PLANT LEGEND 4 RECREATION CENTER CITY OP RANCHO CUCANIONGA PUluNNING DIVISION Zi% ITEM: TITLE:�r!�tXTiohl 2 EXHIBIT:_ SCALD rR's [FORTH is M77 NORTI I CITY Or ITEM: RAINCHO CUCAIMONGA TITLE: 4Akcrrl:,*� &FJ-Pj14k_,W �r- PLANNING DIVISION FAMBIT: 45i SQkLE: 14 Ve- 0 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO\GA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: S� TITLE: rr*!!'? -�um_ LM. •mac RhhI E,\I IIBIT: i_ SCALE: MIS CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN PHASE 1 Mwlae' ;l!• MLW3 PHASE 2 .. I.. 1. 24 W S q AT ... 0 PHASE 3 ^ is TOM u S FORTH CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMO \GA TITLE - FHArIN, TI-AH • PULNNING DIVISION EXHIBIT SCALE 01s l RESOLUTION NO. 81 -127 • A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT N0. 81 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -1 -8500 TO P,- 3 /P.D. FOR 5.71 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET A RAMONA AVENUE - APN 202 - 171 -42. WHEREAS, on the 25th day of April, 1981, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 28th day of October, 1981, the Planning Com- 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 following findings: 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 • impact on the environment nor the surrounding prop- erties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on October 28, 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 Cucamonaa here- by recommends approval on the 28th day of October, 1981, Planned Development No. 81 -01. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Planned Development No. 81 -01. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re- lated material herehy adopted by the Planning • Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. f � Resolution No. 81-127 / Page 2 l / 4. All conditions of approval applicable to Tentative Tract No. 11853 shall apply to this Planned Devel- opment. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A ii 4 /r rT ssion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonaa, do hereby certify that the foregoina Resolution was duly and reqularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C=..mission held on the 28th day of October, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Sceranka, Dahl, Kinq rlo ES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tols tov • ✓r RESOLUTION NO. 81 -128 • A RESOLUTIOt! OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11853 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11853, hereinafter "Map" submitted by American National Housing Corporation, 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 development of 72 Condominium dwellings on 5.71 acres of land, located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue -APN 202 - 171 -42 into 5 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on October 28, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Mao subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Comnission of the City of Rancho • Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11853 and the Map 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- opment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to human, and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. V!r nesoiunon No. 81 -iY6 Page 2 / (q) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the • environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11853, 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. The design and material of the patio fences along 19th Street shall be restricted to a maximum height of 5 feet from the finished grade of the building pad. The design of the fences shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The landscape treatment along 19th Street shall be improved to incorporate mounding which steps up to an low profile natural rock walls, as a means to soften the grade difference between the street and the building pad elevations. Details shall be in- cluded in the final landscape plans. 3. The Eucalyptus trees on the east property line shall be replaced 15' on center with a species of clean, fast growing trees compatible with residential land • use. 4. The continuous interior pedestrian circulation system shall be improved with additional texturized cross- walks at key locations and at the main entrance to the Project. 5. The meandering siderialk along 19th Street shall maintain a minimum distance of 2' from the curb, except at the drive approach. 6. A directory shall be placed at the entrance to the project subject to Planning Division approval. 7. A17 ground floor units shall have a contiguous 225 square feet of patio area. D. The tot lot shall be contained within a defined area thrnuoh dosi,n features such as landscaping and earth mounds. ENGINEERING DIVISION 9. Revision or reconstruction of intersection drain at Ramona and 19th Street shall be done per Cal Trans standards and policies. • �I Resolution No. 81 J 28 l Page 3 t • 10. Vacation of Ramona Avenue north of 19th Street shall be accomplished prior to recordation. 11. Flood protection wall shall be installed along east property line to protect structures from overflow of Alta Loma Channel. 12. A joint use driveway agreement shall be made with adjacent property owner to the west. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE gITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ng Conmiss • I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucaronga, 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 Co ..mission held on the 28th day of October, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: 0 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Sceranka, Dahl, King NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy A. ij OEPARTKEFT OF C6bullxv OEVELOP11E4T SMDAA0 CO;:JI110:2 17J subject: TENTATIVE TRACT_ 11953 Ara mane jlmeriC?n_Nari onal iious_n[iCorporaiion totalled: NIS. of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue Those Ile. +s licked are [und It Ions of afprpvaI. arr1101'•+ 9,aLL C1'.1tCT hIZ 01:131_'1 FOR COMPLIANCE VITA TIIE FOLLOd166 Ce.d ti less. Site EryelSne_ X I, Site shall r- dI,nl.,Cd I. C oranne- with the approved site plans pal File - - to StarStarPI ann m9 01 is on old :re .ond it ions Contained here in. 2, Frr yrl s.r, plan, and lows lJ lug elewliouz inturpo -ling all - alitl..' of epT,..al shall b- swnrtlV to thO Planning Division prior to Issuance of W66u,9 : Cott. X J. Cle oval .F [tic rtquest '':all not valve dexplianCe with ail ifCtlon, of 11, is n rn m N ; A,,I , acd a .er beet l cab City oSnances in effect at tIra, or, Do Ili :n.l Per „l I. arr e. 4, b.e eevriij— anal? provlle all lots with adequate SldeyarJ area far RICreala on Ionic le ss. ,- pursuant to Gtr swnda Ids. X s. fresh ... •itao.• a ....11 be enclosed by a 6 loot high ma -.Dry wall with oh, ✓u.C,I ra w91tes Iur,eanl In C1ty standards. Loation hall be s o ;ce, t.Nru by 10 Planning Division. X 6. A sae. le .F the roof - atonal snail W s.o-uiled W the Plm.nte, division I- retie. and app -,at prior to Isman- of building permits. X 2, All roof ac {tar [e•nnces, ,ndluding air Conditioners, shall be architecturally Integrated, Shielded Gbh vsev and the Sound buffered from adjacent properties and at,-,, a, he tee Fle nning and Building Division'. X 9. Fri., to any use .f the project site .r business a,saity being Coe led t.rrmn• all conJ,UCns of approval Contained herein Shall be Ccopleted tp the ,au'faCiNia of 1:0 Director of Community Develol•nent. _ 9, this approval shall beeped bell and Vold If bull J,ng Wil :it' all, not Issued for ...s ....act within pale yea, free the date of project aPPI.vaI . 10. A, a C..,e, tinwl use rrrma, u.is p, eject shall becunc null anal ruin in -- 5M •en 1101 (:...Ills fro., dale of approval, unless p,-itl are ill,CJ or use approve. is eo:: plr Le J. �X 11. A n•la }trot I+nnl,ng plan shall be s.Mitted to and apprnred a, the M-nin, of neon p to nsn s,CC of hot l d Ing pc.mi Is Such plan II. III I ,i.btate ryle. ,Ib m eat ion• Iota nun, he gib and method of P, ie i J lay. d. li9b bug ,'Sit 14,111.11, affect adaMOnt pf.per Ue'. X 12. All si. din, pools -ins Wiled at the time of Initial development shall be solo, heated. D. Te.mrizcd pedestrian pathways across Circulation aisles smtl be provided 11. rnuin,nt III, dcrelo M.cn[ to connect dwelling} with open ,paces and rc.eaticnal uIvI. 1 Prajr0.TT 77,57 _ 14. All train pick up snail be for inan16n1 On.,, ntn all rcc ^a 4clet sal uts.d (I, public vie , If no eentrdlife0 teas is rec ep ia[IeM1 III, pro,rC rl. 15. Standard patio cover clans stall be wtnitlN to and ov ll -I by trot Olt, Plomrtr and Building Official price to occ..ancy of tho first unit. X 16. All building's nuntxrs and Individual unlu sn,ll be Idml :lied 1. a clear and C.,I.. manner, mciuding proper Illurnmtrm+. X V. Solid Core is lerior floors, security dead bolts and loch still ac - ,tatted on.", un" in cuss Project. 18. Security devices lost sa .mega sock shell be In101114 one In unit. 19. All wits within this de,.I.,aent shall be Dreplumbtd to he adapted for a solar vaW totaling unit. _ M. Energy Conserving building materials and apps la: r;ared to b^ ednlporded Into th,s project to include Soto Inen,a r is eat not }anted to uceA a wptl on s r heads. batter 9role of r v.lau on. e..III paned . led -s, extended o,er tangl, pilotless oppl lancet, etc. 21. This d'relCAI -t mall provide an option to home b.,rs to porchaee a 1.1.1 water health, unit. 22. Emergency stt..Ca,v a Cca,, shall he provided to this tract to the satis- faction of the Fmtbill Fire Protection District. _ 23. Ldeal and Ib stet ftanned Cque,tn an hall[ Putt ale prhv.0 -I puonghr,t Ilan tract In delorJante with the E.... I,,,. Irail Plan. A drtrrl••d r r,l ri- traI l plan indicating uid[m, m +raw at„ne :, etosicai osv nri•n lief e.m a' unit vrra Control, i accordance .,In C,[Y e'I ,el[r tan Irbil itlnd l : : l,. [hall bf sot milted to oldnap,lCS,d by he City Planner prier to aVVrO'ial and lecofdation of the final map. _ 24. TMs tract shall form or annex to a maintenance district for maintenance or eguezlrian trails. 25. Street n, es shill be reviewed and arprovea by the City Planner, In .,CCOrd,nce with the adopted Street Radial Policy, prior to beprm,al and recordation of the final an". 26. If tots Bevel olxaenl Intends to restrict e0uestnan o anlgJ Ie latest u [o Wee ific Io is or prohibit thins en t, re lY. teen a copy of Ibr C.C. A ft." fintl be s.bmtled to and rev,e.iy by Ili,• GIY Planner heap. 1. alp oval or nal asap. 17. This predict 51,.11 provide 1 -5 1-crn[ of anorJame honunq S-11.1 [,.1: In ral.r n •ilh L - l Plan lanolin, e.l,c nd ill- t, i :g ntrrla Jeinea io I,., 6ro.l al Ord,—­ llmd. ll s ',II be determined by c Aunt pallet rl;e[. fen [i and red.an Intel, Ieve15 at We time of c mtrurn.n .f the 1'r."I'. L. a t ^iq to ...d an... he a Planv.d by We City plane prior to issuance of bd :ld :e, pcnntts. B. verk in A vrmc.l ar L'ti" 1. All paatng lot laddl,I,ld Band[ slat have min nets ide dimension of 5' and shall contain an W walk addaeent to 111111ng 'tat). X2. Parking lot trees shall be a mimicve 15 gallon sire. % ]. A o -v+Y aisle with, shall ne a atelmlut of 26 feet arlJ<. JL I. {nr.,,r. cr a:.ea fW 11 pe p5u"J:J J , v mLVnnct Irv. no n el twi, a I rreaDntnt[ -r. a•r r. icn ts. "' n'! coot vu: elan ,n ac[ rV u e W ['ilo.,[n, 11 5" All Pan uy 1Pa :ev sglll Ga d. ml, s[r 1pN. % 6. Ail -.m [f [,.all pe pia. -d,J w,.. as toad..[ 3111 gin doD m op.... 1. Cet,JJattd vri,lnr V +r \rng a .,t shall 6. turfpl oClni, roan,., sn)n ra tote tlrr ,Earn', ar on ren Li anal •` It, n Urrs ate tin lea ['e/ ve tlm Wm"cll, source or trantVOrtanho f:r ln1 ...n. r, stall Le p- •' ^[t "a vrillm t1e nterlor circulation al sir other than In Je:i� )te'I rrirtor kin; e).enan[,, C"Jei, a.., Il et,r ,e t,nr„ nail :e Erie, oroJ 11 and ir.t ratted to the City PWnuing O,v -s mn Dr lac to isrv,ve o. ,, II J -rag prom[,. (. LedsraP L9 _ 1. A JoNiled la- rJCape and irr,gation plan shall be 'Ed [tPJ its tar Plan mg or.,'u, I,cr tr me Iaumcr er and Improved " of ma nnhrg pine,, n. 2. E."t,nr 1"', 0,11 p.: rr, r.,j :ai`ri'er p0'sibl'. .t n .s.. 3 [,. rt v,... "", I "�s Inca, l,V 1tall or PI Cr..EIVI,I [/ tLe n,", ;er. '11 1 Von Sh III ve and c'EV ,Ir.it, pe I'll ... 1. -n„I n,rt ,1 . u•r rn.v ,r m[ tce Dro pL :eJ X11, t.. pL,,rb Jrtn.n _o, la -. O,ne e. [r L:.,, nil aP[I nJ S. a,nI war, nry E1.11 be vn:. r, ttru to and ain rr.rrrveJ errs. lIv` DWo, 1S reguved al "crux.: ;ry the pl ano log Division prior to approval oI the rmnl ­j rng plan. 1 Striate t,,v,, a [,^anon of 15 'slice lire or larger, small be o,,,ll,, in lla" .1 Irve[ ...... fir ene City nr li,n'he ,,a and Pull ee ,,...ICJ , al a try 3J' on Inter 1 sweets and 20' on eatenar s[vm ts. a e r \ or <, A ralr man or So [.Pet or grass n:rc• celpr'ifed or the rollowina zl r.s, shall be pmviJrd „im the develu:.rent: 2o: -2A•' bar or larger, ]at -,S gsl Ian, and I0: 5 th gallon. X5. All IanJSCaned all" ".all b^ gaint,eed In , heol[nY and thriving ca mon, o bee fro .. - weed,, [rain.'nJ debris. a- 6, "1" ,'wive pint " "cl'SS or Rae (5) fee[ in vertical Might and or 5:1 0 g. eaevr stone a,an to L,nru )ofd and 'ruin"^ I ormn with slop, r planur.g «g'av rvvent of [ire Cil, ar pdnch, [,car, range went Iloilo planting rrlll ,c Clw:e tut not [•C• Irmr I.., " ro);CJ i and aPl'r npr is [" .apt u.A ;rest. All s..Cn P[: r:rr:g nN ,rr lour[, awn,n411 Le [vntr our n:l r:e'' 'n Leal Lni anp tn"vuy <unJr[4n pi tt '. aClaVr'r until ea<E Each v, J[YI unit ,S f01J and u i:d of the oud er, Prior to eel Casing c ua, roc ,rose awe xeun cf the slopes mall oe ca:o le led EY lht ,i lion rng 5t.11( [o JC [tr ,ene [,rat It ,4 ,n sa[,s( actor, [JnJI [r pit. 1. 611 pe.a�py,• nl +n a..... and ian.«,n inq stn n Ear fr,nr m)in u,nra ivy a r„ ..[ran or atdar a .its a¢cy W Lie tp tlr, lily. 5nq, areal pf m "Vnante Pall be lanai t[eJ [o ene btI Prmr to , of bulll,ng per nits. Sinn n -C a. The front Yard l""Caping, and a appropriate Irrigation 'YSten, shall be ,ntunm , IM aevolaper " ac.u.a:nce with rvdn it ed plans. 40 ProjJW- 111185 ,y 9. ano final de vi qn Of U: o "claw -4r pa car ry:, colic. IJmhcrp inq a�r.l 41Je- .IYS ,hell L^ melm:rd in tM n`rV•a ^d is rq:upe Vol +•E Prall Le suL lc'[[ f4 JpVraral LY the Planning G,v — 10. d min Imam p! - of the tree, Dlan[cd vitn,n tl,e $Pch 'men wile fee'. - Project, C[, 44)11 be I1. Sfe[ial landscape rvylurei 5 cn J r:nJrng, Ilva lnl rn:Y, 1,11"lwn Intenf ll,tOdl ynU'p....... 1d "'1145 ("Ell 1`l,cal ,1 ., a,,Slie IS required along a�'� �th `nn5tr`ee-t o. Ss _x 1. Anv vino, PI.E ; a for I'll with llm Ci`aIhntire : Ordinance I v,Jn Lr a..: rq,:nJ r rnlm rr`. ore by lire Planning oivliion pit orJ,n, n^2 ,nil iW11 rnyrru a rC'"IV and JDprogl prior to r cello lr on of such vgnt, 2, rl,n"orm sign program for this do.relor. ,it sh 111 tr S., ,Ittrr) to are Buiima Or"uoo Or [heir review and e, PrVval prior In issrunu of Perm,... _ 3, Too signs indicated on the avba lfJ plains tl not anlrravrrl with this approve] and will require separate lign ,twit+ and aprrn,J 1. Mol l t Iona[ n rovJli der ui red Drvrl a.enl Beer ,hall to Itcomp.{thfd Dr,nr to the I e of a Building Permit. : want Z. 0evelolvrent Review Shall be accemPI a shed prior to record it -w, of the final Sold, v l lion nan. 3. Aepraval f reatattat Tract 1x.11853 IS granted m of _P_A—Bicr01_a v pet[ to I'll app, ova, 6. This [time [,oral use permit n granted for a R'r rqd or which time the Planning I,. non delete - _ _ or rep Je the tpnd -clone, use Par r -d 1. near add or coon -;,ens r r owe The developer es required to Emilia Ice follow -erg ,egmN Int,,ent by adjacalerl pf eElaez uhili have a ""all pr pull-[ erlue,trian trail an or ad]a<ent to [M1eI, property. In purchasing the home Totaled on let on -di . Tr .act nJen tan? Lnac self tot I F.'Se ran in. C.C. S 4. f end .a lemon, for the tamp'" to a mVI "I e[JP .... 1 it, ln atones. purpose p( -a1j'a Ing egveztr.o trallit it SlgnCd Vvrcpas er Said statement is to be filed by the developer ,ith the City prior l0 occupancy. " 6- trio. [o all -hv l and recu, dr,tbn or an fine, n1C, ar P. it. to ",,'a ce of building perm ls, va,en n a frsLJiv is ion rrvm all affected 5:hool oii[ric,a vall ivy svMillH t0 -14 `n err tit r<. -t -Vn C.•.nun I,, D ^v eta: r.u•nl Vhirh St,, ln)t ,de lwa,r i',r ('ant 0I will Lr [,pane vl accomv,Jate, Slur:rn[s ac M"1 I,c,p 1, ri ,rr, n[ purr Ear euruflution.ruse p_, Men r q••nera n•I Dr I'll, pr. i.., t. u n ,tY (6D1 Jar, "ior ID the final 5` ra 11Y the social a,zv ¢t tit an mvis ion n -ap or is Lancb Of u')^ the ale in Ur O;, of u4` Ith. Draieels. DecnIIi the nl It met rite dent... 0" to approval and recorddtf.n of the final I,, or prlor to the Issuance • oI huild L,q rorwits .,rain n ropier is Invplrrd, wn'ItMn Ceftlfgatinn frnru she allr[trd ..is, d, l,,e[, ths, eJfq,o [e zauer JnJ vyler faPlibes a •ill [.e a•a ilahle t if ,r pmtoaed project. innll nP Sn Mnill,tl t0 lIM is, trent u! Lnmuniis Crz el ap,. en t. 'a ON letter must have Mrc ,hued Dy ter ,.,I rr .,[trio "I"" rally IFO) ", prior so f anal nnp alqu n.al 1 re^ la z• of Sub.liv,3lm, Or ,tvnnce of poru)ti in tic [avr aI all do, n si drnllal VoJ PC[t. for pi .lacks using Sep pie IanY lac{I Riei nl luvaDle A, ine Santa ben ang,m,al omn Cadt •gl Dovd and tons a ;61,1 ertirtu udn or accepteal M1 [r. including irif o........., still fe abWmeJ and snMUltrd to the Clty, !. This apprvral shalt becour null and void if the tentative snbA 11, Llon nap Is not 11pr.,1 and recorded or building semi[' issued Men n use is w, l in [eN.e (L) norms tree We approval or this �ro)r[[ unless an e. [end mn has rein ,rented A, the Pl..rain, Ccn.n scion. 9. TLIS subdivision vas net Sioun.tted as a total development package and i1 so Ted to reapply fur a mmIt rating relative to the d,, 9M ,heuL.aat1 vana.e"ent 0,, n:e pr.., to flnJl dnp.o VJl a T [[tin, or the aup if [M tund,•V,on it ,Deng to De dc,­ to pee as ,act 'hgn f,l Yn of nPPIICNIT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDIM DIY IS IOp FOR COMPLIANCE WITH Till FOLLOWING (AND 710l1s: F. Site Oevel oyne_„t —X I. Inv applicant styli comply with If' latest adopted t'nlfon, DTllding Cntla, Un,loin Ike Lan¢al Code, b'ni P: rm P)unbing Code, Ili [V Ona Electric Code, and all Diner yppl,carle oWill and erdf..races in of /ett at the ectr 0( ise. race so rte e t r Ve per.9i[s. prior to I ... I... of building Pemlb for COMWItlble construction. evldM[e 01.11 be Sotmitaed to the Foothill District Fire Chief that tempo.ary water supply for fire psi [action a aver able, pending completson of r ,,wired fire ".1O1tl on Systems. 1 9. Trip' to the iu a-C- of a building pemit For a new residential Airll ing t(s) o ajaruaeed, tl on ld an a sting wraith). the applicant sb,I] pay de aloPnent fees t the etbrllshed rate. Such fees may includo, rut not be limited to City Caautifi Cation red, Park Fee, Drainage fee. Systemm Oeveldond.1 Fee. Permit and Plan Checking Fee,. and School Fees. a, Prior to the 155.111:1 of a building permit for a new cmmcelal a' Industrial devaldpnent or addition to an e. ;sung development, the applicant skull pay daelc;fent fees At tie established rat.. Such fees may inel,ull but not Le Bvmled to: Syttnms Development Fee. Checking Fees. ova ink ge fee. Permit arW Plan 5. Street addresses shall bP provided by the Wilding official. X 6. D.mlllM units shall be Constructed Nth fire retardant material and non- - Conductible roof material. g. A11 carter d.elling, shall have [he Wilding elevation ',crag the street -pq'adid "to aamtfonal wood trim around .,Ad... and wad sfiling or plant. approrrialo. Calstln 5t.utzurrs -� I. Provide ..,I feet, with Iho Lhifore Dulldi.g Cede for Property line aea.raced considering use. srea and fire- resistiveness of esivtlnq Wildingz, Z. [­0n, Ta••.t•h•tncaylyelttrtvrtrnt T.rtA Rlnq amr Jena re"', here mwr ear- MCi ,rte„ba- vlvr^H,c- <oiid,.,t -lrztl L.• dcmul lined. or renloved. 7. [1 ill ill s...^ disposal fact 1 bas ,hall to relieved. filled Andy.. rap d to ccngily with the Vmldrm Plumbing Code. and Uniform Culldin9 Code. P Is,t f:o.TT 11853 H. crack., _X 1. G-1fng a' [he aup)ett property i,,, ere In arlvrdan.. ,Ain We In,ffarn Building Cud.., City Lradlng Standards and ....pled 9radtnq Ora c:rzn. ine Conceptual gr plan plal1 ere In Sups Wnllal ConfAmInle alto tha reproved grading plan. 2. A toils r port shall he prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the 51. to of California to pastor. 1111 work, g. a 9ta logical report SFall be +rVarod by a ouallfled en9shl, or g,dl.,Ii, nd subnitted at Ve tine Of epllcati.n for q.ad,nq off, nets, C. The final grading Plan shall b to i a .bnnv +l ray [n,. Lra Jinq Cann ;ilea and shall be I —PletM prior to eta•ht mn Of I,, final SuLdlvlsion map or "IdIrce of [wilding l•nni[ uhich!ver [ores first. S. As a <d,dd_lot sdbdivlaloM, the following regvi.nm•n is shall I,, rr t: a. Swe[Y stall be Posted 9 aM a cu[e9, gtaranhnng <vple bon of all on -site Orr rouge recill Uei nttrtsary for de, rterinq all parents, I. the salts pc[tOf of the DNldtag and Safety Division. b. Appropriate eat evrnis, for safe d1,,.AI Of drif mgt ,,,br that ue recorded ged unto Or over Llian.ont parcels. ate C, he I Iin ins .tA to he e[islact ion f the put ijug J Safety 1'.11 ion. C. Deslto drainage Inpro,_a,, necessary fob the enbdfvided properties, ere to Fe /,n talfeJerr for p� or nru`eG3 r.9 I [on [ri burn fo�pdrai o`^ mn upon any PlICCI that may spa tuDJ net parcel relative es to. fid.a rn1a ;eI' q v within a Ch a building pa,n "[ i3 re ,a'S Ceti. r d. final , Safety Dillstan far apM Opal Cnrforet.ni a ^. Seen i^t ^.d td the Dukt Jtn, (Ihii may be on an IncrMental or t •wen ! t building Conti', uh,a,jt, •pat,,.) !. A11 slope bank' In eaeis of rNA (51 f.'et In vertical h-i,, anJ of 5:1 or greater Slope shill be Se,dld with native q.IS... u.du a- pl1[Ipp be grading of sure .[her tl[a rasa rive m ^tloi of e.ds son con,ol ill ..plated to the 5a [i51yc[ipn If tie Building Official. air' ' tiOn 31,11 be pemid" to germinate the Seed and m lnl,in gr..tn [a a pm n[ 6 M hs after germination. a CCKNICANT SMALL CONTACT THE ENGI eEER I:IG DIMIV.I FOR COMPLIANCE YIIN THE lAglDUI,C CDNDI TITS: oed,_ationi and Vehicular A<Cis _ 1. Dedications shall be made by final alp Df all ],tell.' street rights- of"" and all necessary IdlerAna at slmim en the tern la [i 1,n rawer. 2. Dedication sN 11 be Dade of the following ree13: rigors- .l -weY on [x< following 19th Street - variable width as noted on Tentative Tract adJiLm CI feet o Mdp— addibopal feel ern'—'- - auditional fee[ is - -- 2. Corner property Ilse radius fill] be required per City Sltnd31ds, a. All rights of vex [ruler Ingress to and egress (rpm Chill be dedilatld as follow,: mss. Dec ip.dl al emscents swR ere Prowldrd ensue rag.11,11, to all pa,U•), over errs 1,a [e roads, drim,, or p. +ruing a as and zeal) be at iced an the map or 11111 be recorded concurrent ilh the map. S. i'Tei^^orillant Shall be made for tAe ingress, egress and Internal • lR any tracks r will be used far Jel !very of good$ to the property or in the operation of the proposed il X g. private dgina9e .....ants far cross -lot drainage SNll be required and .had be del I.. -a led or mtic Cd on Ina final v.p. Y 6. All uESting ea.mcnts lying ..thin Sulu- a r19hl -of -way are to be gm Kla4'ed or to be delinoaaed an the sup per City E.gl.of", Iryulreevnls. 9. Easeoenll for ladewalk for ,,bill mu $1111 be dtdical[d to the City .here side +elks ...Jar tNO:9b private property. J. Sheet Impro_nu 1. (nnttmct full t1let Irarnvecentt ineludin9, but not Ibnit,J to, lire and queer, a -e. ,,, a sldz,.a lt. drive aaproatnes. ca r6,ny trees and street Ilgnts na a;lIn.en.r sure 2. R minimm of I5 -foot wide rl.i 'nt uitnin A <. -toot aide dedruted right- .(..ay mall be roil vac o•d fur all NIf- tectian strain. x d- C.nitruct [ne following n s tog :nprovnnantl 1.11.ding, but not limited to: fee. x Ibr— TL:n'eE 3iiiF 2� - T SIRr[y Ural LIIRER eSli. Hat[ Into Pf= II C.a tS Ru 6GlAY IS(i[bR.`i- n:N UIIIER XI x x_ x_ `}. •mama$ pndl 1ptng +aid Irriy lion on p "tl r a. Prior to any wit being pertained in the public right -of -wa Ices stall be Daid and a eneroacl;rnt Streit shall be obtained Irani the Cary Engineer's Office, In a.ld:t¢n to an/ other deficits regnlred. _X S. Street Improvement plans apPvorcd Ly the City Engineer and prepared by A peg 111111. Civil En..c , .lull It rx nulred, far all sllrl improve,ont., prior to Issu-fle of a m actl Sei[. final plans and profiles shall . �p the locatii.e of It existing alit sty facilities witnin the rignt �a f -.al. ! X 6. Safety shod be pasted and a agr enent enecuted to the s+tf ifa[[lon of the City Engineer and Li Calls [tornel• guaranteeing completion of [ne pull is it grow 1­r [ men[.• pr to rC br Jing of the rap or the IssuaMp of billding Permits. +1,,,n—e, a—as first. ). An sVUt improvement, smll ht installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Prior to acapancr. _( S. Pavement striping, martin., treflic and street name signing shall be Installed per the feWtrtmenll ar 11, City EndinCC r. _ S. E. sting city mad requi u y u[tiun Stall i u n for InJry a[ all If ills aAe• Irtou dun lug a mbu[[io A Cash drpo,l[ hall be e,ai,,d to t r 1Le colt ofugraJmg and paving, .hies stall La refurJ..1 n unple [ion Of tle .....[ruction to the 'ausfaction of the City E..jmeer. 4 Pg t he. 11853 Y _ 10. llalbays shall be provided between public Sadewtlks and on - -llle peaealrlan areal. Ili Cone en tra tad dnloago flows shall not oo.. Ilde.a P'. Wailer sidewalk d/a lei Shall be Installed to 'fly itandlel. 12. M energy disslpator and /or erosion control maspa.. ..1 11 he installed to the satlsf"tmn of the City Cngin.er, at ill end of S;eb St o-15. A letter of a aeotance of drainage runoff froo the darns Veam property owner. ine 11 be rag .... d., A. Urainaae paid Fiend Cm_l rot 1. Tl he applicant will be responsible for eon.Vu[tinn of all an -Site nag. facilities aluirrd by the city Eng mre r. _ 2. intersection drains will be required at the following lout'..': ]. Top proposed ...Jfct falls within aifa[ indlratM d S)rrt N flooding under the Ilatiawl flood Ila.a.,, pragru dot Is abject 1p the provisions of that program and Ci LY ordinance N1. p. Y e. A drainage the noel andlof flood nro [ec Stan .all will hr re pdrN to protect the structure, by diverting Sheet runoff to Slrenl., or t0 A Storm draln. 