HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-21 Regular MeetingAGENDA
FI R E P ROT EC T I ON D I STRI C T B OA R D-H OUSI N G SU C C ESSOR AGENCY -
SU C C ESSOR A GENCY - P U B L I C F I N A N C I N G A U THOR I T Y - C I T Y C OU N C I L
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
10500 Ci vi c Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, C A 91730
R EGU LAR M EET I N GS: 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 P.M .
OR D ER OF B U SI NESS:
C LO S E D S E S S I ON TAP IA CONFE RE NCE ROOM 5:00 P.M.
R E G U L A R M E E T I N G S COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
MEMBE RS:
MAYO R L . D ennis M ichael C I T Y MA NA G E R J ohn R. Gillison
MAYO R P R O T E M Lynne B. Kennedy C I T Y AT TO R NE Y J ames L. M arkman
C O UNC I L ME MB E R S William Alexander
Sam S pagnolo
D iane Williams
C I T Y C L E R K
C I T Y T R E A S UR E R
J anice C. Reynolds
J ames C. Frost
Rancho Cucamonga City Council Mission Statement
Make decisions, and be perceived as making decisions, for the general welfare of the community.
A lways work to improve existing services and develop policies to meet the expected as well as anticipated
needs of the community.
Work together cooperatively to respect all persons and their ideas in order to develop and maintain the trust of
the community.
Reflect the community's desires and priorities by assuring that decisions accurately reflect the community's
interests by fairly translating public f eedback into public policy.
E nhance the quality of lif e of all R ancho Cucamonga residents through the continued pursuit of excellence
and commitment to the City's core values and goals.
S et the vision for the community for the future.
Have a professional, objective and respectful relationship with each other in order to more ef f ectively address
the challenges of the future.
Page 1
TO AD D R E S S T H E FIR E BOAR D, H OU S IN G S U C C E S S OR AGE N C Y, S UC C E S SOR AGEN C Y,
P U B L IC F INAN C ING AU TH OR IT Y AN D CITY C OUN C IL
The F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C i ty C ouncil encourage free
expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the A genda, please keep your remarks brief. If others
have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree wi th a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson
may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from
clappi ng, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The publi c may address the F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C ity C ouncil by
filling out a speaker card and submitting it to the C ity C lerk. The speaker cards are located on the wall at the back of the C hambers, at
the front desk behind the staff table and at the C ity C lerk's desk. A ny handouts for the F ire B oard, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing
A uthority or C ity C ouncil should be given to the C ity C lerk for distribution.
D uring "P ublic C ommunications," your name will be called to speak on any item listed or not listed on the agenda in the order in which it
was received. The "P ublic C ommunications" period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the
agenda. D uring this one hour peri od, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given
priority, and no further speaker cards for these business i tems (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the
business portion of the agenda commences. A ny other "P ublic C ommunications" which have not concluded during this one-hour period
may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. C omments are to be limited to five minutes per
individual or less, as deemed necessary by the C hair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
If you are present to speak on an "A dvertised P ublic Hearing" or on an "A dministrati ve Hearing" Item(s), your name will be alled when
that item is being discussed, in the order i n which it was received. C omments are to be limi ted to five minutes per individual or less, as
deemed necessary by the C hair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
AGE N D A B AC K-U P MATE R IALS
S taff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the C ity C lerk's counter, the C ity's P ublic Libraries and
on the C ity's website. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the desk located behind the staff table during the C ouncil
meeting.
L IV E B R OAD C AST
F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C ity C ouncil meetings are broadcast live on
C hannel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00
p.m. S treaming Video on D emand is available on the C ity's website at www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/council/videos.asp.
The Fire Board, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council meet regularly on the first and third
Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic C enter Drive.
Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and
P ublic Financing Authority.
C opies of the agendas and minutes can be found @ www.cityofrc.us
I f you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City C lerk's offic e
at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility. Listening devic es are available for the hearing impaired.