5. Adequate pfovlslons shall be made for acceptanre and disrasal of surface drainage entering the properly Ire, ad jean, areas. 6. Letter of acceptance Iron dcvnslrean grittily ..ner, lava ll be repaired where runoff front the tract flows onto private Proper[."'. g' shall to oesigr•ed a raav r. ter <a rr` mg street, rego ring a cormTnation of ,p "c sal [nib no paint :. ,al type drive approaches, rolled streo[ cannx[iont, Il mi rolls, and /or landscaped earth berms and rolled dri.".0ys at property 11ne. 6, the !allowing stoic dal. shall be Installed to the lat.sfacllon of the CI [Y Engineer: 9. prior to recordation of the rap, A broad -¢ale xyErolp;ic and J .aye refit.. that 'reject .Pall pe .lions Sled [a tle: City Engineer far 1. Utilities e e - I. Provide all utility Servlces'to each lot Including sanitary wet ri water, electric Power, gas, telephone and cable television ten,,it. . 2. All utllltics witnln 1pe Project 'ball b In;WIlld ndcrglound V including ul ll dies dl 0.9 major ar let's ass IC's than 12 1:'I. y y. Utility c iEi Ca ti On oe the easwrnl' 'nail be previdad to txe r aerruig utility companies and the City Enginyl• rt _Y e. Oe ve toper Snell br responsible for the rO...Ilan of 0.1,,1.9 y.bill utilities, as rm olrcd. $. Developer Shall be responsible for the Installatlnn of S ✓eel Iig'd ing in accordance with Soother. Calilernoa Ed on fonpa,,y and City Stiodardi. R 490Jsct SO. 11 r Wier aM Segr oHM dull 4 drf igned and Constructed to aael • rerytrtmnb of the [ucammga Cpunp Voter all (Ctvpl. fan tM1 ❑I Fire District .cod the (nn rnrwdnWl health pCVa rtment of tIR Co-m [y of San perna.Jiwn. A letter of cmyllahce (rum CCUp will 4e 'ego trpd prior to recordation. y. It p•nea IS nave ,.ot been s'co're fro' all mtil ltsel and other into /Cited agrnclCS tn.ol.ed. M1pO. oval of the final map will be Subic" to any requ v[men la that may be retched non then. K ewer +l 4q.. s:a,ne. tt and rypmva is �[ 1. pewits fron nine' agencies will be required as follows: _L A. ralt'an: far: 19th Street _ __ — _ p. rn„n iv nn St nr,ii6,d' ^�T.wmree nn o'r to a svoncq n! a _ C. San eernardrna Counly Flood Control District D. otMr A copy or tee Coven a"'- Conal[ICnS and R11trlltians (C.C. 6 R. ") end "Fetes of IncorV>rra cn of [hn homrovner5 Association, s.1j"t loot" JCt`ro�al of in' city At :arneY. Shall be recorded wr,A chlS nap and a copy proaided to [he City, _1 ]. Canal parcel and trace raps Shall Confono to City standards and proceJUres. A- A parcel .vp SM11 be recorded Friar [o riot phase Subdt'iilon to prevent creation of unrecognized parcel S. prSO' to recordatlon, a antice or Intention to rn_ .a /or Jafn land :ore and trguun9 prat ncn Snail be tiled with the city Cpunctl, ine engmpering costs Involved in DiS Vitt Formation Shall be borne by the develapv. 6. All perin,tc, landscaped parkways are required to be anneaed Into the IanJScape Sutntenance district. _fL p. landscaping and irrigation systems required to be Installed An righ- of—ae on in, public tlr F this tract area shall be con [i nuouSly y derelap [ed by the City and anncand Into the landscape p'ihtenance aistrie t R 490Jsct SO. 11 \] 11 9 1111 /11 I A 11111A 11T1 ♦ 1 1!!\1!11 STAFF REPORT C — moNC> < � l i 4 F C. U 1977 DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of City Council and Redevelopment Agency FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ABSTRACT: This report reviews the material and process which will be used to review the Redevelopment Plan at joint public hearings by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the public hearing by a joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency is to meet the legal require- ments of the Redevelopment Law and to provide for public input regarding both the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Council /Agency has already received the Draft Redevelopment Plan, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Report to the City Council, and Assessment of Existing Conditions. These documents are part of the material for the public hearing. The Council /Agency will open the public hearings beginning on December 2 and continue the hearings through December 16. The process to review the Plan includes the following steps: - To open the public hearing in order to receive comments on the Draft Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. - To provide comments to Staff and Consultant regarding the Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. - Staff to provide any necessary modifications at the December 16 public hearing. - Conclude the public review process at the December 16 meeting and consider adopting the Ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan and certifying that the Draft Environmental Impact Report is complete with all necessary comments and responses. NOTE: BRING YOUR DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, EIR, REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 17 NO ASSE— 'SSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1-60t MEET II- Draft Redevelopment Plan /EIR City Council Agenda December 2, 1981 Page 2 Public notices describing the Redevelopment Plan and advertising the public hearing have been published in the local newspaper on November 6, 12, 20, and 27, and have been sent out by certified mail to all property owners within the Redevelopment District. Any comments received to date will be forwarded to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at the time of the public hearing. The Staff has held informal meetings with the towns people in the North Town community in order to provide for public input. Any comments during these meetings have been included in the report to the City Council. RECOAMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency open the public hearing on the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Environ- mental Impact Report in order to receive public comments. RespectflIull submitted, JACK LAM, AICP Director of Community Development JL:TJB:jr �r 0 • 0 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Selection of Financial Consultant for Assessment District 79 -1 As a part of the formation of the industrial assessment district, the City will be required to market the bonds necessary for dis- trict formation. This work is normally handled by a financial consultant working with the Bond Counsel. Attached for Council review is a proposal from Fieldman, Rolapp s Associates to perform this service. These consultants were recom- meded by our Bond Counsel as the best independent consultant for this type of work. other consultants dealing in this type of ser- vice double as bond underwriters. Two of these firms, Stone and Youngberg and Miller - Schroeder were invited to propose by Mr. Brown but have failed to respond. The Fieldman, Rolapp proposal is structured to provide for either a negotiated placement of bonds or a competitive bidding process as described. The negotiated is on an hourly basis not to exceed $8,500 and the competitive bid process would not exceed $22,500. The first option would be paid monthly on an hourly basis while the second would be due and payable at confirmation of assessments. Staff has met with the firm and thoroughly discussed the qualifica- tions with Mr. Brown our Bond Counsel. RECObIIdENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the attached agreement to retain Fieldman, Rolapp S Associates as Financial Consultants for Assessment District 79 -1. tfully subanitted, LBH:Va Attachments �9 � Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates fsMUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS November 24, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 C Baseline Road Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Re: Financial Consultant Services 6th Street Industrial Area Assessment District No. 79 -1 • Dear Mr.. Hubbs: Pursuant to your request, Fieldman, Rolapp 6 Associates and Kadie- Jensen are pleased to 'ubmit this joint letter proposal for municipal financial services to be performed in conjunction with the financing of the proposed 6th Street Industrial Area, Assessment District No. 79 -1 ( "Project ") . We understand that the Project involves grading, clearing and grubbing, asphalt concrete paving, aggregate base and storm drains including acquisitions of all right -of -way and easements, together with appurtenances; the assessment pro- ceedings will be conducted in accordance with the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the issuance of bonds repre- senting unpaid assessments will be in accordance with the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Our firms have extensive experience in handling the aforementioned method of financing. We offer to assist you in a financial advisory capacity by utilizing and making available to you the research, statistical and consultant staffs of the Fieldman, Rolapp s Associates organization and of the Kadie- Jensen organization to such extent as may be necessary and helpful. Mr. William L. Fieldman, Mr. Lawrence G. Rolapp, and Mr. Carl Kadie will be -directly responsible for providing financial consultant services to you. �q 2001 Business Center Drive, Suite 203 • Irvine. California 92715 • (714) 752.2781 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Two Our services can be divided into two phases. The first phase would be concerned with the financial planning and all other necessary analyses, public meetings, workshops, con- ferences and hearings required up to and including the con- firmation of assessments. The second phase would be concerned with furnishing financial consultant services to be performed in conjunction with the marketing of the bonds representing unpaid assessments. SERVICES: General: We agree to provide financial consultant services in connection with any and all City financing requirements as they pertain to the Project. PHASE I 1. Preliminary Survey We will confer with your City Council, City Engineer and Staff, Bond Counsel and Consulting Engineers, for the purpose of making a preliminary survey of the Project and to assist in the formulation of a coordi- nated plan to finance the Project. Included in the survey will be an analysis of the merits of offering the bonds at sealed competitive bids versus a negotiated sale. 2. Attendance at Public Meetings /Workshops We will be available to meet with affected property owners to explain the effects of any proposed financing. Consultation /Advice Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, be available for consulta- tion and advice. r • Work Sessions and Seminars We will be available to conduct and /or participate in • work sessions and seminars which may be held to discuss the Project and methods of financing. 6.,- • City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Three 5. Public Hearings We shall attend all public hearings required by the provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and shall participate in such hearings to the extent deemed necessary. PHASE II We will perform the following additional services in conjunction with the marketing bonds issued pursuant to the 1913/1915 Improvement Acts. A. Municipal Bond Market Furnish the City with information concerning current municipal-bond- market conditions and make recommendations as to the technical details of the financing, including • maturiiiy.schedules;*:fnnds „ novenants. prior re8empti.on schedules and.other. detaiis.which will, in our opinion, make the proposed financing most acceptable to prospective purchasers and therefore marketable at the lowest possible interest rate. B. Negotiated /Competitive Sale At the direction of the City either negotiate a sale of the contemplated bonds or, assist the City in calling for competitive bids. If the later obtains, 1) Official Statement. Accumulate and compile into a "short farm" Official Statement, economic, financial and statistical data pertaining to the proposed financing, which "short form" Official Statement shall be satisfactory to you. The Official Statement will include the Official. Notice of Sale 2) Due Diligence Meetings. Prior to the pro- duction and distribution of any Official Statement, the City agrees to hold a due diligence meeting to verify the accuracy of the data contained in the official Statement and make full disclosure of all pertinent • information concerning the economy and finances of the City. We will participate in such due diligence meet- ing and assist you in the examination of pertinent financial data. 6' City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Four 3) Production of an Official Statement. Under the supervision of the City, cause to produce said Official Statement. 4) Distribution of Official Statement. Distri- bute copies of the Official Statement to known under- writers of special assessment bonds. 5) Updating of Official Statements. In the event the authorized financing is sold in more than one sale, we will update and distribute copies of the revised Official Statement in accordance with 1) , 2), 3) and 4), above. J 6) Consultation /Advice. Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, will be available for consultation and advice until such time as the bonds issued to finance the • 'Project have been 'sold. 7) Contact of Bond Underwriters. We will make direct contact with a select number of bond underwriters in an effort to stimulate bidding on the bonds if a competitive bond sale is conducted. 8) THE BOND BUYER Ad. If a competitive bond sale is conducted, we will place an advertisement in THE BOND BUYER announcing the offering of the bond issue prior to the time bids are received for such issue. 9) Attendance at Bond Sales. Attend meetings of the City at which bids for bonds are received for the purpose of assisting in the computation and evaluation of such bids. 10) Negotiated Sale. If it is determined to sell the bonds by negotiated sale, we will conduct and /or assist in such negotiations and make appropriate recommendations to the City. Attendance at Bond Closing We will compute closing figures, including accrued . interest, and coordinate the events of the closing. • City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Five D. Table of Debt Service After the bonds have been delivered, we will prepare and furnish the City.a Table of Debt Service which will set forth actual semi - annual and annual payments of principal and interest due on the bonds. E. Procedure Manual We will prepare a procedure manual to be used by the City as a guide to service.and administer the bonds. If a competitive bond sale is conducted at the time of payment for and delivery of the bonds, the City agrees to furnish the successful bidder a certificate, signed by the appropriate officials.of the City, acting in their official capacity, to the effect that to the best of their knowledge and belief, and after reasonable investigation, (a) neither •. the Official Statement nor -.a.ny, amendm ^n: 'o' s+ipplement thereto contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading; (b) since the date of the Official Statement, no event has occurred which should have been set forth in such an amendment or supplement; nor (c) has there been any material adverse change in the operation or financial affairs of the City since the date of such Official Statement. 0 FEES In the event the City decides to sell the contemplated bonds on a negotiated basis, our fee for services rendered will be at our current hourly rate of Eighty -Five Dollars ($85.00) with a maximum fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($8,500.00). In the event the City decides to offer the contemplated bonds at sealed competitive bid; our fee will be based on our current hourly rate of Eighty -Five Dollars ($85.00), which fee would be applied as a credit against the following contingent fee schedule: VC City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Loyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Six Three - quarters (3/4) of One Percent of the first Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) assess- ments levied to finance the project, plus One -half (1/2) of One Percent of the assess- ments levied in excess of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00); provided, however, that fees based on this schedule shall not exceed Twenty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,50U.00). rvpvvgFR It is contemplated that we will pay our own out -of- pocket expenses and that the City will reimburse us for costs incurred in 'connection with paragraphs A. 3), 4), 5), and 8) above. PAYMENT 1) Fees based on hourly rates shall be due and payable monthly; and 2) Fees based on a percentage of assessments levied shall be due and payable upon confirmation of assessments. TERMS This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the Project has been completed or until the City abandons the Project, whichever shall first occur. It is expressly understood that this agreement does not intend to and is not under any circumstances to be construed as requiring us to perform any services which constitute the practice of law; we are employed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. ) G 0 • • . City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1961 Page Seven If the foregoing proposal is satisfactory to you, please take appropriate action to authorize its acceptance by signing and returning the duplicate copy hereof. Respectfully submitted, FIELDMAN, ROLAPP 6 ASSOCIATES By L,�.,..2._,�,� G2..a�...,. Lawrence G. Rolapp LGR:rs Attachment • - Executed on behalf of the .t!ity of. Rancho t:tcemnnga this ^ day of `_, 1961. G CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By ATTEST: 70 Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS • SCHEDULE OF RATES EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1981 Principal Consultants William L. Fieldman $85.00 Per Hour Lawrence G. Rolapp $85.00 Per Hour Carl Kadie - Kadie- Jensen $85.00 Per Hour Secretarial Services $16.00 Per Hour • �1 2081 Bust nese Center Drive. Butte 203 • Irvine, Call tore is 92715 • (714) 752.2781 9 • 10 nrmv nn n . w,nrrn nr�n ..r..wrn STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer i HIMON1 SUBJECT: Resolution on Right-of -Way Protection for Foothill Freeway Attached for Council execution is a resolution requesting that additional funds be budgeted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to fund right -of -way protection for the Foothill Freeway. This resolution is modeled after a similar resolution passed by SANBAG and will be considered by other agencies within the corridor. The CTC had previously removed one million dollars from the budget because of funding deficiencies. At that time they indicated that if SB 215 were passed, the funds would be reinstated. With the passage of SB 215 and confirmation by the necessary counties, it is the appropriate time to request funding. RECOM14ENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution request- ing the CTC to budget one million dollars for protection of right - of -way in the Foothill Freeway corridor. Respectfully submitted, LBH.jaa Attachment n a, 1 /)..j . rvmv nc A A NTPIM CTiO4,M11MC4 _.,r a �... STAFF REPORT DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer SUBJECT: Carnelian Realignment, Contract Change Order As you are aware, Carnelian reconstruction is nearing completion. Paving will begin this week and should be completed December 8, 1981 on schedule. Carnelian /Vineyard between Vineyard and San Bernardino Road is severely cracked and deteriorating rapidly. Some pavement fail- ures have been repaired but major reconstruction will be required in the near future. if repaired at this time, to years additional life may be expected with considerably less cost. The repair will consist of a special oil placed under a fiborous mat (petromat: to retard cracks reflecting through overlay) and .12'+ asphalt concrete over the mat. The cost breakdown is as follows: 900 tons A.C. @ 28.50 ton = $25,650.00 66,000 S.F. Mat @ .15 S.F. _ $ 9,900.00 Crack fill and preparation @ L.S. _ $ 805.00 Several factors contributed to making this change order at this time: • The area to be repaired warrants early attention, i.e. next couple of years similar to Archibald. • The contract price for the project is $232,555.90 and the Engineer's estimate was $280,880, a difference of $48,324, allowing the change order without exceeding what had been anticipated being spent. NOTE: The Engineer's estimate was close to the average bid. The contract price is excep- tionally low. • Due to the tonage on the existing project, the unit price for A.C. for the project is low compared to the unit price �4 As you are aware, Carnelian reconstruction is nearing completion. Paving will begin this week and should be completed December 8, 1981 on schedule. Carnelian /Vineyard between Vineyard and San Bernardino Road is severely cracked and deteriorating rapidly. Some pavement fail- ures have been repaired but major reconstruction will be required in the near future. if repaired at this time, to years additional life may be expected with considerably less cost. The repair will consist of a special oil placed under a fiborous mat (petromat: to retard cracks reflecting through overlay) and .12'+ asphalt concrete over the mat. The cost breakdown is as follows: 900 tons A.C. @ 28.50 ton = $25,650.00 66,000 S.F. Mat @ .15 S.F. _ $ 9,900.00 Crack fill and preparation @ L.S. _ $ 805.00 Several factors contributed to making this change order at this time: • The area to be repaired warrants early attention, i.e. next couple of years similar to Archibald. • The contract price for the project is $232,555.90 and the Engineer's estimate was $280,880, a difference of $48,324, allowing the change order without exceeding what had been anticipated being spent. NOTE: The Engineer's estimate was close to the average bid. The contract price is excep- tionally low. • Due to the tonage on the existing project, the unit price for A.C. for the project is low compared to the unit price a l nrr n. JMr Carnelian Realignment December 2, 1901 Page 2 that would apply if the repair were completed by separate contract. Example: Unit price for contract is $28.50 Unit price for Alta Cuesta for 1,000 tons was $38.50 (completed one year ago) Unit price for Archibald north of 19th for 600 tons was $44.00 (completed recently). As you can see, the change order of 900 tons would result in considerable savings over a smaller separate contract. Normally, contract change orders are approved at Staff level, how- ever, the amount of this change order will exceed the 108 contin- gency amount and is a considerable sum, therefore, Council consi- deration is being requested. RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the expenditure of the additional funds needed ($36,355.00) to execute said contract change order. Respectfully su mitted, LBH :MP:jaa i A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on December 2, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 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, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, James Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs; Finance Director, Harry Empey; and Community Services Director, Bill Holley. Approval of Minutes of October 29, 1981 and November 4, 1981. Councilman Mikels requested a clarification on the motion for item 5B of the Novem- ber 4 minutes on page 7. He requested the motion to read, "to approve Resolution No. 81 -175 which establishes priorities for Rule 20 undergrounding and to direct work to begin on the number 1 priority project, Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Base Line Road, and that the cost for the laterals should be borne by some mechanism to be brought back to Council at a later date, and to waive the entire reading of Resolution No. 81 -175. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Frost to approve the Minutes of October 29, 1981 and the corrected minutes of November 4, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Councilman Palombo has been appointed as a standby member of the Selective Service Board by the Governor and has been appointed by the Director of the National Selective Service, Mr. Turnage. b. Councilman Mikel's wife, Margorie, just passed the bar exam. Council sent their congratulations. C. Meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee /Flood Control Zone I to be held in Ontario on Monday, December 7. d. Councilman Mikels announced that he had attended the Omnitrans and SanBag Board meetings earlier in the day. Items of importance which were discussed: (1) The consultant had a contract for a consultant to do the West Valley Transportation Study which has been signed. There will be a presentation at the next SanBag meeting by the Voorhis Group. (2) Since SB -215 passed which provides for some transportation financ- ing money, there will be some new 5th year projects added to the STIPS which had been precluded from this year's submittals to the State Transportation Commission. (3) On November 20 an alternative for the installation of ground access improvements for the expansion of the Ontario National Airport was approved by the Steering Committee. Future meetings will determine how the expenses for those improvements will be allocated. (4) On December 2 there was a meeting of the Route 30 corridor cities in order to develop some financing mechanisms and alternatives to comply with the resolution passed by the California Transportation Commission. Mikels stated that later in the meeting Council will be considering a Resolution to support a resolution passed by the San Bernardino Associated Governments for increased funding for right - of -way protection for the Foothill Freeway. e. Mayor Schlosser called an Executive Session to following immediately after the adjournment of tonight's meeting. E. Mr. Wasserman requested the following changes to the Agenda: (1) To remove item 3d from the Consent Calendar. (2) Consent Calendar item 31 should be setting the public hearing for December 16 not December 18, (3) Add item 5D, "Carnelian Street Realignment, Contract Change Order." g. Councilman Palombo requested that Consent Calendar item 3b be removed from the Consent Calendar and become item 5E for discussion. be financed from recreation fund, not to exceed $12,600. c. Approval of Resolutions regarding procedural documents for the previously authorized park acquisitions. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARROW HIGH- WAY. RESOLUTION NO, 81 -181 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON HERMOSA AVENUE. d--- Aeeeplanee- ef- Parc }- Map -665 }y- imprevemenf- ASreemertes- end- }mprevameM- 6eenr }ty - Bfveretfied- }nveai men!- Ee---- ieeeied- en- rhe- rterrheeae- earner- ef- 8ese- bfne -ertd Arehibe3d- AVenee. Item deleted from the Consent Calendar. RE6UhW£36N-N9s -8} -382 A- 886U6UFi6N- fiF- 41ifi- 633'�F- 60UN633,- 9F- 37Ifi- 6iFY -BF RAN6HU- 6W6Al SBN6AS -GAiiFBRNfAS- APPHOViN6- PAH6ES NAP - NUMBER - 6653-, - 0PRBVEHENT- AG"ENENPS -AND iISPHUV@(ENF- 6£6UR33'Vr e. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 81 -21 - Christeson Co. - located at 11000 Jersey Blvd. (northeast corner of Jersey and Vincent). RESOLUTION NO. 81 -183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -21. f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Director Review 81 -17 - Socco Plastic Coating Company; located at 11251 Jersey Blvd. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -17. g. Release of Bonds: -Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development. Monumentation Bond $ 2,600.00 I:ees for tae Mai .ng ol[ agencas and minutes oe Increased to retle(: increases in overhead and mailing costs. This represents the first cost increase for subscription rates which were established in April, 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -66 -A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CERTAIN FEES FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND CODES. 1. Set December 16, 1981 for public hearing on: City Environmental Guidelines - Guidelines setting forth procedures to implement State required environmental. review. Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded by Frost to approve the Consent Calendar with item b removed to Staff Report Item 5E and deletion of item d. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -07 (TT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the north- east corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -23, 25, and 26. Mayor Schlosser made the following comments for Council to think about before opening the meeting for public hearing: He stated that at the last meeting a public hearing was held and Council listened to concerns of the citizens. Both Councilman Mikels and he met with a group of the citizens. These citizens also have met with the developers of this project and the developers of the next item. Some of the concerns involved the alignment of Archibald, the access require- ments, schools, police protection, crime, eucalyptus trees, open carports, water pressure, fire protection, quality of life style in the community, and consistency of development in the area. He stated that he felt the most important issue to the neighbors was the neighborhood compatibility and the severity of lifestyle changes that may occur with this development. He stated that he felt these changes could be kept to a minimum and provide for a better neighborhood compatibility and yet meet the housing goals of the city by reducing the number of units to a zone of R- 2 /P,D. Councilman Mikels who was also at the meeting with the residents, added the following: He reinforced the Mayor's comments in regard to the carports with open doors. He felt this was a valid concern, that garage doors would be preferable to open carports. There was also concern regarding the amount of visitor parking and the width of Highland Avenue. Residents wanted to be assured there would be enough room on Highland Avenue for traffic in both directions if cars were parked on the south side of the street. tie said he talked with the city engineer and was assured that the improvements would be sufficient to provide for traffic in both directions and for cars parked on both sides of the street. Another concern expressed was in regard to the color scheme, but he stated this had been worked out, There was concern about the Archibald entrance which is now being worked on by the city engineer. Although there were other concerns expressed such as fire protection, schools, i Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to uphold the appeal in nart by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus an additional condition to include doors on the garages, work with the city engineer regarding the Archibald entrance /exit problem, and condition the development plan and tentative map respectively, and to refer the final modified design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 164 to modify the zoning of the subject property from R -1- 10,700 to R- 2 -P.D, and request the Planning Commission to report according to Government Code Section 65857, and to set the second reading after receipt of said report from the Planning Commission. City Attorney, Robert Dougherty, was requested by Councilman Palombo to explain the meaning of Government Code Section 65857. Mr. Dougherty stated that this was a section of the Government Code which required that any time the city council proposes to modify a zone change in a manner not considered previously by the Plarni.ng Commission, that the rezoning must be referred back to the Planning Commission for a review and report. The Planning Commission has a period of time up to 40 days in which to make its report. The Planning Commission need not hold a public hearing on the matter. If the report is not received within 40 days, the city council is free to act. Councilman Bridge expressed that this proposed density was more compatible with the community than the 14 originally presented. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: William Conger, 6365 Jadeite. He asked if these two motions are passed, does this mean that they will automatically go into effect? Councilman Mikels answered yes, that the council will refer this back to design review to make the appropriate changes. Mr. Conger asked, "if both of these motions pass, will there still be a public hearing ?" Mr. Lam stated that if action is taken on the first reading, then the first public hearing will be tonight. When the council sets second reading, that is the second public hearing. That will conclude the public hearings. The second reading will be set when the report is received from the Commission. There will be no public hearing at the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam then presented the city clerk with the modified ordinance which incorporated the changes in zoning from R -3 to R- 2 /P.D. Toni Quezada, representing the Roberts Group. She asked if this meant that if they went back through the Design Review Committee process, would the site Plan have to go before the Planning Commission again as a public hearing item? Mr. Lam stated that once referred to the Design Review Committee, the matter of density would be concluded. All the Committee would deal with was how it would be redesigned for the lower number of units. It would not require another public hearing. again. Mr. Lam stated yes, unless appealed. He went on to state that once the council set the density, then there will be no further discussion. John Christison, 4948 Klusman. He wanted to know how much more high density was being planned through this area and would this set a precedence for a whole belt of high density? Councilman Mikels pointed to the general plan map on the wall. Mr. Wasserman stated that at the break, a staff member could go over this with him to answer his questions. There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Frost asked if the product which comes out of the Design Review Committee, would this be subject to Council review if they so chose? Mr. Lam stated that the only way this would return to the Council is if it were appealed or if council made a special request. Mr. Frost asked if this request needed to be a formal one. With the potential for major design changes, he felt the Council should look at it. Mr. Lam stated it really depended upon what the Council desired. Councilman Mikels said that once tha Design Review Committee has made its review and modifications to the project, staff can notify Council. Council could check it out to make sure it is in line with the council's suggestions. If not, then council could appeal it. Mayor Schlosser asked if council would still have a chance to look at this at the second reading. Councilman Mikels stated that the second reading was on the zone change. He said if council were notified of the completion of the design review, that would suffice. Councilman Palombo called for the question. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 164. ORDINANCE NO. 164 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 201 - 252 -23, 25, AND 26 FROM R- 1- 10,000 TO R- 2 /P.D. FOR 9.75 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND HIGHLAND AVENUES. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 164. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to uphold the appeal in part by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus an additional condition to include doors on the garages, work with the city engineer regarding the Archibald entrance /exit pro- blem, and condition the development plan and tentative map respectively, and to refer the final modified design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 164 and request the Planning Commission to report according to Government Code Section 65857, and to set the second reading of Ordinance No. 164 after receipt of said report from the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. on of v, e, It is either a c :ermination of an or a negative declaration, not a waiver of the environmental process. They all went through the process according to the State Environmental quality Act. The action to be taken will be the reduction of density and the issuance of a negative d 1 ec oration. This means a finding of no significant adverse impact by this project. Mr. McConnley asked if all three projects were considered as a whole when looking at environmental impacts or were they considered individually? Mr. Lam st: :d that by law you have to make an individual determination. The accumulative impacts were dealt with on the master environmental impact report which was heard at oub'_:c hearings at the time of the adoption of the general plan. Mr. McConnely asked who does the environmental impact reports? Mr. Lam said they are done by consultants for the city and paid for by the developer. In this case each project went through an environmental review and was judged in accordance with the general plan. A full environmental impact report was done for the general plan with all the density categories and the land uses adopted last spring. The findings made for these projects is that it is consistent with the general plan. 40. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLAN% DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -08 (TT 11928) - SHAFFER /WESTLAND VENTURE. A proposed develops of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archiblad Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -32. Mayor Schlosser stated that he felt essentially the same way about this item as the last one. Council has heard input and met with residents. The item of greatest importance is the neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Sam Angona, President of Westland Venture Company. He felt that everyone basically liked their project. The only criticism was the off - street parking which they agreed to mitigate with staff, and the nature of the design. It was very simple to change -- all they had to do on the five -plex units was to drop off one unit apiece which would reduce their development by eight units. Bill Conger. He said they went into discussions with the developers with good intentions of trying to reach some type of agreement. Up until this very moment, they were told "no deal." He urged Council to follow through with the same two motions made for the Robert's project. Councilman Frost stated that he disagreed in a direct comparison between these two projects. His main concern on Archibald ;nd 19th Street is the visual impact within the area. He felt on item B there we in indication of a willingness to compromise by the developer to come up with something close to what council desired. Sheryl Moody. She stated that when they left the meeting with the developers, they had requested a time extension. They were turned down. Both developers were to notify them of their willingness to comply with their requests. They were to be notified by Wednesday before Thanksgiving. They did not hear from the Shaffer /Westland group until Monday. They were told at that time they would work with the city and whatever they requested regarding the Highland Avenue parking, but they would not reduce the density. per acre, mitigates that element toward Mr. Salva[i's property. Councilman Mikels stated that because the other project was so high in density to begin with that in reducing the density, it would have to be redesigned, Hoc: - ever, with this project, the density was not so high. To require a total re- design would cost considerable amount of money. Bill Conger. He stated that this was their first proposal with the developer. They requested time from Mr. Angona to take this to the homeowners. Thev were refused the time. He said that if the council would like to see a reduction of this type, he would like the opportunity to take this to the homeowners. He personally felt that they had tried to negotiate in the past and were told "no go," therefore, he was not willing to accept anything less that what was proposed by the city council. Margarita Ward, representing the resident at 10142 Archibald who only speaks Spanish. She expressed that there should be better guidelines for the developers so things like this would not happen again. There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to duplicate the motions used in item 4A. _Councilman Mikels stated that he would like to know what the costs would be for a redesign. Mayor Schlosser and Councilman Frost concurred that this was not a relevant question. Tom Davis, architect for the project, 9581 Business Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that a reduction is possible, but it will take some money to redesign the project. He stated there was a difference between the two sites, however. On the east side there is a drainage channel which the city is requiring to be improved at a cost between $150,000 to $200,000. This is quite an impact on the project which the other project does not have. By reducing the density more, then the cost of the units will sky rocket. There being no further public discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing again. Councilman Palombo called for the Question. Councilman Frost disagreed with calling for the question at this time. He felt there was a need for more comments. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to close debate and vote on the question. Motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Palombo and Mikels. NOES: Frost, Bridge, and Schlosser. Councilman Frost stated that the intent of his comment about inquiring into the costs for the redesign of the project was that he basically felt that this was net council's role to determine whether something was affordable for a developer. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to uphold the appeal in part by modifying the development plan and tentative tract map to reduce the density to a maximum of 9 units per acre, plus increasing the visitor parking within the develop- ment, and condition the development plan and tentative design to the Design Review Committee for design review approval. Motion carried unanimoulsy by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser, NOES: None. AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 165. ORDINANCE NO. 165 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 201 - 252 -32 FROM R -1- 10,000 TO R- 2 /P.D. FOR 5.85 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to waive further reading. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. with all members of council and staff present. Because a number of people were present for Item 4G, Council concurred in hearing that item next. Lae Mayor Schlosser called for item 4G. Deputy City Clerk made the announcement that Notice of Meeting had been duly published in the Daily Report, newspaper of general circulation, on November 6, 13, 20, and 27, 1981. Also, certified notices had been mailed by certified mail to last know assessee of each parcel of land within the Project Area. Agency Chairman Phillip Schlosser called the roll call: Present were Agency Members James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor Schlosser and Agency Chairman Schlosser called the public hearing open. Mayor Schlosser stated that the record contains the following documents: a. Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, C. Environmental Impact Report, d. Assessment of Conditions Report. Executive Director, Lauren M. Wasserman. introduced the Agency Counsel, John Brown, and Consultants, Abraham and Manuel DeDios, and staff members, Deputy City Clerk administered the oath. Executive Director, Lauren Wasserman, presented an explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Abe DeDios continued with further explanations of the Plan. Mr. John Brown went over the legal procedures including the procedure of condemnation or eminent domain. He stated that in the very beginning of the plan, it was made very clear that for the purposes a' this redevelopment plan, the acquisition of real property does not include the employment of eminent domain proceedings. which was being turned over to the attorney for handling. r Joanne Gretchen, from the consultant's office, went over the draft EIR. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Commission. He requested that the Agency speak specifically about the plans for the North Town area. Mr. Abe DeDios stated that the Redevelopment Plan was general and did not provide for any specific area. Mr. Gracia stated that the people of North Town feel that the city will be going in to buy up land and build whatever they want. They are afraid they will be bought out. Mr. Wasserman stated that if Mr. Gracia felt that another meeting with the residents would be helpful, then staff would be willing to do SO. Marcia Szecsy, Banning. She had property on the north side of Foothill, east of Hellman Avenue. She expressed concern that the letter mentioned eminent domain. She wanted to know more about the project and who initiated it. Mr. Wasserman went over the history of the formation of the Agency. He stated that before the next public hearing, staff would be willing to sit down with her to answer her concerns. John Riggs, representing Charles DeBoard, a property owner at 20th and Turner Avenue. He stated that he has heard there are some financial incentives for an owner who might be interested in developing. Mr. Brown stated there were a number of opportunities, although the policies will be made by the Agency and Council. He stated that the law does allow to make loans available to businesses and residents within the redevelopment project area at substantially reduced rates for the purposes of creating new businesses or renovating old residential units. Mayor Schlosser asked Mr. Brown if he could prepare a short, concise explanation of what a redevelopment agency does so that it could be available? Mr. Brown stated that he could and would have it available next week. Vito de Vita Francesco, 615 N. Euclid Avenue, asked where money would come from to do any public work? Mr. Brown stated that in the initial years the Agency would not realize a great deal of money. Ultimately, they would realize some growth within the project area and would begin to accumulate funds from the County treasurer. The Agency also could raise money through the bond market. Bill Kotoff, Hacienda Heights. He stated that as the plan has been presented he was in favor of it. However, he asked if he could determine when he would develop his property or could he be forced to develop. Mr. Brown stated that the plan does not contemplate any form of force. there had never been any development. Mr. Brown pointed out that if he would come up during the break, he would go over the Redevelopment Law with him. George Robbins, 161 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland. He asked if there were maps available showing the flood control channels, freeway off ramps, etc. Mr. Wasserman said this type of information was available in the city engineer's office. Rudy Guzeman, speaking for his in -laws who lived at 10264 Humboldt. He wanted to know if 50% of the owners in an area wanted a project and 502 did not, who would be successful? Mr. Brown stated that under the plan, the Agency would not be able to undertake this kind of effort. Councilman Bridge requested that the eminent domain procedure be explained again since so many had concerns in this area. Mr. Brown stated that only certain specified public agencies in the State of California can excercise the power of eminent domain. He explained that the theory was this if the public good requires the acquisition of street, easement, or whatever, cities have the power to go in and acquire that for the public good on the theory that if they were unable to obtain it, the majority would suffer at the will of the few. Art Ayala, San Diego and property owner in Cucamonga. He asked if the Agency will have the authority to present rezoning ordinances. Mr. Brown stated that it could recommend to the city council, but that authority rests entirely with the city council. Morton Deour, Woodland Hills. He said he heard several times throughout the evening not to worry about eminent domain if you have residential property. He wanted to know if he would have a problem since his property Was industrial, and he wanted to know if it could be taken from him and be given to some other developer. Mr. Brown said only if he chose to enter into an owner parti- cipation agreement and defaults. Margaret Ward, 10104 24th Street. She expressed she did not like the word, blight, in the letter. She took it as meaning Old Cucamonga. She said the people in Old Cucamonga have no intention of moving or selling. George Casill, Ontario. He asked what the 2% tax was. Mr. Wasserman stated that the 2% is what the Assessor will automatically increase the value of the property over 40 years if you do nothing to your property. The property value will still go up 2% a year even if the redevelopment project does not pass. There being no further discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Deputy City Clerk announced there had not been any communication received against the project. Mayor Schlosser declared that the public hearing of the city council be continued to December 16, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened At 10:25 p.m. with Councilman Palombo absent. ment of a total planned residential development of 185 single - family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. Mayor Schlosser stated that the applicant requested that the item be continued to January 6, 1982. Council concurred. 4D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -10 - (TT 11734) - DLV. A change of zone from A -1 to R -3 /PD for a total planned residential development of 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route - AFN 207- 211 -28. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 162. ORDINANCE NO. 162 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207- 211 -28 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE FROM A -1 TO R -3 /PD. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge to waive further reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: Palombo. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. (Councilman Palombo returned to his council seat) Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to approve Ordinance No. 162 and the issurance of a Negative Declaration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Frost, Mikels. Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. TT 11173) --M. J. BROCK. A change of zone from R -3 (multiple family residential) to R -3 /PD (multiple family residential /planned development) for a total planned development of 117 patio homes on 18.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 1961 Srreet and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 181 -23 and 24. City Clerk Wasserman read title of Ordinance No. 161. ORDINANCE NO. 161 (secon. reading) AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 181 -23 AND 24, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM R -3 TO R -3 /PD. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Plaombo to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 161. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. ABSENT: None. AMERICAN NATIONAL /BARRET IRVINE. A change of zone from R- 1 -dJUU to R -d /eu for a total planned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202 - 171 - 2. Staff report presented by Michael Vairin, Senior Planner. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordinance No. 163. ORDINANCE NO. 163 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 171 -42 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA FROM R -1 -8500 TO R -3 /PD. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to waive further reading of Ordinance No. 163. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was: Richard Klassen, project engineer for Barrett /Irvine. Councilman Frost stated that he did not care for the regimented structured look along the east side. Mr. Klassen stated that they would be placing eucalyptus trees 15 feet on center along the east side which was a condition of the development. Mr. Vairin stated that the Design Review Committee was somewhat concerned with the east side, but anything that you do would squeeze the open space in the center. This would bring pluses to the east linear, but also negative aspects on the rest of the interior. Discussion continued regarding the proximity of the church with a nursery school. Councilman Frost stated that what he wanted to see was additional protection of the view or some type of environmental softening. Mr. Lam stated the Council had several alternatives. They could accept the project as proposed, or if there is a feeling that it is an important item to deal with, the Council can approve this with a condition that the eastern portion with the three buildings be returned to Design Review allowing them the authority to look at and modify those buildings or anything else which will address the specific problem you perceive on the plan. You can request them to report back to the Council if you wish. Kenneth Carlson, member of the church Board of Trustees. He felt the greatest problem would be the noise of the children on the school ground. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Frost to set second reading of Ordinance No, 163 for December 16, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. proposal from Miller, Schroeder for $22,5)0. The Fieldman, Rolapp's proposal was for $22,500. Councilman Frost stated that he felt inclined to go with the Fieldman, Rolapn proposal, but would like to read the Miller,Schroeder proposal first. Council concurred that this should be brought back on December 16 for final con- sideration in order to have time to read the Miller, Schroeder proposal. 5B. REPORT TO COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS' CONCERNS. An oral report was presented by Bill Holley. Mr. Holley stated that at the November 4 meeting some concerns had been expressed by some senior citizens regarding the need for some improvements at the Neighborhood Center. One of the concerns was inadequate amount of off - street parking. He stated that several alternatives were explored. However, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District has indicated that they would make available to the city their parking lot which exits onto the street adjacent to the Neighborhood Center for as many hours as we wish at no charge. All that would be necessary is for us to write a letter of request, and they would make sure the gate was open. Another concern related to the Nutrition Program and the lack of kitchen space. He stated that staff looked into ways to open up the kitchen to provide for more space. In talking with the architects who designed the building, they stated it would be an extremely expensive proposition since the dividing wall is a bearing wall for the upper structure of the building. He stated that they had been seeking a grant from the Regional Council on Aging for monies to provide for a window opening. This had been denied since thev no longer granted funds connected with nutritional programs. Those grants now come from the Office of Aging - Nutrition. Staff will explore this and also the use of Community Development Block Grant funds. Councilman Mikels asked what the total cost would be. Mr. Holley stated it would be probably around $3500 for the wall modification which would include relocation of some of the cabinets, making the window, and adding a counter space. Councilman Bridge asked if this were the project that he claimed would be so expen- sive. Mr. Holley stated no, that project would entail putting in a steel beam, etc. which was estimated by the architect to be approximately $60,000. Mr. Holley stated that the small items such as painting of curbs, adding additional ducts could be taken care of through the normal maintenance functions already budgeted under professional services. The refrigerator which would be approximately $1200 and the window opening approximately $3500 would need a special allocation by the Council. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Frost to give a conceptual anoroval of expenditure, not to exceed $5,000 with a 10% contingency, for the wall modification as a serving window, a refrigerator, and other miscellaneous items such as painting of curbs, loading zone, coat rack for the Neighborhood Center; and for Mr. Holley to report back to Council through the Consent Calendar with a final detailed report on items with cost data for final approval. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. RESOLUTION NO, 81 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALI- FORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCREASE RIGHT -OF -WAY PROTECTION FUNDING FOR THE ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR TO THE SUM OF $1,000,000 IN THE 1981 -82 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 5D. ADDED ITEM. CARNELIAN REALIGNMENT, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. Since the Carnelian reconstruction is nearing to a completion and since there were repairs needed in the section between Vineyard and San Bernardino Road, it was being requested that this be done now as part of the Carnelian Realignment project. Normally contract change orders are approved by staff, but the amount for this would exceed the 107. contingency. Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Palombo to approve the contract change order and authorize the expenditure of an additional $36,355.00 for the project. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 5E. FROM CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3b. MAIL -IN RECREATION PROGRAM MODIFICATION. Council discussed item and asked Mr. Holley questions regarding the revolving fund and why the item had not been budgeted. Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve the request and authorize the expenditure, not to exceed $12,600. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. There were none. 7_AnJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mikels to adjourn to an Ex .utive Session to reconvene to a special meeting on December 3, 1981. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Respectfullyy submitted, / Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk I. Announcement of Joint Public Hearin¢ MAYOR: Calling of Item No. 4G CITY CLERK: "Pursuant to the appropriate sections of California Community Redevelopment Law, Notice was duly given that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga have authorized a Joint Public Hearing to consider the approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Plan." Said Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation on November 6, 13, 20, 27, 1931. The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, for the City Clerk, mailed by certified mail, Notice of said public hearing to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area." AGENCY CHAIRMAN: Agency Roll Call Frost, Mikels_, Palombo,, Bridge_, Schlosser_ 2. Opening of Joint Public Hearing MAYOR: "This is the time and place set for the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Plan," and the proposed Environmental Impact Report on the Rancho Redevelopment Project, hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Impact Report." At this hearing all persons who wish to speak for or against the proposed Redevelopment Plan and on the Environmental Impact Report will have an opportunity to speak. 1 now declare the City Council Public Hearing open." a. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project; and b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and C. Environmental Impact Report; and d. Assessment of Conditions Report. Before I ask those who wish to speak to come forward, 1 would like to request Mr. Lauren Wasserman, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to 1) introduce the Agency staff members who will respond to questions to take the oath; and 2) present the Redevelopment Plan to us." EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Mr. Wasserman introduces Agency Counsel, consultants, and appropriate staff members. CITY CLERK: "You do solemnly swear for affirm), that the evidence you are about to give in this matter, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God." EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. r c.. r; IrviuJ MAYOR: "I will now ask the Director of Community Development r J for a summary of the Environmental Impact Report." �•'- DIRECTOR OF Shall then give the Summary of the Environmental t •'�, COMMUNITY DEVELOP. Impact Report. J ^I 3. Reading of Written Communications in Favor of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan MAYOR: "Will the City Clerk please read any written communications received in favor of the proposed Redevelopment Plan." CITY CLERK: City Clerk reads written communications, if any. -2- an ,r to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clark to administer the oath. Will all those persons wishing to speak in favor, please stand and allow the City Clerk to administer the oath to all of you at one time. All ter the oath, please respond by saying, "I do." CITY CLERK: 'You do solemnly swear (or affirm), that the evidence you are about to give in this matter, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God," MAYOR: 'Please approach the microphone and state your name and address and then address your comments directly to the Redevelopment Plan." SPEAKERS: _ 5. Reading of Written Communications Objecting to Adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan MAYOR: "Will the City Clerk please read any written communications received in opposition to the proposed Redevelopment Platt" CITY CLERK: City Clerk reads written communications, if any. 6. Oral Statements and Questions by Persons Wishing to Speak Against the Proposed Redevelopment Plan MAYOR: "All persons wishing to speak in opposition of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, or those having questions regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan will now have an opportunity to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clerk to administer the oath. Will all those persons wishing to speak against the Redevelopment Plan, or those having questions regarding the Redevelopment Plan, please stand and allow the City Clerk to administer the oath. After the oath, please respond by saying "I do." -3- "Please approach the microphone and State your name and address and then address your comments directly to the Redevelopment Plan." SPEAKERS: 7� Oral Statements by Persons Wishing to Speak on the Environmental Impact Report 1 MAYOR: I i CITY CLERK: I MAYOR: l SPEAKERS: "All persons wishing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report now have an opportunity to speak. However, it will first be necessary for the City Clerk to administer the oath. Will all those persons wishing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report please stand and allow the City Clerk to administer the oath. After the oath, please respond by saying, 'I do." "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the evidence you are about to give in this matter, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.tt "Please approach the microphone and state your name and address and then address your comments directly to the Environmental Impact Report." 8. Continuance of the Joint Public Hearin MAYOR: "I now declare the City Council Public Hearing continued to December 16, 1981, at " AGENCY CHAIRMAN: "I now declare the Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing continued to December 16, 1981, at " -4- December 2, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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; Legal Council, John Brown; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; and Finance Director, Harry Empey. 2, PUBLIC HEARING Deputy City Clerk made the announcement that Notice of Meeting had been duly published in the Daily Report, newspaper of general circulation, on November 6, 19, 20, and 27, 1981. Also, certified notices had been mailed by certified mail to last known assessee of each parcel of land within the Project Area. Agency Chairman Phillip Schlosser called the roll call: Present were Agencv Members James C. Frost, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palumbo, Arthur H. Bridge, and Chairman Phillip D. Schlosser. Mayor Schlosser and Agency Chairman Schlosser called the public hearing open. Mayor Schlosser stated that the record contains the following documents: a. Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rancho Redevelopment Project, b. Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, c. Environmental Impact Report, d. Assessment of Conditions Report. Executive Director, Lauren M. Wasserman, introduced the Agency Counsel, John Brown, and Consultants, Abraham and Manuel DeDios, and staff members. Deputy City Clerk administered the oath. Executive Director, Lauren Wasserman, presented an explanation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Abe DeDios continued with further explanations of the Plan. Mr. John Brown went over the legal procedures including the procedure of condemnation of eminent domain. He stated that in the very beginning of the plan, it was made very clear that for the purposes of this redevelopment plan, the acquisition of real property does not include the employment of eminent domain proceedings. Deputv City Clerk, Beverly Authelet, announced that Mr. and Mrs. George Rush, 8945 Turner Avenue, had stopped by city hall to state they were in favor of the project. A letter had been received from the Southern California Edison Company stating that although they were not opposed to the plan, they did pose several questions which was being turned over to the attorney for handling. Joanne Gretchen, from the consultant's office, went over the draft FIR. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were: Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Commis- sion. He requested that the Agency speak specifically about the plans for the North Town area. Mr. Abe DeDios stated that the Redevelopment Plan was general. and did not provide for any specific area. tinned eminent domain. She wanted to know more about the project and who initiated it. Mr. Wasserman went over the history of the forma- tion of the Agency. He stated that before the next public hearing, staff would be willing to sit down with her to answer her concerns. John Riggs, representing Charles DeBoard, a property owner at 20th and Turner Avenue. He stated that he has heard there are some financial incentives for an •.met who might be interested in developing. Mr. Brown stated there ;ere a number of opportunities, although the policies will be made by the Agency and Council. He stated that the law does allow to make loans available to businesses and residents within the redevelopment project area at substantially reduced rates for the purposes of creating new businesses or renovating old residential units. Mayor Schlosser asked Mr. Brown if he could prepare a short, concise explana- tion of what a redevelopment agency does so that it could be available? Mr. Brown stated that he could and would have it available next week. Vito de Vito Francesco, 615 N. Euclid Avenue, asked where money would come from to do any public work? Mr. Brown stated that in the initial years the Agency would not realize a great deal of money. Ultimately, they would realize some growth within the project area and would begin to accumulate funds from the County treasurer. The Agenev also could raise money through the bond market. Bill Kotoff, Hacienda Heights. He stated that as the plan has been presented he was in favor of it. However, he asked if he could deter- mine when he would develop his property or could he be forced to develop. Mr. Brown stated that the plan does not contemplate any form of force. Dr. .Saul Galombo, La Canada, owner of vineyard property on Rochester. He wanted to have included the, if a property owner in a commercial or industrial area who does not elect to participate in a redevelopment project would not be subject to eminent domain. Mr. Brown stated he would be happy to look at it and report back at the next public hearing. Dr. Colombo also asked for clarification of redevelopment since his property was in the middle of the Redevelopment Project area and vet there had never been any development. Mr. Brown pointer out that if he would come up during the break, he would go over the Redevelopment Law with him. George Robbins, 161 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland. Ile asked if there were maps available showing the flood control channels, freewav off ramps, etc. Mr. Wasserman said this type of information was available in the city engineer's office. Rudy Guzeman, speaking for his in -laws who lived at 10264 Humboldt. He wanted to know if 50% of the owners in an area wanted a project and 50% did not, who would be successful? Mr. Brown stated that under the plan, the Agency would not be able to undertake this kind of effort. Councilman Bridge requested that the eminent domain procedure be explained again since so many had concerns in this area. Mr. Brown stated that only certain specified public agencies in the State of California can exercise the power of eminent domain. He explained that the theory was this if the public good requires the acquisition of street, easement, or whatever, cities have the power to go in and acquire that for the public good on the theory that if they were unable to obtain it, the majority would suffer at the will of the few. Art Ayala, San Diego and property owner in Cucamonga. He asked if the Agency will have the authority to present rezoning ordinances. Mr. Brown stated that it could recommend to the city council, but that authority rests entirely with the city council. __ it as , old _:amonga. She said the people in Old Cucamonga have no intention of moving or selling. George Casill, Ontario. He asked what the 27 tax was. Mr. Wasser- man stated that the 2% is what the Assessor will automatically increase the value of the property over 40 years if you do nothing to your pro- perty. The property value will still go up 2% a year even if the redevelopment project does not pass. There being no further discussion, Mayor Schlosser closed the public hearing. Deputy City Clerk announced there bad not been any communication received against the project. Mayor Schlosser declared that the public hearing of the city council be con- tinued to December 16, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Schlosser declared that the public hearing of the Agency be continued to December 16, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Assistant Secretary PROPOSAL TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA TO SERVE AS UNDERWRITER OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79.1 (6TH STREET INDUSTRIAL AREA) MILLER h SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Tall Free California (000) 542-6032 (Satin (8 Kd 542 -6280 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. 5051. onas Santa Fe nn ia. Suite 200. Solana Beach.California 92075 • 1714) 481 5894 November 25, 1981 Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Superintendent of Streets City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Hubbs: Miller h Schroeder Municipals, Inc. is pleased to submit our qualifications for your consideration to serve as underwriter or financial consultant for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Assessment District No. 79 -1. We hope you find in our proposal, not only the information you requested, but a sense of the enthusiasm we have for this important endeavor. We feel that Miller & Schroeder offers the City what we believe to be the greatest range of expertise and depth of resources to address the structuring and marketing of your 6th Street Industrial Area Assessment District at a time of unprecedented economic volatility and uncertainty. The following are what we consider the highlights of our qualifications. Experience - Miller dt Schroeder has been involved in nearly $900 million in financings for more than 30 California clients during the past four years. This includes the successful completion of seven assessment district financings since July, 1980. Moreover, we are currently engaged with six entities on eight assessment district financings which will be completed by September, 1982. We have and are currently serving in the three various capacities being considered for the Rancho California assessment district: (1) underwriter with a negotiated sale, (2) financial consultant with a public sale, and (3) financial consultant with a negotiated sale. This type of versatility should prove invaluable in completing the assessment district financing. Personnel - Our seven experienced professionals based in Solana Beach provide our clients with the largest staff to coordinate assessment district financings of investment banking firms in the state. This sizable and competent staff assures our availability to accomplish the City's financing within the appropriate time frame. Headquarters Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431. 170 Northwestern Finanaal Center. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South • (612) 831 -1500 Branch Offices: Solana Beach. California • Northbrook. I ninis • St Paul. Minnesota • Naples. Florida la—Ili .1 o. s.ranee. I .... m, e',i ea,an,.an, Page 2 November 25, 1981 Letter to Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Commitment to the Cities of San Bernardino County - Miller dt Schroeder is currently making a strong commitment to serve entities in San Bernardino County. We have been involved in more financings in the County than any other investment banking or financial consulting firm. The County's dynamic economical, political and cultural growth make the Cities of San Bernardino County very desirable clients. We are determined to reflect this feeling in our efforts to serve the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Our proposal is divided into six sections. In Section I we discuss the three alternatives as to how Miller h Schroeder can serve the City in connection with Assessment District No. 79 -1. Also explained are a number of the services which we offer. In Section 2 we provide a summary description of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, the procedural act to levy the assessments and the act which provides for the issuance of bonds, respectively, to be used in Assessment District No. 79 -1. This is according to the Investigation Report (page 4) completed by Willdan Associates. Section 3 furnishes a brief resume of the Miller & Schroeder personnel who would be assigned to the proposed Rancho Cucamonga engagement. Section 4 is a list of the California municipal bond issues completed by Miller h Schroeder during the last four years. An "Agreement For Investment Banking Services" is provided in Section 5 if the City desires our firm to underwrite the proposed assessment district. If Rancho Cucamonga prefers a public bid and sale, or a negotiated sale to another underwriter, we have supplied the appropriate "Contract Employing Financial Consultant" in Section 6. We trust that the enclosed information will serve to introduce you to Miller h Schroeder, and provide you with an insight as to our capabilities. We look forward to the opportunity of meeting City representatives to answer any questions you may have concerning Miller k Schroeder, or expand on the information contained in this proposal. K] Page 3 November 25, 1981 Letter to Mr. Lloyd Hubbs Over the next few months, you will be involved in an assessment district financing which will require an underwriter /financial consultant willing to commit its time and resources to complete the bond issue. Miller & Schroeder would welcome such an opportunity to assist Rancho Cucamonga in this significant undertaking. MFW:sk Enclosure Very truly yours, MILLER,& SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. Michael F. Whipple Vice President C7 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS . Proposal To Serve As Underwriter Section I Or Financial Consultant For Assessment District No. 79 -1 Summary of Special Assessment Section 2 Financing Qualifications Of Specific Personnel Section 3 Who Will Be Assigned to Assessment District No. 79 -1 Municipal Bond Issues Section 4 Completed by Miller do Schroeder Municipals, Inc. In California During the Last Four Years Agreement For Investment Section 5 Banking Services Contract Employing Financial Consultant Section 6 • IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • PROPOSAL TO SERVE AS UNDERWRITER OR FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT OF NO. 79 -1 Pursuant to the investigation Report and a telephone conversation we had with Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, we understand that the City of Rancho • Cucamonga is requesting proposals for underwriter or financial consultant in connection with Assessment District No. 79 -1. Demon- strating the expertise and versatility of Miller & Schroeder, we offer Rancho Cucamonga several alternatives as to our services in connection with the proposed assessment district financing. • Underwriter As broker - dealers, Miller 4 Schroder purchases bonds for our own account both through negotiated underwriting and as bidders on issues • sold at public sale. We have the financial capability of underwriting bond issues in excess of $50 million acting as sole underwriter. Our marketing force serves both retail, institutional and individual investors • on a nationwide basis, providing us with a diversified outlet for bonds which we underwrite. Effective, timely marketing is essential in keeping interest rates as low as possible and in reducing the adverse impact on • construction costs. C to 0 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. C Miller 3 Schroeder employs over 40 institutional, retail sales and trading persons in five offices in California, Minnesota, Illinois and Florida. This provides us with direct availability to financial institutions and immediate access to institutional investors throughout California and the United States. Miller be Schroeder generally purchases between 10 and 50 percent of the bond issues which we underwrite. However, it is our strategy and practice to form a large selling group by inviting as many underwriters into a syndicate to generate a diversified marketing effort, guaranteeing the sale of bonds in an expeditious manner. In many ways, the California municipal market is a separate and distinct one. As a firm, Miller h Schroeder has made a strong commitment to serve and be a part of this market. Moreover, assessment district bonds, since they are generally not rated, and since their security is the improved property and assessments payable from property owners, require a particular expertise and understanding of the California market. We feel our success in underwriting assessment districts demonstrates our comprehension of the California market. Since July, 1980, Miller do Schroeder has underwritten seven assessment district financings ranging from $200,000 to in excess of $10 million. Furthermore, we are currently under contract to serve as underwriter for eight assessment districts which will be completed by September, 1982, ranging in size from $500,000 to $50 million. 2 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • Finally, it must be pointed out that the amount of the bond discount in an assessment district is a function of, among other factors, market conditions, the value of the benefiting property and the ability of • the underwriter to keep costs to a minimum and skillfully market the bonds. The investigation Report indicates a discount of 10 points. A • higher discount would mean a larger assessment to the property owners. However, if we were able to reduce the discount, the principal amount of bonds would be decreased saving property owners principal and interest • payment dollars. An example of where we were successful in accom- plishing this was in the City of Davis, Olive Drive Assessment District. The Engineer's Report provided a 15 point discount. Miller do Schroeder • was awarded the bonds on November 18, 1981 at a discount of only 10 points. This discount reduction was passed along to the property owners as their final assessments were decreased. • If the City of Rancho Cucamonga decides to have Miller do Schroeder underwrite Assessment District No. 79 -1, either at a negotiated or public sale, you can be assured, our expertise in marketing • assessment bonds and working with issuing entities to structure an attractive issue from the investors view point, will help guarantee that the City's bonds are sold at the lowest possible cost. • 3 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. OR In Section S, in our "Agreement For Investment Banking Services ", we include a description of the services we would provide as underwriter and our compensation. • Financial Consultant Besides our underwriting capability, Miller do Schroeder also offers • financial consulting services. We have served as financial consultant in more than 30 bond issues. In all of these issues, we were able to secure a bid for the bonds and in every case, the bonds were subsequently • delivered. This 100% record illustrates Miller & Schroeder's ability to structure a financing to attract bidder interest. For example, even with • the 10% interest rate limitation (also currently with assessment bonds), we were able to sell three tax allocation bond issues since July, 1991. This achievement is particularly impressive since we are the only • financial consultant to complete a tax allocation issue in California since July. Three other entities (Los Angeles, Burbank, Culver City) have all received no bids on every sale date. This illustration is particularly • important when you consider that the assessment bond market is similar to the tax allocation bond market (non - rated, California oriented). Miller k Schroeder could serve as financial consultant in one of two fashions. If the City decides to offer the bonds at a public sale, we would prepare the official statement and notice inviting bids, as well as 4 • IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. structure the term to achieve the optimum bid. Rancho Cucamonga may decide to hire a financial consultant to prepare the necessary documents and then contact potential underwriters and negotiate the sale with the •• best bids. Our understanding of the California market which puts us in consultant touch with firms interested in underwriting assessment bonds would be invaluable if this approach is selected. = Miller k Schroeder is currently serving as financial consultant for the City of Oceanside in the $12 million Guajone- Talone Assessment District. We have provided official statements to prospective under- writers and on December 9, 1981, bids will be received and the bonds will be awarded to the lowest bidder for delivery in January, 1982. We want to emphasize that we are flexible and want to be • responsive to the needs of the City in the 6th Street Industrial Area financing. We would welcome the opportunity to serve in either of the aforementioned capacities. • A complete description of the services Miller do Schroeder would perform as financial consultant and payment for services are included in Section 6 in the "Contract Employing Financial Consultant'. • Typing of the Official Statement A unique service provided by Miller h Schroeder is our in -house • capability to type the official statement. This can save issuers between $10,000 and $20,000 in printing costs. 5 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. In the City of Davis Assessment District, where our firm was recently awarded the bonds, because we were able to pre -sell most of the bonds and because of the relatively small size of the issue ($200,000), we were able to streamline the printing procedure so the entire official statement printing expense will be less than $5,000. Furthermore, for the City of Oceanside Assessmenr District, we • plan to keep the official statement printing cost (including mailing expenses) under $10,000 by targeting potential underwriters for pre- liminary official statement distribution and by typing this offering • document in- house. Continued Services • Over the term of the bond issue, Miller h Schroeder (whether we serve as underwriter or financial consultant) would continue to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We would annually provide the City with a • computer print out showing the assessment installment due for each parcel within the Assessment District boundaries. We would also provide this print out to the County to insure that each property owner is • properly assessed on their property tax bills for the improvements to their property. The cities where Miller & Schroeder has completed assessment r district financing have found this service to be particularly helpful. Moreover, we will provide Rancho Cucamonga's officials with a complete 6 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. description as to how to manage such items as prepayments and redemption of bonds. We also would intend to meet with Rancho Cucamonga representatives periodically to answer any specific questions. .1 u ,'7 7 :] ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FINANCING Assessment proceedings are designated to finance imp,nvements • which benefit a particular area within a political subeivision. Some examples of the types of work that are normally undertaken by assess- ment proceedings are: street paving, sidewalks, curbs, sewers, storm drains, water lines, street light and off- street parking facilities. Under all assessment proceedings, the cost of the work is assessed against properties within the area. The assessments are levied in specific • amounts against each of the individual properties on the basis of the benefit each parcel receives. • A special assessment financing requires the use of both a pro- cedural act to levy the assessments and a legal procedure that provides for the issuance of bonds. In the case of the City of Rancho Cucamonga • Assessment District No. 79 -1, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 has been selected to levy assessments and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 is the anticipated bond procedure (according to the Investigation • Report). Following are brief discussions of those respective Acts. Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 • The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 is a procedural act which provides for the formation of the assessment district, the levy of an 8 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • assessment and the creation of a lien against property, but does not, in itself, contain provisions for the issuance of bonds. Under the 1913 Act, a proposed assessment and assessment • diagram are prepared in the very beginning, before any construction work is done. The amount of the assessment levied against each properly is based upon an engineer's report of the estimated cost of the • acquisitions and the improvements. Notices are sent to property owners. A hearing is held, both upon the project and the amount of the proposed assessment to be levied. Normally construction bids will be received • prior to the hearing so that assessments may be adjusted to conform to the actual construction bids. At termination of the hearing, if the assessments are confirmed, a lien is created against the property. The • property owners are mailed notices and have 30 days (the cash collection period) to pay a part or all of the assessment in cash. At the end of the cash collection period, bonds are issued to represent unpaid assessments. • Bonds may be issued, pursuant to either the Improvement Act of 1911 or the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The bonds are delivered to the purchaser for cash and the City • holds the money for distribution to the contractor. The contractor proceeds to do the work and receives progress payments for his work in cash. There may be more than one contractor. 9 • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • Improvement Bond Act of 1915 The 1915 Act provides for a method of issuing bonds secured by assessments levied under one of the assessment acts such as the Improvement Act of 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. It does not, in itself, provide for the machinery for creating a special assessment lien. After the assessments have been levied and confirmed and the cash collection period has expired, a list of all unpaid assessments is filed with the City treasurer. The City treasurer then orders the issuance of a serial bond issue which corresponds to the total aggregate of the unpaid assessments. One characteristic of the 1915 Act is that individual bonds are not issued to represent individual asessments. Bonds equaling the total unpaid assessments are issued in even denominations (normally $5,000) and a portion of the bonds are due each year over the life of the issue. The bonds mature serially on July 2 of each year and the maximum term is 40 years. As a practical matter, assessment bonds generally mature over a 10 to 20 year period. Interest is payable by coupon on July 2 and January 2. The maximum interest rate is currently 10 %; but legislation has passed the California Legislature which increases the maximum interest rate to 12 %. The bonds may be sold at a discount. The bonds are subject to call and redemption on any January 2 or July 2 after 60 days notice at the option of the City treasurer. 10 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • The assessment liens securing the bonds are payable in installments which in aggregate conform to the principal and interest payments on the bonds. Assessment installments appear on the regular tax bill, are • collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes, and bear the same penalties for delinquency. If installments of principal and interest for assessments secured • with 1915 Act bonds are not paid when due, the property may be sold in the same manner as for the non - payment of ad valorem property taxes. Recently, however, most issuers of 1915 Act bonds have convenanted to • envoke Superior Court foreclosure proceedings in the event of delin- quencies. This generally assures a shorter period for the foreclosure action and enhances the marketability of the bonds. In the absence of • any other bidders, the City is required to purchase the property at the tax sale for the amount of the delinquency from any available surplus funds. The amount of the purchase is transferred to the Redemption • Fund which is the fund established for the purpose of accounting for the receipt of payments by property owners and the disbursement of payments to bondholders. The payment to the Redemption Fund is only a • loan and not a payment of the lien. The security for the loan is the land which the City has purchased. For the purpose of purchasing the property, the City may use any • available source of revenue. Prior to the enactment of Article XIII A of the California Constitution (the Jarvis -Gann Initiative), an issuer of 1915 .7 11 • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Act bonds had the authority to levy a tax on all taxable property within its boundaries at a rate not exceeding 10 cents per $100 assessed valuation to provide revenues to purchase the property. Article XIII A eliminated this taxing authority. Issues of the 1915 Act bonds are now empowered to include a Reserve Fund to provide funds for bond service during a temporary period of delinquency while the property is being sold under a foreclosure action. Any property owner is permitted to extinguish the lien of the assessment by paying the total unpaid principal, a 5% prepayment premium and accrued interest. Such payments are held by the City treasurer until the accumulated balance is sufficient to call a bond for redemption at 105% of par value plus accrued interest. An alternative procedure for early payment of the assessment lien may be used if it is provided for in the Resolution of Intention adopted at the beginning of the assessment proceedings. Under the alternative procedure the property owner wishing to remove the lien securing a 1915 Act bond pays the total principal amount, a premium of five percent of such principal, the estimated cost of calling a bond for redemption and interest to the next redemption date. When sufficient funds have been accumulated to call one or more bonds, the alternative procedure provides that in selecting bonds for retirement the relationship of unpaid assessments to bond outstanding be disturbed as little as possible by the call of bonds. 12 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • QUALIFICATIONS OF SPECIFIC PERSONNEL WHO WILL BE ASSIGNED TO ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 -1 • Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. specializes solely in municipal finance and tax - exempt securities. Our firm was formed in 1965 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and has grown to over 80 professionals in five • offices in Minnesota, California, Illinois and Florida. The firm is organized in such a way as to provide complete service to our clients, from initial financial consulting to underwriting, syndicating, trading, • sales and credit analysis. The key to success at Miller & Schroder has been and continues to be the dedication t^ excellence of the professionals who serve our many • clients. Our California underwriting and financial consulting staff based in Solana Beach (15 miles north of San Diego) consists of seven experienced professionals. To our knowledge, this provides Miller & • Schroeder with the largest organization of professionals based in California experienced and qualified to coordinate and structure assess- ment district bond issues. • Our sizable and competent staff assures our availability to attend meetings, drafting, planning and review sessions, conduct due diligence sessions and perform our responsibilities to accomplish the financing • program in a timely, efficient manner. Timing can be critical in today's rapidly changing money markets. Our extensive experience in working 13 A ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. with California municipal finance laws and Federal tax laws is invaluable in assessing the merits of various alternative financing programs to deter- mine which may be best suited for a particular assessment district project. Moreover, Miller k Schroeder has the computer capabilities to calculate debt service schedules of an assessment district which are essential in planning and reviewing the program. Set forth below are brief resumes of the Miller h Schroeder personnel who would be assigned to the proposed Rancho Cucamonga assessment district. MICHAEL F. WHIPPLE -Vice President Mr. Whipple is a registered civil engineer in the State of California and has been involved in municipal finance in California for the past ten years. Prior to joining Miller k Schroeder, he worked for the City of Los Angeles and was Vice president of Stone & Youngberg, a municipal bond firm. Mr. Whipple will have the primary responsibility for the proposed engagement with the City. He has been responsible for the suc- cessful completion of over 50 assessment bond issues which makes Mr. Whipple one of California's foremost authorities on assessment districts. Mr. Whipple is the chairman of the Finance Committee for the California Redevelopment Agencies Association and has participated as a panelist for numerol:s financing seminars. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the California State University of Long Beach and a Masters of Business Administration degree from UCLA. 14 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. GREGORY B. BALLENGER- Financial Consultant Mr. Ballenger has participated in mortgage revenue bond, assessment bond, hospital revenue bond, industrial development revenue bond and redevelopment tax allocation financings. He was directly involved in the assessment district financings completed in Hayward (July, 1978) Vacaville (April, 1979) Yorba Linda (October, 1980) and Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County (March, )981). He also participated in the Davis assessment district for which Miller dt Schroeder was awarded the bonds on November 18, 1981. These bonds will be delivered in January to take advantage of the higher interest rate ceiling to keep the bond discount as low as possible. Mr. Ballenger will be involved in the proposed assessment district financing in document preparation and research. Prior to joining Miller & Schroeder, he was involved in organizational development, fiscal management and cost - benefit administration for five years in municipal government in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Diego Counties. Mr. Ballenger holds Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from California State University, Hayward. ROBERT G. SPELMAN - Financial Consultant Mr. Spelman has participated in special district revenue bond, hospital revenue bond, tax allocation bond and assessment bond financings. He will be available for research analysis of the City's assessment district. Mr. Spelman was involved in the assessment district financings accomplished for the Cities of Montclair (July, 1980) Corona, (August, 1980 and April, 1981) and San Bernardino (February, 1981). He is currently participating in the Guajome- Talone assessment district in Oceanside where Miller h Schroeder is serving as financial consultant and will be arranging for a public bid and sale of the $12 million issue. Prior to joining Miller do Schroeder in 1979, Mr. Spelman was employed be Eldredge dr Company, a San Diego based municipal securities firm. Mr. Spelman is a graduate of the University of Southern California with a Bachelor of Arts degree. PAMELA R.WIGET- Financial Consultant During the past four years Ms. Wiget has been involved in over $250 million of municipal finance. Although Ms. Wiget has primarily 15 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. served as an investment banker in the housing field, she has also participated in tax allocation, industrial development, general obliga- tion, water revenue and special district financings. She is currently involved in an assessment district financing in Ontario which will provide for the public improvements for a major light industrial park. She will be available for research analysis in the proposed engage- ment with Rancho Cucamonga. Prior to joining Miller do Schroeder, Ms. Wiget worked for J. Paul Getty and the County of Los Angeles. Ms. Wiget graduated from San Jose State University, and completed graduate work at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Florence, Italy. L KI 16 • • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • MUNICIPAL BOND ISSUES COMPLETED BY MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. IN CALIFORNIA DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS Principal Firm's • Issue, Type of Issue, Date of Issue Amount Role Industry Urban- Development P.gency Civic - Recreational - Tndustrial Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Allocation Bond Anticipation Notes • Issue of 1981 October 1, 1981 $70,0001000 Underwriter Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency Central Business District Redevelopment Project • Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1981 Consultant h Dated: .September 1, 1981 $ 2,675,000 Underwriter Redevt, opment Agency of the City of San Bernardino • Central City North Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1981, Series A Consultant k Dated; August I, 1981 $ 4,3001000 Underwriter • City of San Bernardino Industrial Revenue Note URO-MC Project 1981 Series Dated: June 26, 1981 $ 11675,000 Consultant • Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1981 Series A Dated: June 1, 1981 $40,000,000 Underwriter Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency • Huntington Park North Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation and Revenue Bonds Issue of 1981 Consultant h Dated: June 1, 1981 $ 3,320,000 Underwriter Glendale Redevelopment Agency • Capital Improvement Notes 1981 Series A Dated: May 1, 1981 $ 6,220,000 Consultant • 17 • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1981, Series A Participation Purchase and Loan to Lender Program • Dated: May 1, 1981 $15,730,000 Underwriter City of Corona Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 80 -1 (Northeast Area) Consultant h • Dated: April 2, 1981 $10,409,331.15 Underwriter Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 80 -1 Consultant h • Dated: March 17, 1981 $ 2,090,000 Underwriter City of San Bernardino Hospital Revenue Bonds Loma Linda University Medical Center Project Series 1981 • Dated: March 1, 1981 $27,500,000 Underwriter San Diego Open Space Park Facilities District No. I Open Space Park Bonds of 1978, Series 81A General Obligation Bonds $15,000,000 Consultant • Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1981, Series B Consultant h Dated: March 1, 1981 $ 5,700,000 Underwriter • Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Southeast industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1981, Series A Consultant h • Dated: March 1, 1981 $ 5,600,000 Underwriter [7 18 IMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. • Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1981 Dated: March 1, 1981 • City of San Bernardino Improvement Bonds .Assessment District No. 5861 Series 1981 -1 Dated: February 2, 1981 • Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Central City South Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1981, Series A Dated: February 1, 1981 • Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Commercial Development Revenue Note (One Ninety -Eight Associates Project) Series 1981 Dated: January 22, 1981 • Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino State College Project No. 4 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1981, Series B • Dated: January 1, 1981 Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino State College Project No. 4 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds • Issue of 1981, Series A Dated: January 1, 1981 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fremont Housing Program Mortgage • Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 (United California Bank) Dated: December 15, 1980 • $30,000,000 Underwriter Consultant h $ 3,000,000 Underwriter Consultant ,k $ 1,800,000 Underwriter $ 2,800,000 Consultant Consultant do $ 4,800,000 Underwriter Consultant do $ 5,100,000 Underwriter $ 9,100,000 Underwriter 19 • C • • C] • • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Ontario Redevelopment Agency Single Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1980 Series A Dated: December 1, 1980 City of Yorba Linda Orange County, California Assessment District No. 79 -1 Dated: October 20, 1980 City of Corona Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 79 -1 (,Northeast Area) Dated: August 26, 1980 City of San Bernardino Industrial Development Const. oction Loan Note Millcreek Project 1980 Series Dated: August 13, 1980 Northern Inyo County Local Hospital District Election 1965 Series B General Obligation Bonds Date: August 1, 1980 City of Montclair Improvement Bonds Assessment District No. 80 -1 Dated: July 2, 1980 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 Dated; July 1, 1980 Redevelopment Agency for the City of Colton Revenue Note of 1981, No. l (Stewart 11- Spiers) Dated: June 29, 1980 20 • $29,000,000 Underwriter Consultant 4 $ 3,400,749 Underwriter Consultant k $ 888,646 Underwriter $ 1,125,000 Consultant $ 550,000 Consultant Consultant k $ 465,000 Underwriter $11,500,000 Underwriter $ 3,765,197 Consultant • C • • • [7 • ;r i INMiller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. City of San Bernardino Single - Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1980 Series A Dated: June 1, 1980 $41,280,000 Underwriter Tri -City Hospital Capital Revenue Notes Issue of 1980 Dated: June 1, 1980 $ 2,500,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oceanside Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 Dated: May 1, 1980 $36,485,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Golf Course Lease Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 Consultant & Dated: May 1, 1980 $ 2,500,000 Underwriter Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency Single- Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 Dated: February 1, 1980 $14,420,000 Underwriter Pleasant Valley Hospital Building Corporation First Mortgage Hospital Revenue Bonds Issue of 1980 Dated: February 1, 1980 $ 8,520,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Corona Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: November 15, 1979 $98,310,000 Underwriter County of Merced Hospital Facilities Corporation Hospital Revenue Bonds Series of 1979 Dated: November 1, 1979 $ 8,255,000 Underwriter 21 C • • • • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oceanside Downtown Redevelopment Project 1979 Tax Allocation Bonds Series A Series B Dated: October 1, 1979 Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency Central Business District Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation and Revenue Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: October 1, 1979 San Dimas Redevelopment Agency Creative Growth Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: October 1, 1979 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: October 1, 1979 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Colton Multi- Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Cooley Ranch Project No. 4 Issue of 1979 Dated: September 1, 1979 Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Central City North Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Bonds 1979 Series A Dated: September 1, 1979 22 $ 4,000,000 Consultant & $ 6,000,000 Underwriter Consultant & $ 4,100,000 Underwriter Consultant & $ 2,800,000 Underwriter $26,300,000 Underwriter $ 5,300,000 Underwriter $ 2,800,000 Consultant 23 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency City Industrial Development Project Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Second Issue of 1979 (Junior Lien Tax Allocation Bonds) Dated: August 15, 1979 $21,000,000 Consultant Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: August 1, 1979 $31,360,000 Underwriter Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency City Industrial Development Project Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: August 1, 1979 $29,000,000 Consultant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Colton Single - Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Cooley Ranch Project No. 4 Issue of 1979 Dated: August 1, 1979 $10,975,000 Underwriter Rubidoux Community Services District Sewer Revenue Bonds of 1978 Dated: July 1, 1979 $ 700,000 Consultant Ontario Redevelopment Agency Ontario Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1979 Consultant dr Dated: May 1, 1979 $ 3,000,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona Reservoir Street Industrial Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Bonds 1979 Series A Dated: April 1, 1979 $ 2,OOC,000 Consultant 23 r. • • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Duarte Single - Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1979 Series A Dated: April 1, 1979 Carson Redevelopment Agency Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Issue of 1979 Dated: March 1, 1979 Weaverville Community Services District 1979 Water Revenue Bonds Date: February 15, 1979 Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Single - Family Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1979 Series A Dated: January 1, 1979 Housing Authority of the City of Eureka (California) Residential Rehabilitation Mortgage Revenue Bonds 1978 Series A (FHA Insured or VA Guaranteed Mortgage Loans) Dated: December 1, 1978 Lake Arrowhead Community Services District 1978 Water Revenue Bonds Dated: July 1, 1978 Vista Hill Foundation First Leasehold Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series, 1978 (Mesa Vista Hospital Project) Dated: June 1, 1978 24 $26,570,000 Underwriter $ 9,940,000 Underwriter $ 850,000 Consultant $34,765,000 Underwriter $ 3,730,000 Underwriter $ 4,930,000 Consultant $ 2,400,000 Underwriter • ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Redevelopment Agency • of the City of Duarte, California Las Lomas Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Dated June 1, 1978 $ 29500,000 Consultant • Madera Community Hospital First Mortgage Hospital Revenue Bonds Series 1978, Refunding Dated: May 1, 1978 $ 5,610,000 Underwriter Community Redevelopment Agency of the • City of South Pasadena Downtown Revitalization Redevelopment Project No. I Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Consultant $ Dated: April 1, 1978 $ 4,300,000 Underwriter Carson Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Tax Allocation Bonds, Issue of 1978 Dated: April 1, 1978 $14,000,000 Consultant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fremont Irvington Redevelopment Project Notes Issue of 1978 Consultant 8r Dated: April 1, 1978 $ 2,500,000 Underwriter Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency City Industrial Development Project Tax Allocation Bonds, Issue of 1978 Dated: April 1, 1978 $40,000,000 Consultant Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Southeast Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Consultant do Dated: April 1, 1978 $10,000,000 Underwriter 25 41 0 rJ 0 0 ® Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino Meadowbrook- Central City Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Issue of 1978 Consultant & Dated: March 1, 1978 $24,150,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach Riverfront Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Dated: March 1, 1978 $ 4,000,000 Consultant Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino State College Project No. 4 Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978, Series A Consultant & Dated: February 1, 1978 $ 2,800,000 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino State College Project No. 4 Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Series B $ 2,500,000 Series $ 3,500,000 Consultant & Dated: February 1, 1978 Underwriter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Duarte Amended Davis Addition Project Area Tax Allocation Bonds Issue of 1978 Dated: February Iv 1979 $ 7,900,000 Consultant 26 Ll AGREEMENT FOR INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES • THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1981, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a city duly organized under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter called the "City "), party of the first • part, and MILLER @ SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC., 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach, California, (hereinafter called the "Investment Banker "), party of the second part: • WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City proposes to initiate proceedings for the formation of a • special assessment district to be designated 6th Street Industrial Area, Assessment District No. 79 -1 (hereinafter called the "Project "} and WHEREAS, the City requires assistance in the development of a sound, • equitable and practical financing plan to implement the Project by taking into consideration sources of capital funds and cash flow requirements, annual costs, the allocation of those costs, statutory requirements and restrictions, and alternate • methods, if applicable; and WHEREAS, the City requires the services of a municipal investment banker experienced in financial consulting for and underwriting the obligations of cities to • assist in such financial planning and to purchase the City's obligations at negotiated sale, and to coordinate the sale and distribution of the City's obligations; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Investment Banker is qualified • by training and experience to perform said services; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows, to wit: r • The City hereby employs the Investment Banker and the Investment Banker hereby accepts such employment to perform the services, upon the terms, subject to the conditions, and in consideration of payments as hereinafter set forth: • Services to be Performed by the Investment Banker: The Investment Banker shall perform in a diligent manner the following services: • 1. Assemble, review and analyze available financial and economic data and information which may have a general bearing on a program for financing the proposed Project. • 2. Based on the foregoing analysis, prepare a general review and description of the proposed Project and outline the possible methods of financing such Project, the advantages and disadvantages of each method as • applied to the Project, the general legal and practical requirements or restrictions applicable to each method and their attendant costs. 3. Assist Bond Counsel with the preparation of necessary resolutions • and other legal documents and make recommendations as to the exact terms and conditions under which bonds are to be issued and sold, including timing and method of sale, final amortization or repayment schedules, call and • redemption features, provisions governing the issuance of additional bonds, covenants and other provisions in order to secure the best possible rating on the bonds. • 4. Prepare the text and other material for an official statement or bond prospectus describing the Project, the bonds, their security, and economic and financial information on the City. • S. Make every effort to obtain a bond rating for each proposed issue to the end that such bonds may be sold for the lowest possible cost. The Investment Banker shall inform Moody's Investors Service and Standard dr Poor's Corporation of all information required by such agencies necessary in establishing such rating and make such trips and schedule such conferences with such agencies as may be necessary to obtain the highest possible rating on the bonds. 6. If it is appropriate or desirable for any other public entity or agency thereof to participate in accomplishing the financing for the Project, the Investment Banker, in order to achieve maximum coordination of the proposed financing, shall also serve as the investment banker for such public entity or agency under the terms and conditions hereof. 7. The Investment Banker shall be available at reasonable times by telephone or at the offices of the City to discuss on a continuing basis the results of studies and analyses and generate such additional information as described or requested and consult with the City as to the financial aspects of the project being considered. 8. Sale of Bonds; Compensation The City and the Investment Banker shall enter into a bond purchase agreement for the sale of the City's obligations to the Investment Banker bearing interest at rates and at such discount as may be mutually agreeable to the City and the Investment Banker. The purchase of such obligations shall be subject to the standard and customary conditions of obligations of a similar nature including an unqualified legal opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel with respect to the validity and tax - exempt status of such obligations. For issues of the City's obligations which are sold to the Investment Banker at private sale, the bond discount shall represent the Investment Banker's compensation and the City shall not be liable to the Investment Banker for any additional fees whatsoever. It is understood that the E • Investment Banker's compensation may be greater than the discount to the extent that market conditions allow the obligations to be resold at the price in excess of their par value. The reasonable expectation of such premium, if • any, may be taken into account in determining the interest rate or rates and discount on the obligations. 9. The Investment Banker shall, from the bond discount on obligations • sold at private sale, bear all out -of- pocket costs and expenses, including, without limitation, travel, telephone, telegraph, stenographic work and the like, incurred by the Investment Banker in performing the Investment • Banker's duties and obligations, unless the incurring of such costs and expenses is specifically authorized in writing by the City. The Investment Banker is not responsible for and shall not be held liable for any other • expense or expenditure in connection with the financing program. 10. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from the date hereof, but may be cancelled without cause by either party by giving the • other party thirty (30) days written notice of such cancellation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City, party of the first part, has caused these presents to be properly executed, and said Investment Banker, party of the second • part, has caused these presents to be executed by one of its officers, as of the date hereinabove set forth. • ATTEST: Secretary (SEAL) MILLER h SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. By CONTRACT EMPLOYING FINANCIAL CONSULTANT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1981, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a City duly organized under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter called the "City% and MILLER do SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC., 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach, • California (hereinafter called the "Consultant "} WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has heretofore initiated its 6th Street Industrial Area, • Assessment District No. 79 -1 (hereinafter called the "Project ") within the City; and WHEREAS, the City requires assistance in the development of a sound, • equitable and practical financing plan to implement the Project by taking into consideration sources of capital funds and cash flow requirements, annual costs, the allocation of those costs, statutory requirements and restrictions, and alternate • methods, if applicable; and WHEREAS, the City, after due investigation and deliberation, has determined that the Consultant is qualified by training and experience to perform said • services; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows, to wit: The City hereby employs the Consultant and the Consultant hereby accepts • such employment to perform the services, upon the terms, subject to the conditions, and in consideration of payments as hereinafter set forth: Services to be Performed by the Consultant: • The Consultant shall perform in a diligent manner the following services: 1. When the City has approved the Project for implementation, the estimated costs and method of financing of which have been sufficiently well • established to permit the preparation of a final financing plan, the Consultant shall, at the direction of the City, prepare such plan containing, in addition to other information, the following: A. A description of the Project, including the purpose, benefits, estimated costs and other pertinent information. B. Details relating to the proposed method of financing, including tentative bond amortization schedules, call features, sources and amounts of funds to be used in amortizing the costs and other related data. C. Illustrations and examples of the financial effects of the financing program on typical property owners, taxpayers or beneficiaries of the specific program. D. Recommendations as to further procedures. 2. Upon approval by the City of final financing details and upon direction by the City to do so, prepare the text and other material for an official statement or bond prospectus describing the Project, the bonds, their security, and the economic and financial background of the City. 3. Arrange for printing and distribution of the official statement and other related material to a comprehensive list of prospective bond bidders. 4. Make such trips, and schedule such conferences, in financial centers throughout the United States as are necessary or proper to generate maximum interest in, and acceptance of, the proposed bonds, notes or obligations among both underwriters and ultimate investors. The Consultant shall distribute copies of the official statement or pertinent documentation to bond underwriters and interested ultimate investors located in the aforesaid financial centers. 5. Take such other steps as appear advisable to encourage strong competitive bidding for the bonds. 6. The Consultant shall be available at reasonable times by telephone or at the offices of the City to discuss on a continuing basis the results of studies and analyses and generate such additional information as desired or requested and consult with the City as to the financial aspects of the Project then being considered. Payment for Services: 7. For the services to be performed hereunder, the City agrees to pay the Consultant an amount equal to $22,800. For purposes of computing such compensation, the principa! shall be cumu- lative only if two or more series of obligations are to be sold simultaneously. Such • sums shall become payable only upon delivery by the City (or the legal entity or entities issuing such bonds, notes or obligations) of such bonds. The City shall not otherwise be liable to the Consultant for any other sums except as specifically set • forth in this Agreement. Other Considerations: 8. The Consultant is employed hereunder to render a professional service as • a municipal financing consultant and any payments made to it are compensation solely for such service and advice. The Consultant shall bear all out -of- pocket costs and expenses, including without limitation, travel, telephone, telegraph, '• stenographic work, and the like, incurred by the Consultant in performing the Consultant's duties and obligations, unless the incurring of such costs and expenses is specifically authorized in writing by the City. The Consultant is not responsible • for and shall not be held liable for any other expense or expenditure in connection with the financing program. A. The City or the legal entity or entities issuing bonds, notes or • obligations shall bear the cost of printing, mailing and distributing any official statement, any notice of sale, any printing of documents and securities, publication, bond counsel fees and rating fees. • 9. The Consultant, with the approval of the City, may bid on the Agency's obligations at public sale. 10. The City agrees that its officials and employees will be requested and directed to cooperate with and assist representatives of the Consultant to the end that the Consultant may secure all information and data required to perform the services herein provided. 11. The term of this Agreement shall be five (S) years from the date hereof, but may be cancelled without cause by either party by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice of such cancellation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City, party of the first part, has caused these presents to be properly executed, and said Consultant, party of the second part, has caused these presents to be executed by one of its officers, as of the date hereinabove set forth. 0 ATTEST: Secretary • By MILLER k SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. By 4 I )I MEMORANDUM 49 Oil J 1971 � DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner )'(�l SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION D SIGNS TO APPROVE PL NNED DEVELOPMENT N0. 81 -07 TENTATIVE TRACT 11869 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT N0. 81 -08 TENTATIVE TRACT 11928) At the Council's request, the developers of the two projects met with representatives from the homeowner group which were responsible for the appeal. Only three members of the homeowner group were present for this meeting; Bill Conger, Muriel Porst and Cheryl Moody. Both developers were fully represented by their design teams. In addition, Captian Tom Wickum was present at the meeting to answer questions re- garding crime statistics within the City and general vicinity of these projects. The meeting was basically a round table discussion in which the homeowners had the opportunity to ask detailed questions of the developers about the developments. The developers listened to these suggested changes for each of the developments. The developers lis- tened to these suggested changes and made no commitments at that meeting. However, since that meeting the developers have communi- cated with Staff with their response to those suggested changes. Following are the list of items requested by the homeowners and the response from the developer. PD. 81 -07 (TENTATIVE TRACT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP 1. Carports: The homeowner group felt that the carports should contain garage doors. The developer has stated that they are willing to install garage doors if that be the desire of the City Council and Planning Commission. 2. Architectural Design: The homeowner group felt that the pro- posed design was not compatible with the existing dwelling units in the area. After some discussion on this item, the homeowner group felt more secure about the design when it was discovered that the color of the development would be compatible with the colors of the dwelling units within the area. The de- veloper has stated that they would not consent to a voluntary redesign of the project. City Council /City Manager December 2, 1981 Page 2 P.D. 81 -07 (TT 11869) Roberts Group, Contd. 3. Archibald Access: The homeowner group was concerned about the drive on Archibald in regards to left -hand turn movements. The developer has indicated that they are willing to work out any arrangements necessary for safe ingress and egress into this driveway in accordance with the standards of the City Engineer. 4. _Density: The homeowner group felt that a 10 -10; dwelling unit per acre density is a more acceptable density in this area. This would eliminate approximately 30 dwelling units on this site. The developer has indicated that they are willing to voluntarily reduce the density based on an arbitrary figure with no appropriate justifications. P.D. 81 -08 (TENTATIVE TRACT 11928) - SHAFFER/NESTLAND VENTURE Visitor Parking and Highland Avenue Circulation: The homeowner group felt that the amount of visitor parking on site is inadequate and should be increased to 20 -25 spaces. Presently there are 18 visitor parking spaces proposed within the development. This con- cern comes from the fear that Highland Avenue would be used for parking which would cause circulation problems on Highland Avenue. The developer has indicated that they are willing to work with the City Engineer to ensure that there is safe circulation along Highland Avenue and, if necessary, incorporate some additional visitor parking spaces within the development. Density: The homeowner group felt that a decrease in density was necessary to make the development more compatible with existing dwelling units in the area. The group suggested that the buildings which contained 5 dwelling units be reduced to 4 dwelling units each, as a method for reducing the density. This would eliminate 8 dwelling units from the total site. The developer has responded that they will not voluntarily reduce density based upon arbitrary numbers and figures, as they see no justification for this reduc- tion. City Council /City Manager December 2, 1981 Page 3 The homeowners are conductine another meeting among themselves on November 30, 1981 to discuss the responses from the developers and will have a presentation to the City Council for Wednesday evening's appeal hearing. Should any new information become available between now and then, Staff will transmit that to the City Council. Should you have any questions on any of these issues or meetings, please do not hesitate to contact Michael or Jack. JL:MV:jr CC: Planning Commission Department Heads 0 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCREASE RIGHT -OF -WAY PROTECTION FUNDING FOR THE ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR TO THE SUM OF $1,000,000 IN THE 1981 -82 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, in adopting the 1981 -82 STIP in September 1981, the California Transportation Commission was able to program only $50,000 for Route 30 right -of -way protection, due to extremely limited state cash availability, and WHEREAS, the CTC at that time acknowledged its commitment to interim Route 30 protection through 1982 -83 as determined in CTC Resolution No. G -67, and WHEREAS, the CTC further indicated that, should SB 215 pass and become law, action would be taken to increase the Route 30 protective program, and • WHEREAS, SB 215 has become fully operative, including the required Board of Supervisor's Resolutions, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, calls upon the California Transportation Commission to amend the 1981 -82 STIP in order to program the sum of One Million ($1,000,000) dollars for Route 30 right -of -way protection during the current fiscal year. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • BEFORE WE GET INTO A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE TWO PROJECTS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT. WE HAVE HEARD PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGARDING THE TWO PROJECTS AND HAVE !ISIENED TO THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC, SCHOOLS, DRAINAGE AND DESIGNS AND WHATEVER. WHILE THESE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, I FEEL THE ISSUE OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE TO THE NEIGHTBORHOOD RESIDENTS IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND THE SEVERITY OF LIFESTYLE CHANGES. I FEEL THAT THESE CHANGES CAN BE KEPT TO A MINIMUM AND PROVIDE FOR BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBLITY AND YET MEET THE HOUSING GOALS OF THE CITY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO THE NEXT PD ZONE CATEGORY R -2 -PD AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO NOT EXCEED 9 UNITS PER ACRE INSTEAD OF THE 14 UNITS /ACPE AND 11.4 UNIT /ACRE. WHAT DO YOU FELLOWS THINK? MR, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO TRY THESE 2 MOTIONS: MOTION ONE: I4OTION TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL IN PART BY MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO REDUCE THE DENSITY TO A MAXIMUM OF 9 UNITS /ACRE ( PLUS ANY OTHER CHANGES) AND CONDITION THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP RESPECTIVELY AND TO REFER THE FINAL MODIFIED DESIGN TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, MOTION TWO: MOTION TO ADOPT FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY SUBJECT THE ZONING OF THE /PROPERTY FROM R- 1- 10,000 TO R -2 -PD AND REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REPORT ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65551. SECOND READING TO BE SET AFTER RECEIPT OF SAID REPORT. RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the North line of Highland Avenue, 60 feet wide, State Highway No. 190, and the West line of Hanley Avenue, 30 feet wide; thence 1320 feet, more or less, to the projection of the Easterly line of that certain parcel, shown in San Bernardino County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 03 Block 031, Parcel 2; thence Southerly along the Easterly projection and the Easterly line of said Par- cel 2; thence continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of Parcel 9 in said Book 227, Page 03 Block 031 continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of Par- cel 2 in said Book 227, Page 04 Block 041, continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of Parcel 13, shown in said Book 227, Page 04 Block 041 to the Northerly line of Victoria Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Southerly to the Easterly line of Parcel 3, shown in said Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 10 Block 101; thence continuing South- erly along said Parcel 3, continuing Southerly along Easterly line of Parcel. 1 in said Book 227, Page 10 Block 101, and the Southerly projection of the Easterly line of said Parcel 1 to the Northerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way, 100 feet wide; thence continuing Southerly, along the Northerly pro- jection of the Westerly line of Parcel 17, shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 11, Block 111, 1420 feet to the Northerly line of Baseline Avenue, 66 feet wide; continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of Parcels 8, 9, 20, and the Northerly and South- erly projection of said parcels, shown as said Assessor's Map Book 227, Page 17, Block 171, to the Westerly pro- jection of the Northerly line of Miller Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Easterly along the Northerly line of said Miller Avenue, to the Easterly line of Edawanda Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Edawanda Avenue, to the Southerly City boundary line of said City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the Northerly City boundary of the City of Ontario; thence Westerly along said City boundary line to the Westerly line of Archibald Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Archibal.d Avenue, to the North line of Peron Boulevard, 68 feet wide; thence Easterly along the North line of said Peron Boulevard, to the West line of Turner Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence Northerly along the West line of said Turner Avenue, to the North line and the Westerly projection of the North line of Parcels 9 and 11, shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 34, Block 341; thence Easterly along the North line and its' Westerly projection of said Parcels 9 and 11 to the West line of Parcel 18, said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 33, Block 331; thence Northerly along said West line of said Parcel 18 to the Southerly line of Parcel 7 in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 33, Block 331; thence Westerly along the Southerly line and the Westerly projection of the Southerly line of Parcels '7 and 21, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 33, Block 31, to the Westerly line of said Turner Avenue; thence Northerly along said Westerly line of Turner Avenue to the Southerly line of Foothill Boulevard, 110 feet wide; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Foothill Boulevard to the Easterly line of Ramona Street; thence Southerly along said Easterly line of Ramona Street, to the Northerly line of an alley, Southerly of Foothill Boulevard; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of said alley, and its' Westerly projection to the West line of Archibald Avenue, 90 feet wide; thence Southerly along the West line of Archibald Avenue, to the North line of an alley, 20 feet wide, said North line of the alley, being the Southerly line of Parcel 51, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 26, Block 261; thence westerly along the North line of said alley, to a point 115 feet Westerly, of the West line of Malachite Avenue, said point being on the East line of Parcel 40, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 26, Block 261; thence Southerly along the Easterly lines of Parcels 22, 40 and 44, shown in County Assessor's Nap Book 208, Page 26, Block 261, to the South line of Parcel 44, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 26, Block 261; thence Westerly along the Southerly lines of Parcels 25, 26 and 44, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 26, Block 261, to the West line of Hellman Avenue, 74 feet wide; thence continuing Westerly, along the Southerly lines of Parcels 25, 26, 19, and 11, as shown in said County Assessor's Map Book 208, Page 24, Block 241, the Westerly projection to the West line of Vineyard Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence continuing Westerly, parallel to the Southerly line of said Foothill Boulevard, to the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of San Diego Avenue; thence Northerly along the Southerly prolongation and the Westerly line of San Diego Avenue, to a line parallel with the North line of said Foothill Boulevard and 500 feet Northerly of the North line of said Foothill Boulevard; thence Easterly to the West line of said Carnelian Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence North on the West line of Carnelian Avenue, to the North line of San Bernardino Road, 63 feet wide; thence East along the North line of said San Bernardino Road, to the Northerly projection of the West line Of Tract No. 9297, recorded in Map Book 130, Pages 65 and 66, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence Southerly along said Northerly projection and said West line of said Tract 9297, to the Southerly line of said Tract 9297; thence Easterly along said Southerly line of Tract 9297, to the Westerly line of Hellman Avenue, 63 feet wide; thence Northerly along the Westerly line rf said Hellman Avenue to the North line of said San Bernardino Road; thence Easterly along the North line of said San Bernardino Road to the West line of said Archibald Avenue; thence Southerly along said West line of Archibald Avenue to the Westerly projection of the North line of Tract No. 9409, recorded in Map Book 135, Pages 85 through 87, in the Office c:f the Recorder of said County; thence Easterly along said Westerly projection of Tract No. 9409 to a line parallel with the East- erly line of said Archibald Avenue and 617.88 feet from said Easterly line; thence North 0° 03' 07" West, 666.43 feet; thence South 89" 56' 53" West, 717.88 feet to the Westerly .line of said Archibald Avenue; thence 676.89 feet along said West line of Archibald Avenue; thence Notth 89" 57' 15" East 613.44 feet; thence North 0° 6' 12" West, 55.81 feet; thence North 89" 57' 38" East, 230.77 feet; thence North 0" 6' 21" West, 141 feet to the centerline of Church Avenue, 88 feet wide; thence 465.91 feet to the West line of Ramona Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Southerly along the West line of Ramona Avenue to the Southerly line of Tract 9422 -1 recorded in Map Book 137, Pages 10 through 13, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Tract 9422 -1, to the Westerly line of Tract 9153, recorded in Map Book 130, Pages 22 through 24, in the Office of the Recorder of said County, thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Tract No. 9153, to the Southerly line of said Tract No. 9153; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Tract No. 9153 to the Westerly line of Turner Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Northerly along the West line of said Turner Avenue to the South line of Tract 5591, recorded in Map Book 67, Pages 61 and 62, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence Easterly along said South line of Tract 5591 to the Southerly line of Tract 5592, recorded in Map Book 69, Pages 38 and 39, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Tract 5592, to the Easterly line of Center Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Center Avenue, to the Northerly line of Parcels 3 and 4, shown on said County Assessor's Map Book 1077, Page 40, Block 401; thence Easterly along the Northerly lines of said Parcels 3 and 4, to the Westerly line of Haven Avenue, 66 feet wide; thence Northerly along the P.ast_rly line of said Haven Avenue, to the Northerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right. of-way; thence Easterly along the said Southern Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way to the Westerly line of a flood control easement, 100 feet wide; thence Northeasterly, along the Westerly line of said flood control easement to the Northerly line of Highland Avenue; thence Easterly along Northerly line of Highland Avenue to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTIONS Except the following properties: Tract No. 9409, recorded in Map Book 135, Pages 85 through 87, in the Office of the Recorder of said County. Tract No. 8806, recorded in Map Book 130, Pages 38 through 39, in the Office of the Recorder of said County. Tract No. 8805, recorded in Map Book 126, Pages 61 and 62, in the Office of the Recorder of said County. Tract No. 8369, recorded in Map Book 118, Pages 36 through 39, in the Office of the Recorder of said County. I.. r yr MEMORANDUM j C 1977 DATE: December 2, 1981 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION D SIONS TO APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -07 TENTATIVE TRACT 11869 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -08 TENTATIVE TRACT 11928) At the Council's request, the developers of the two projects met with representatives from the homeowner group which were responsible for the appeal. Only three members of the homeowner group were present for this meeting; Bill Conger, Muriel Porst and Cheryl Moody. Both developers were fully represented by their design teams. In addition, Captian Tom Wickum was present at the meeting to answer questions re- garding crime statistics within the City and general vicinity of these projects. The meeting was basically a round table disrussion in which the homeowners had the opportunity to ask detailed questions of the developers about the developments. The developers listened to these suggested changes for each of the developments. The developers lis- tened to these suggested changes and made no commitments at that meeting. However, since that meeting the developers have communi- cated with Staff with their response to those suggested changes. Following a,e the list of items requested by the homeowners and the response from the developer. PD. 81 -07 (TENTATIVE TRACT 11869) - ROBERTS GROUP 1. Carports: The homeowner group felt that the carports should contain garage doors. The developer has stated that they are willing to install garage doors if that be the desire of the City Council and Planning Commission. 2. Architectural Design: The homeowner group felt that the pro- posed design was not compatible with the existing dwelling units in the area. After some discussion on this item, the homeowner group felt more secure about the design when it was discovered that the color of the development would be compatible with the colors of the dwelling units within the area. The de- veloper has stated that they would not consent to a voluntary redesign of the project. City Council /City Manager December 2, 1981 Page 2 P.D. 81 -07 (TT 11869) Roberts Group Contd. 3. Archibald Access: The homeowner group was concerned about the drive on Archibald in regards to left -hand turn movements. The developer has indicated that they are willing to work out any arrangements necessary for safe ingress and egress into this driveway in accordance with the standards of the City Engineer. 4. Density: The homeowner group felt that a 10 -10; dwelling unit per acre density is a more acceptable density in this area. This would eliminate approximately 30 dwelling units on this site. The developer has indicated that they are willing to voluntarily reduce the density based on an arbitrary figure with no appropriate justifications. P.D. 81 -08 (TENTATIVE TRACT 11928) - SHAFFER /WESTLAND VENTURE I. Visitor Parkin, and Highland Avenue Circulation: The homeowner group felt that the amount of visitor parking on site is inadequate and should be increased to 20 -25 spaces. Presently there are 18 visitor parking spaces proposed within the development. This con- cern comes from the fear that Highland Avenue would be used for parking which would cause circulation problems on Highland Avenue. The developer has indicated that they are willing to work with the City Engineer to ensure that there is safe circulation. along Highland Avenue and, if necessary, incorporate some additional visitor parking spaces within the development. 2. Density: The homeowner group felt that a decrease in density was necessary to make the development more compatible with existing dwelling units in the area. The group suggested that the buildings which contained 5 dwelling units be reduced to 4 dwelling units each, as a method for reducing the density. This would eliminate 8 dwelling units from the total site. The developer has responded that they will not voluntarily reduce density based upon arbitrary numbers and figures, as they see no justification for this reduc- tion. City Council /City Manager December 2, 1981 Page 3 The homeowners are conducting another meeting among themselves on November 30, 1981 to discuss the responses from the developers and will have a presentation to the City Council for Wednesday evening's appeal hearing. Should any new information become available between new and then, Staff will transmit that to the City Council. Should you have any questions on any of these issues or meetings, please do not hesitate to contact Michael or Jack. JL: M9: jr CC: Planning Commission Department Heads Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Now, more than ever, public agencies lacing the financial strains and problems of daily operations are additionally burdened with the problem of finding mechanisms with which to fund new projects. By developing innovative financing techniques and refining traditional methods, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates has assisted numerous clients whose projects seemed impossible to finance. Fieldman. Rolapp & Associates, a California Corporation, is an independent municipal financial consulting fine with experience in this highly specialized field dating back to 1954. Hundreds of public agencies. with diversdied projects. ha:e benefited from our services — resulting in the successful issuance of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax - exempt securities. We are proud of these accomplishments. Project financing or funding, however, does not always necessitate the issuance of bonds. Fieldman. Rolapp & Associates also has in- depth experience in the financial alternatives available to finance a project. including short-term borrowing and the intelligent use of cash reserves. We consider professional financial planning one of our most impor- tant functions. In this regard, we analyze our clients long -term borrowing requirements and prepare a Financial Road Map' as a guide for financing capital improvements. Our objective is to main- tain our clients fiscal integrity and credibility. We stated that we are an independent firm — this is by choice and intent. Our size enables us to provide clients with direct, personal consultation by senior members of the firth. Further, as an independent entity, we are neither encumbered nor obligated by organizational ties to an underwriting firm. We feel that both these attributes are essential, and oller positive benefits to current and Prospective clients. Benefits. first in the caliber of experience directly available to clients, and second. in the total freedom to explore all funding options and objectively pursue the financial package which is best suited to client needs. An overview of the services offered by Fieldman, Rolapp & Assoo- ates follows. Inasmuch as projects vary, all services outlined may or may not be required. Prior to any client commitment, all services to be performed are clearly set forth and defined. Project Requirements Survey 1. Confer with managers, governing bodies, legal staff and engineers involved in the project and gather all financial data. 2. Formulate a coordinated financing plan to implement the project. 3. Assess client's immediate and Projected financial position, and all Practical considerations which have a bearing on the project Financial Feasibility and Financing Alternatives 1. Analyze all input and data resulting from the Project Requirements Survey. 2. Prepare a Financial Feasibility Report, which would include an outline of specific financing methods or combinations thereof, which could satisfy the financing requirements of the proposed project. 3. Set forth a professional opinion as to the best financing approach to achieve the desired results at the lowest possible cost 4. Outline the requirements necessary to coordinate the recommended approach. Meetings, Consultation and Advice 1. Upon adoption of a financing program, meet with elected officials, managers, attorneys, engineers and staff as required. to expedite the project. 2. Attend, if deemed necessary, public meetings. workshops. and /or hearings pertaining to the financial aspects of the project. Prepare factual data, if required, for dissemination to the electorate. 3. if the financing program requires the issuance of bonds — provide data on current bond market conditions affecting timing of bond sales. Make recommendations as to the technical details of the bond issue which, in our opinion, will make the proposed bonds most acceptable to prospective purchasers, and therefore market- able at the lowest possible net interest cost. 4. Recommend bond marketing technique (sealed competitive bid or negotiated sale). Official Statement 1. It required, accumulate and compile into an Official Statement all Pertinent economic, financial, legal and statistical data, The Official Statement may include the legal notice inviting bids. 2. Prior to final production of the Official Statement. attend a due diligence meeting of all involved and assist in complying with full disclosure requirements. 3. Under client supervision, produce the Official Statement and dis- tribute copies to representative bond underwriters and investors. City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Loyd Hobbs November 24, 1981 Page Six Three - quarters (3/4) of One Percent of the first Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) assess- ments levied to finance the project, plus One -half (1 /2) of One Percent of the assess- ments levied in excess of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00); provided, however, that fees based on this schedule shall not exceed Twenty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500.00). EXPENSES "t It is contemplated that we will pay our own out -of- pocket expenses and that the City will reimburse us for costs incurred in connection with paragraphs A. 3), 4), 5) , , and 8) above. PAYMENT 1) Fees based on hourly rates shall be due and +T I payable monthly; and 2) Fees based on a percentage of assessments levied shall be due and payable upon confirmation of assessments. .T TERMS This agreement shall remain in full force and effect d until such time as the Project has been completed or upo' whichever shall first ooaiyr.yVJ% ura �jo ays n.h « i p+ -o' " -M .f cd -sew j It is expressly understood that this agreement does not y: intend to and is not under any circumstances to he construed as requiring us to perform any services which constitute the practice of law; we are employed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. l Ulm 6(41 9'A0 � �%�A�Jw�fWv� Gw`tA "lam- .iA/L -. GCUI'C'v�+""""'`�t1 ^-C�• Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS November 24, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 C Baseline Road Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs City Engineer Re: Financial Consultant Services 6th Street Industrial Area Assessment District No. 79 -1 Dear Mr. Hubbs: Pursuant to your request, Fieldman, Rolapp 6 Associates and Kadie- Jensen are pleased to submit this joint letter proposal for municipal financial services to be performed in conjunction with the financing of the proposed 6th Street Industrial Area, Assessment District No. 79 -1 ( "Project "). We understand that the Project involves grading, clearing and grubbing, asphalt concrete paving, aggregate base and storm drains including acquisitions of all right -of -way and easements, together with appurtenances; the assessment pro- ceedings will be conducted in accordance with the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the issuance of bonds repre- senting unpaid assessments will be in accordance with the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Our firms have extensive experience in handling the aforementioned method of financing. We offer to assist you in a financial advisory capacity by utilizing and making available to you the research, statistical and consultant staffs of the Fieldman, Rolapp S Associates organization and of the Kadie - Jensen organization to such extent as may be necessary and helpful. Mr. William L. Fieldman, Mr. Lawrence G. Rolapp, and Mr. Carl Kadie will be-directly responsible for providing financial consultant services to you. 2061 Business Center Drive, Suite 903 • Irvine, California 02715 • (714) 762.9781 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hobbs November 24, 1981 Page Two Our services can be divided into two phases. The first phase would be concerned with the financial planning and all other necessary analyses, public meetings, workshops, con- ferences and hearings required up to and including the con- firmation of assessments. The second phase would be concerned with furnishing financial consultant services to be performed in conjunction with the marketing of the bonds representing unpaid assessments. SERVICES: General: We agree to provide financial consultant services in connection with any and all City financing requirements as they pertain to the Project. PHASE I 1. Preliminary Survey We will confer with your City Council, City Engineer and Staff, Bond Counsel and Consulting Engineers, for the purpose of making a preliminary survey of the Project and to assist in the formulation of a coordi- nated plan to finance the Project. included in the survey will be an analysis of the merits of offering the bonds at sealed competitive bids versus a negotiated sale. Attendance at Public Meetings/Workshops We will be available to meet with affected property owners to explain the effects of any proposed financing. Consultation /Advice Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, be available for consulta- tion and advice. 