Please silence all cell phones and devices while the meeting is in session.
Page 2
N OVEM B ER 21, 2018
F I RE P R OTEC T I ON DI ST R I C T, SU C C ESSOR AGENCY, H OU SI N G
SU CCESSOR A GEN C Y, P U B LI C FI N A N C I N G AUT H OR I T Y A ND
CI TY C OUNCI L A GEN D A
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call:M ayor M ichael
M ayor P ro Tem K ennedy
Council M embers A lexander, S pagno lo and W illiams
A.ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSI ON I TEM(S)
B.PUBLIC COMM UNI CATI ONS ON CLOSED SESSI ON I TEM(S)
C.CI TY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS
D.CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSI ON - Tapia Conference Room
D .1.C O NF E R E NC E W I T H L A B O R NE G O T I ATO R R O B E RT NE I UB E R, HUMA N
R E S O UR C E S D I R E C TO R P E R G O V E R NME NT C OD E S E C T I ON 54954.2
R E G A R D I NG L A B O R NE GO T I AT I O NS W I T H T E A MS T E R S L OC A L 1932. – C I T Y
D .2.C O NF E R E NC E W I T H R E A L P R OP E RT Y NE G O T I ATO R S P E R G O V E R NME NT
C O D E S E C T I O N 54956.8 F O R P R OP E RT Y G E NE R A L LY L O C AT E D AT T HE
NORT H W E S T C O R NE R O F A R R O W R O UT E A ND R O C HE S T E R AV E NUE A S
PA R C E L NUMB E R S 0229-012-08-0000 A ND 0229-012-10-0000; NE G O T I AT I NG
PA RT I E S MAT T B UR R I S , D E P UT Y C I T Y MA NA G E R/E C O NO MI C & C O MMUNI T Y
D E V E L O P ME NT, R E P R E S E NT I NG T HE C I T Y O F R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A , A ND
S T E P HE N A G GA Z O T I , R E P R E S E NT I NG A G G A Z O T I T R US T A ND S A MUE L A ND
B A R B A R A D I C A R L O T R US T; R E G A R D I NG P R I C E A ND T E R MS . – C I T Y
D .3.C O NF E R E NC E W I T H R E A L P R OP E RT Y NE G O T I ATO R S P E R G O V E R NME NT
C O D E S E C T I O N 54956.8 F O R P R OP E RT Y G E NE R A L LY L O C AT E D AT T HE
R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A ME T R OL I NK S TAT I O N I D E NT I F I E D A S PA R C E L
NUMB E R S 0209-272-11, 0209-143-21, A ND 0209-272-22; NE G O T I AT I NG PA RT I E S
C I T Y MA NA G E R J O HN G I L L I S O N, C I T Y MA NA GE R, R E P R E S E NT I NG T HE C I T Y
O F R A NC HO C UC A MONG A, C A R R I E S C HI ND L E R R E P R E S E NT I NG S B C TA, A ND
MI C HA E L D I E D E N R E P R E S E NT I NG E MP I R E YA R D S AT R A NC HO, L L C;
R E G A R D I NG P R I C E A ND T E R MS . – C I T Y
D .4.C O NF E R E NC E W I T H L E G A L C OUNS E L R E G A R D I NG P E ND I NG L I T I G AT I O N
P UR S UA NT TO G O V E R NME NT C O D E S E C T I O N 54956.9(d)(1); NA ME OF C A S E:
C A R D E NA S V. C I T Y O F R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A , S B S C C A S E NO.:
C I V D S1814960 - C I T Y
Page 3
E.RECESS
C L O S E D S E S SIO N TO R E C ES S TO T H E R E G U L AR FIR E P R O TE C TIO N D IS TR IC T, H O U S IN G
S U C C ES S O R AG E N C Y, S U C CE S SO R AG E N C Y, PU B L IC FIN AN C IN G AU TH O R ITY, AN D C IT Y CO U N CIL
ME E TIN G S AT 7:00 P.M. IN T H E C O U N C IL CH AMB E R S AT C IT Y H AL L, L O C ATE D AT 10500 C IVIC C ENT ER
D R IVE, R AN C HO C U C AMO N G A, C AL IF O R N IA.
REGULAR M EETING - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCI L CHAM BERS
T H E R E G U L AR ME E TIN G S O F T H E F IR E P R O TE C TIO N D IST R IC T, HO U SIN G S U C C ES S O R AG E N C Y,
S U C C ES S O R AG E N CY, P U B L IC FIN AN C IN G AU TH O R ITY, AN D CITY C O U N C IL W ILL B E C AL L E D TO
O R DE R. IT IS TH E IN TE N T TO C O N C LU D E T H E ME E T IN G S B Y 10:00 P.M., U N L E S S E X TE N D ED B Y
C O NCU R R E N C E O F TH E F IR E B O AR D, AG EN C IES, AU T H O R IT Y B O AR D AN D C O U N C IL.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call:M ayo r M ichael
M ayo r Pro Tem K ennedy
C o uncil M embers A lexander, S pagnolo and Williams
A.ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATI ONS
A.1.Recognition of E xecutive Director Hasan I khrata’s 24 Years of Service with S outhern
California Association of Governments (S C A G).
A.2.P resentation of the latest Assessment Roll Data by the S an B ernardino County Assessor-
Recorder-C lerk Bob Dutton.
A.3.R C Sports C enter Update.
B.PUBLIC COMM UNI CATI ONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor
Agency, Successor Agency, P ublic Financing Authority Board, and C ity Council on any item listed or not listed
on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection Distric t, Housing Successor Agenc y, Succ essor A gency, Public
Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously inc luded on the Agenda. The
Fire Protection Distric t, Housing S ucc essor Agency, Suc cessor Agency, Public Financ ing Authority Board, and City
C ounc il may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
C omments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the
Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Counc il not to the members of the audience. This is
a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expec ted. Please refrain from any debate between
audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any ac tivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the
meeting.
The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion
of the agenda. D uring this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of
the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker c ards for these business items (with the exception of public
hearing items) will be ac c epted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public c ommunic ations
whic h have not c oncluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has
been completed.
Page 4
CONSENT CALENDARS:
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted
upon by the Fire Board/Housing Successor Agency/Successor Agency/Authority B oard/Council at one time
without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Fire B oard/Housing Successor Agency/Successor
Agency/Authority Board/Council Member for discussion.
C.CONSENT CALENDAR – FI RE DI STRI CT
C .1.Consideration to A pprove B i-Weekly P ayroll in the Amount of $593,607.42 and Weekly
Check R egisters in the Amount of $311,516.91 Dated October 23, 2018 T hrough
November 5, 2018 .
C .2.Consideration to Receive and File Current I nvestment Schedule as of October 31, 2018.
C .3.Consideration of the Purchase of E mergency Medical S upplies and Materials from L ife
A ssist, I nc. in an Amount Not to E xceed $67,000.
D.CONSENT CALENDAR – HOUSI NG SUCCESSOR AGENCY
E.CONSENT CALENDAR – SUCCESSOR AGENCY
F.CONSENT CALENDAR – PUBLI C FI NANCI NG AUTHORI TY
G.CONSENT CALENDAR – CI TY COUNCI L
G.1.Consideration to A pprove Bi-Weekly Payroll in the A mount of $1,127,301.90 and Weekly
Check Registers in the A mount of $2,180,473.22 Dated October 23,2018 T hrough
November 5, 2018.
G.2.Consideration to Receive and File Current I nvestment Schedule as of October 31, 2018.
G.3.Consideration to Receive and F ile Quarterly F inancial Update for the F irst Quarter of F iscal
Year 2018/19.