4. Work Sessions and Seminars We will be available to conduct and /or participate in work sessions and seminars which may be held to discuss the project and methods of financing. City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Three 5. Public Hearings We shall attend all public hearings required by the provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and shall participate in such hearings to the extent deemed necessary. PRASE II We will perform the following additional services in conjunction with the marketing bonds issued pursuant to the 1913/1915 Improvement Acts. A. Municipal Bond Market Furnish the City with information concerning current municipal bond market conditions and make recommendations as to the technical details of the financing, including maturity schedules, funds, covenants, prior redemption schedules and other details which will, in our opinion, make the proposed financing most acceptable to prospective purchasers and therefore marketable at the lowest possible interest rate. Negotiated /Competitive Sale At the direction of the City either negotiate a sale of the contemplated bonds or, assist the City in calling for competitive bids. if the later obtains, 1) Official Statement. Accumulate and compile into a "short form" Official Statement, economic, financial and statistical data pertaining to the proposed financing, which "short form" Official Statement shall be satisfactory to you. The Official Statement will include the official Notice of Sale. 2) Due Diligence Meetings. Prior to the pro- duction and distribution of any Official Statement, the City agrees to hold a due diligence meeting to verify the accuracy of the data contained in the Official Statement and make full disclosure of all pertinent information concerning the economy and finances of the City. We will participate in such due diligence meet- ing and assist you in the examination of pertinent financial data. City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Nr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Four 3) Production of an Official Statement. Under the supervision of the City, cause to produce said Official Statement. 4) Distribution of Official Statement. Distri- bute copies of the official Statement to known under- writers of special assessment bonds. 5) Updating of Official Statements. In the event the authorized financing is sold in more than one sale, we will update and distribute copies of the revised Official Statement in accordance with 1), 2), 3) and 4), above. 6) Consultation /Advice. Attend any meetings concerning the Project when deemed necessary and, in addition, will be available for consultation and advice until such time as the bonds issued to finance the Project have been sold. 7) Contact of Bond Underwriters. We will make direct contact with a select number of bond underwriters in an effort to stimulate bidding on the bonds if a competitive bond sale is conducted. 8) THE BOND BUYER Ad. If a competitive bond sale is conducted, we will place an advertisement in THE BOND BUYER announcing the offering of the bond issue prior to the time bids are received for such issue. 9) Attendance at Bond Sales. Attend meetings of the City at which bids for bonds are received for the purpose of assisting in the computation and evaluation of such bids. 10) NNe oti�ate�d_� Sale. If it is determined to sell the bonds by negotiated sale, we will conduct and /or assist in such negotiations and make appropriate recommendations to the City. C. Attendance at Bond Closing We will compute closing figures, including accrued interest, and coordinate the events of the closing. City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Five D. Table of Debt Service After the bonds have been delivered, we will prepare and furnish the City a Table of Debt Service which will set forth actual semi- annual and annual payments of principal and interest due on the bonds. Procedure Manual We will prepare a procedure manual to be used by the City as a guide to service and administer the bonds. If a competitive bond sale is conducted at the time of payment for and delivery of the bonds, the City agrees to furnish the successful bidder a certificate, signed by the appropriate officials of the City, acting in their official capacity, to the effect that to the best of their knowledge and belief, and after reasonable investigation, (a) neither the Official Statement nor any amendment or supplement thereto contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances in which they were made, not misleading; (b) since the date of the Official Statement, no event has occurred which should have been set forth in such an amendment or supplement; nor (c) has there been any material adverse change in the operation or financial affairs of the City since the date of such Official Statement. FEES In the event the City decides to sell the contemplated bonds on a negotiated basis, our fee for services rendered will be at our current hourly rate of Eighty -Five Dollars ($85.00) with a maximum fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($8,500.00). In the event the City decides to offer the contemplated bonds at sealed competitive bid, our fee will be based on our current hourly rate of Eighty -Five Dollars ($85.00), which fee would be applied as a credit against the following contingent fee schedule: City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Loyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Six Three-quarters (3/4) of One Percent of the first Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) assess- ments levied to finance the project, plus one -half (1/2) of One Percent of the assess- ments levied in excess of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00); provided, however, that fees based on this schedule shall not exceed Twenty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500.00). EXPENSES It is contemplated that we will pay our own out -of- pocket expenses and that the City will reimburse us for costs incurred in connection with paragraphs A. 3), 4), 5), and 8) above. PAYMENT 1) Fees based on hourly rates shall be due and payable monthly; and 2) Fees based on a percentage of assessments levied shall be due and payable upon confirmation of assessments. TERMS This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the Project has been completed or until the City abandons the Project, whichever shall first occur. it is expressly understood that this agreement does not intend to and is not under any circumstances to be construed as requiring us to perform any services which constitute the practice of law; we are employed in an expert financial advisory capacity only. ^ j ;I City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubbs November 24, 1981 Page Seven If the foregoing proposal is satisfactory to you, please take appropriate action to authorize its acceptance by signing and returning the duplicate copy hereof. Respectfully submitted, FIELDMAN, ROLAPP S ASSOCIATES By C� Y—�4_ Lawrence G. Rolapp LGR:rs Attachment Executed on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga this _ day of , 1981. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By ATTEST: A,1 I r.. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS SCHEDULE OF RATES EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1981 Principal Consultants William L. Fieldman Lawrence G. Rolapp Carl Kadie - Radie- Jensen Secretarial services $85.00 Per Hour $8$.00 Per Hour $8$.00 Per Hour $16.00 Per Hour 2061 Huelneee Center Drive. Suite 203 • Irvine, California 92715 • (714) 768.2781 Marketing, Publicity and Bond Rating Assistance 1. Within the parameters of professional ethics. contact reputable bond underwriters and investors to stimulate Interest In bidding. Including the holding of Information meetings when appropriate. 2. Pubhnze the offering In trade publications. 3. Work with recognized bond rating service(s) to obtain the most favorable rating on the bonds to be offered. 4. Assist in obtaining insurance guaranteeing principal and Interest payments. 5. If approi negotiate the sale of the bonds. Bond sales and Bond closings 1. Assist in all computations and evaluation of all bids 2. Compute all closing figures. and participate at the closing 3. Prepare tables of debt seance. Following are some of the diverse types of projects for which we have provided financial consultant services. A representative list of clients is available upon request Buildings Administration buildings, student unions, city halls, hospitals. police and firefighting facilities as well as municipally sponsored commercial and Industrial structures Water Supply, distribution and treatment facilities. lake acquisieon. flood control channels and storm drains Wastewater Sewage collection. treatment and disposal facilities, including recla- mation. Transportation Streets. roads, parking, airport and harbor facilities. Power Hydroelectric and underground utilities. Developer Related Subdivision improvements and other m -tract facilities. - -- -- - - - -- - Principals of the Firm William L. Fieldman is a recognmed erpen in the field of public finance. He entered the investment banking industry in 1946. has been a ...pal financial mnwnem in Califon,a since 1954. and lounded our predecessor firm in 1966- In the course of his career. he has developed and refined many innovative mettwds of financing public prolects. He is a graduate of the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. University of Pennsylvania l I Lawrence G. Roiapp is a sper,hist in the Gnencmg of public improvement prolects He has broad erpenence wmkmg with public agencies and developers to create financing plans for capital tmpovement tmanong. Recently, he has been Particularly active m the formation and financing of special assessment districts. and has e.pemse in lease revenue tnancmg- He is a graduate of the Graduate School of Business Administration. University of Southern California Memberships. Associations and Affiliations at the Firm and /or its Principals • utuou ma Society of Municipal Finance Omcers • Los Angeles Municipal Bond Club • Cula ie Special oistncts Associeuon • Association of California Water Agenaes • Southern Caitfboe, Water Utilities Assocation • Callfmma Asso,mucn of Samtauon Agenaes • Orange County Water Association • San Bernardino County Special Distncls Association • inland Counties Water Agencies • Independent Special Districts of Orange County L— It you need professional financing advice contact have any questions regarding the services we offer. p lease if welcome your inquiry. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 2061 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 203 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE: (714) 752 -2781 _ — Southern California Edison Company •23 uCn'ry sF.<OV^ AV. n.w. BOND November 30, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan The Southern California Edison Company has reviewed the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan which encompasses several of the Company's major electrical facility properties. The proposed Plan includes the Etiwanda Electrical generating, Station, Cucamonga Substation, Rochester Sub- station site, and major electrical transmission line rights of way. Our primary concern in this regard is that our electrical facilities are permanent facilities required to 'furnish electric power to Edison's customers as well as the Rancho Cucamonga area and the proposed redevelopment project. Therefore, we respectfully request that Edison's properties retain the present use. Included on Page 24, under Development Standards, is the following paragraph: Conformance with this Plan All real property in the Project Area is hereby made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. No real property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan except with approval of the Agency and in conformance with the Provision of this Plan. The above paragraph indicates that no alterations, remodeling, development or additions, or any 'kind, can be made to any real property without first obtaining the Agency's approval. City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Page 2 Nov. 30, 1981 The Southern California Edison Company requests that their operating properties be excluded from this reou'irement. Our reason for this is that the California Public Utilities Commission has sole jurisdiction over all electrical facilities construction. when the Plan is adopted, Edison will seek a Certificate of Conformance from the Redevelop- ment Agency as provided for in the state law. The Agency should also understand that as properties are cleared for development, Edison cannot remove their facili- ties as long as any customer still continues to receive electrical service. The final removal of all facilities within the project area will depend upon the Company obtaining good and sufficient easements necessary to serve the new developments. Where the Redevelopment Plan proposes to include utility rights of way and /or properties, permission for use will be by virtue of a grant of license from the Company. Permitted uses of such propertie3 will not be planned which would interfere in any way with the use of such land for utility purposes. We respectfully submit these comments for your consideration for final adoption of the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan. Very truly yours, J- 01.11 R. 4f, Bond Area Manager °,WB: mb Southern California Edison Company •�R.w BOND November 30, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency P. o. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan The Southern California Edison Company has reviewed the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan which encompasses several of the Company's major electrical facility properties. The proposed Plan includes the Etiwanda Electrical Generating Station, Cucamonga Substation, Rochester Sub- station site, and major electrical transmission line rights of way. Our primary concern in this regard is that our electrical facilities are permanent facilities required to furnish electric power to Edison's customers as well as the Rancho Cucamonga area and the proposed redevelopment project. Therefore, we respectfully request that Edison's properties retain the present use. Included on Page 24, under Development Standards, is the following paragraph: Conformance with this Plan All real property in the Project Area is hereby made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. No real property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan except with approval of the Ao-ency and in conformance with the nroviaion of this Plan. The above paragraph indicates that no alterations, remodeling, development or additions, or any kind, can be made to any real property without first obtaining the Agency's approval.. pity of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Page 2 Nov. 30, 1981 The Southern California Edison Company requests that their operating properties be excluded from this requirement. Our reason for this is that the California Public Utilities Commission has sole jurisdiction over all electrical facilities construction. When the Plan is adopted, Edison will seek a Certificate of Conformance from the Redevelop- ment Agency as provided for in the state law. The Agency should also understand that as properties are cleared for development, Edison cannot remove their facili- ties as long as any customer still continues to receive electrical service. The final removal of all facilities within the project area will depend upon the Company obtaining good and sufficient easements necessary to serve the new developments. Where the Redevelopment Plan proposes to include utility rights of way and /or properties, permission for use will be by virtue of a grant of license from the Company. Permitted uses of such properties will not be planned which would interfere in any way with the use of such land for utility purposes. We respectfully submit these comments for your consideration for final adoption of the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan. Very truly yours, R. W. Bond Area Manager RW3: mb CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CucaHO� STAFF REPORT 2�� ° >� Ci 9 0I IF DATE: December 2, 1981 — 1977 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, public Works Engineer SUBJECT: Carnelian Realignment, Contract Change Order As you are aware, Carnelian reconstruction is nearing completion. Paving will begin this week and should be completed December 8, 1981 on schedule. Carnelian /Vineyard between Vineyard and San Bernardino Road is severely cracked and deteriorating rapidly. Some pavement fail- ures have been repaired but major reconstruction will be required in the near future. If repaired at this time, 10 years additional life may be expected with considerably less cost. The repair will consist of a special oil placed under a fiborous mat (petromat: to retard cracks reflecting through overlay) and .12'+ asphalt concrete over the mat. The cost breakdown is as follows: 900 tons A.C. @ 28.50 ton = $25,650.00 66,000 S.F. Mat @ .15 S.F. = $ 9,900.00 Crack fill and preparation @ L.S. = $ 805.00 Several factors contributed to making this change order at this time: • The area to be repaired warrants early attention, i.e. next couple of years similar to Archibald. • The contract price for the project is $232,555.90 and the Engineer a estimate was $280,880, a difference of $48,324, allowing the change order without exceeding what had been anticipated being spent. NOTE: The Engineer's estimate was close to the average bid. The contract price is excep- tionally low. • Due to the tonage on the existing project, the unit price for A.C. for the project is low compared to the unit price P Carnelian Realignment December 2, 1981 Page 2 that would apply if the repair were completed by separate contract. Example: Unit price for contract is $28.50 Unit price for Alta Cuesta for 1,000 tons was $38.50 (completed one year ago) Unit price for Archibald north of 19th for 600 tons was $44.00 (completed recently). As you can see, the change order of 900 tons would result in considerable savings over a smaller separate contract. Normally, contract change orders are approved at Staff level, how- ever, the amount of this change order will exceed the 10% contin- gency amount and is a considerable sum, therefore, Council consi- deration is being requested. RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize the expenditure of the additional funds needed ($36,355.00) to execute said contract change order. Respectfully su,ymitted, i LBN:MP:jaa O CCCn.NO,t% CITY OF n RANCFK) CUCAMONGA o CITY COUNCIL 0 D AGENM 1977 Lion's Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road December 2, 1981 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday prior to the first and third Wednesday of each month. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. a. Pledge to the Flag. b. Roll Call: Frost_, Mikels_, Palombo_, Bridge_, and Schlosser_ c. Approval of Minutes: October 29, 1981 and November 4, 1981. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Thursday, December 3, 7:00 p.m. -- Adjourned City Council Meeting -- Lion's Park Community Center. b. Tuesday, December 15, 6:00 p.m. -- Etiwanda Specific Plan -- Etiwanda Intermediate School. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 81 -12 -2, in the amount of $210,624,45, 1 b. Mail -In Recreation Program Modification, Request Council's 2 authorization to change receipting and registration process- ing method through equipment purchased and financed from recreation fund, not to exceed $12,600. c. Approval of Resolutions regarding procedural documents for the previously authorized park acquisitions. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARROW HIGH- WAY. E 6 City Council Agenda -2- December 2, 1981 RESOLUTION NO. 81 -181 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED O^' HERMnSA AVENUE. d. Acceptance of Parcel Map 6651, Improvement Agreement, and 8 Improvement Security - Diversified Investment Co. - located on the northeast corner of Base Line and Archibald Avenue. RESOLUTIONI NO. 81 -182 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6651, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. e. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security 11 for Director Review 81 -21 - Christeson Co. - located at 11000 Jersey Blvd. (northeast corner of Jersey and Vincent). RESOLUTION NO. 81 -183 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -21. f. Acceptance of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securi for Director Review 81 -17 - Socco Plastic Coating Company; located at 11251 Jersey Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVE- MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 81 -17. g. Release of Bonds: 24 -Tract 9437 - located on the north side of Victoria, east of Haven Avenue. Owner: Crismar Development. Monumentation Bond $ 2,600.00 - Parcel Map 4907 - located on the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and 4th Street. Owner: Kacor Development. Labor & Material Bond (road) $92,000.00 City Council Agenda -3- December 2, 1981 h. Revision to the Annual subscription resolution. Staff is recommending that fees for the mailing of agendas and minutes be increased to r�tlect increases in over- head and mailing cots. This represents the first cost increase for subscription rates which were established in April, 1979. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -66 -A 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T14E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING CERTAIN FEES FOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS AND CODES. Set December 18, 1981 for public hearing on: City Environmental Guidelines - Guidelines setting forth procedures to implement State required environmental review. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL 26 ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -07 TT 11869 - ROBERTS GROUP. A proposed planned unit development of 136 condominium units on 9.75 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 252 -23, 25, R 26. B. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL 27 ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. J.31-us-FT-T-79-2-8Y - SHAFFER /WESTLAND VENTURE. A proposed planned development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 acres of land located on the north side of HiOhla0 Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201- 252 -32, C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR THE REQUIREMENT 28 OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR P.D. 81 -03 iT T 33)- WOODLAND PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT. A development of a tots planned residential development of 185 single - family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -10 29 ITT11734 - OLV. A change of zone from A -1 to R -3 /PD for a iota planned residential development of 98 condominiums on 8.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route - APN 207- 211 -28. ORDINANCE NO. 162 (second reading) 31 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 207- 211 -28 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE FROM A -1 TO R -3/ PD. City Council Agenda -4- December 2, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -05 32 TT 9369 and 11 73, - M. J. BROOK. A change of zone from R -3 multiple family residential) to R -3 /PD (multiple family residential /planned development) for a total planned development of 117 patio homes on 18.2 acres of land located at the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN 202- 181 -23 and 24. ORDINANCE NO. 161 (second reading) 34 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202 - 181 -23 AND 24, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE FROM R -3 TO R -3 /PD. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 -01 35 TT 77853 - AMERICAN NATIONAL /GARRET IRVINE. A change of zone from R -1 -8500 to R_1 for a tot�pla nned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202- 171 42. ORDINANCE NO. 163 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 202- 171 -42 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT RAMONA FROM R -1 -8500 TO R -3 /PD. 37 THE FOLLOWING ITEM REQUIRES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE 61 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CONDUCT A JOINT PUBLIC HE NG CONCERNING THE DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TH DRAF ENVIR NMEN AL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RANCH REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT. The redevelopment plan is a funding mechanisam for implementing capital improvements. The redevelopment area is generally between Haven and the east city limits, south of Highland Avenue and between Haven Avenue and the west city limits, south of Foothill Boulevard. 5, CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS, A. SELECTION OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 63 DISTRICT 79 -1, Staff report by Llloyd Hubbs. Staff recommends that Council retain William Fieldman to act as financial consultant in the selection of bond underwriters for the Industrial Assessment District. B. REPORT TO COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS' CONCERNS. An oral report by Bill Holley. City Council Agenda -5- December 2, 1981 C. A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RIGHT -OF -WAY PROTECTION FOR 72 THE FOOTHILL FREEWAY. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. A resolution requesting that the California Transportation Commission allocate 41,000,000 in the current fiscal year to provide for protection of the Foothill Freeway right - of -way. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -185 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALFIORNIA, URGING THE CALI- FORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCREASE RIGHT -OF -WAY PROTECTION FUNDING FOR THE ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR TO THE SUM OF $1,000,000 IN THE 1981 -82 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting to adjourn to Thursday, December 3, 1981 for a meeting to review the city's drainage issues.