G.4.Consideration to P urchase “F ertilizer and Pesticides S upplies on an A s Needed Basis”
F rom S implot, Target Specialty P roducts, and S iteOne Supply in an Amount Not to E xceed
$140,000 f or Fiscal Year 18/19.
G.5.Consideration to Accept P ublic I mprovements at 12400 A rrow R oute per I mprovement
A greement Related to Case No. D R C 2016-00726 (S torm Drain I mprovements) as
Complete, F ile the Notice of Completion, and Authorize the R elease of Bonds.
G.6.Consideration to Accept P ublic I mprovements at the Northwest Corner of Hermosa Avenue
and 6th S treet Related to Case No. D R C2016-00522 as Complete, File the Notice of
Completion, and Authorize the R elease of Bonds.
G.7.Consideration to Accept Public I mprovements on the West Side of East Avenue, South of
W ilson Avenue Related to Tract 16113 as Complete, F ile the Notice of Completion and
A uthorize the Release of Bonds.
G.8.Consideration to A ccept P ublic I mprovements on the East side of East Avenue, South of
W ilson Avenue R elated to Tract 16114 as C omplete, F ile the Notice of C ompletion, and
A uthorize the Release of Bonds.
G.9.Consideration to Order Annexation to the L andscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street
L ight Maintenance Districts No's. 1 and 2 f or Case No. P MT2018-03742, located at 7950
Orchard Street.
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-117
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F O R NI A, O R D E R I NG T HE A NNE X AT I O N O F C E RTA I N
Page 5
T E R R I TO RY TO L A ND S C A P E MA I NT E NA NC E D I S T R I C T NO. 1 (G E NE R A L C I T Y)
F O R P R O J E C T C A S E NO. P MT2018-03742
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-118
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F O R NI A, O R D E R I NG T HE A NNE X AT I O N O F C E RTA I N
T E R R I TO RY TO S T R E E T L I G HT MA I NT E NA NC E D I S T R I C T NO. 1 (A RT E R I A L
S T R E E T S) F O R P R O J E C T C A S E NO. P MT 2018-03742
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-119
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F O R NI A, O R D E R I NG T HE A NNE X AT I O N O F C E RTA I N
T E R R I TO RY TO S T R E E T L I G HT MA I NT E NA NC E D I S T R I C T NO. 2 (L O C A L
S T R E E T S) F O R P R O J E C T C A S E NO. P MT 2018-03742
G.10.Consideration to Accept P ublic I mprovements on North and S outh S ide of F eron B oulevard
B etween I ndustrial L ane and Helms Avenue R elated to Case No. D R C2016-00695 as
Complete, F ile the Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds.
G.11.Consideration of a P urchase Order to Onward Engineering for the design of the F iscal
Year 2018/19 A D A A ccess Ramps at Various L ocations P roject.
G.12.Dissolution of the Corridor Design Authority (210 Foothill F reeway) J oint Powers Authority.
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-115
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, D I S S O LV I NG T HE C O R R I D O R D E S I G N A UT HO R I T Y A ND
T E R MI NAT I NG T HE A UT HO R I T Y'S J O I NT E X E R C I S E O F P OW E R S A G R E E ME NT
G.13.Consideration to Approve the Use of a S tate of California Department Of General Services
(D G S) Cooperative C ontract with Cisco S ystems, I nc. to Procure Data Communications
P roducts and S ervices from C onverge One, I nc.
G.14.Consideration to R eappoint Members with Expiring Terms to the R ancho Cucamonga
Community & A rts Foundation Board of Directors.
H.CONSENT ORDI NANCES
The following Ordinances have been introduced for first reading. Second readings are expected to be
routine and non-contr oversial. The C ity C ouncil will act upon them at one time without discussion. The
City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion by a Council Member.
I.ADM I NI STRATI VE HEARI NG I TEM
I .1.Consideration of Ordinance No. 941 Amending Chapter 8.17 and 8.19 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code to I ncorporate Requirements R elated to Ref use, Recyclables,
Organics and Construction and Demolition Waste Collection.
O R D I NA NC E NO. 941
A N O R D I NA NC E O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L OF T HE C I T Y O F R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A A ME ND I NG C HA P T E R 8.17 (R E F US E, R E C YC L A B L E S
A ND O R G A NI C S C O L L E C T I O N) A ND C HA P T E R 8.19 (C O NS T R UC T I ON A ND
D E MO L I T I O N W A S T E C O L L E C T I O N) O F T I T L E 8 O F T HE R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A MUNI C I PA L C OD E
J.ADVERTI SED PUBLI C HEARI NGS – CITY COUNCI L/FIRE PROTECTI ON
DI STRI CT
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The
Mayor will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
Page 6
J .1.C O NT I NUE D P UB L I C HE A R I NG OF A P P E A L O F P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N
D E C I S I O N D R C 2018-00865 – C O NS I D E R AT I O N OF A N A P P E A L OF T HE
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N’S A P P R O VA L O F HI L L S I D E D E S I G N R E V I E W
D R C2016-00672 – A ND R E S E N A R C HI T E C T UR E – This A ppeal I nvolves a R equest for
S ite P lan and A rchitectural Review of a P roposed 6,175 S quare F oot S ingle-F amily
Dwelling Unit and a 674 Square F oot Detached Second Dwelling Unit on a Vacant L ot
Totaling 12,044 Square F eet, L ocated I n the L ow (L ) Residential District in the Hillside
Overlay District on the North S ide Of C amino P redera; A P N: 0207-641-12. This I tem is
E xempt from the Requirements of the Calif ornia Environmental Quality A ct (C E Q A ) and the
City’s C E Q A Guidelines Under C E Q A Section 15303 – New Construction or C onversion of
S mall S tructures.
J .2.J oint P ublic Hearing of the City of Rancho C ucamonga and the R ancho Cucamonga Fire
P rotection D istrict to C onsider F ee A djustments f or Various City Departments and Citywide
Transportation D evelopment I mpact Fees, and F irst R eading and I ntroducing an Ordinance
A mending the Municipal C ode Concerning the Timing of Payment of D evelopment I mpact
F ees.
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-112
A R E S O L UT I O N OF T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A,
C A L I F O R NI A, A D O P T I NG A N UP D AT E D F E E S C HE D UL E A P P L I C A B L E TO T HE
A NI MA L S E RV I C E S , B UI L D I NG A ND S A F E T Y, C O MMUNI T Y I MP R O V E ME NT, A ND
P L A NNI NG D E PA RT ME NT S.
R E S O L UT I O N NO. F D 18-016
A R E S OL UT I O N O F T HE B O A R D O F D I R E C TO R S O F T HE R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A F I R E P R O T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T, R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A,
C A L I F O R NI A, E S TA B L I S HI NG, R E V I S I NG, A ND UP D AT I NG VA R I OUS F E E S
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-114
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F OR NI A , A ME ND I NG R E S OL UT I O N NO. 17-113, R E V I S I NG
C I T YW I D E T R A NS P O RTAT I ON D E V E L OP ME NT I MPA C T F E E S (D I F) F O R A L L
D E V E L O P ME NT S W I T HI N T HE C I T Y O F R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A , A ND MA K I NG
F I ND I NGS I N S UP P O RT T HE R E OF
O R D I NA NC E NO. 942
A N O R D I NA NC E O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F O R NI A , A ME ND I NG T HE R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A
MUNI C I PA L C O D E C O NC E R NI NG T HE T I MI NG O F PAYME NT OF
T R A NS P O RTAT I O N D E V E L O P ME NT I MPA C T F E E S A ND MA K I NG F I ND I NG S I N
S UP P O RT T HE R E O F
J .3.P ublic Hearing on Conflict of I nterest Code Biennial Update and A doption of R esolution
A pproving an Amended A ppendix I , Designated Employees, of the Code. (C I T Y)
R E S OL UT I O N NO. 18-113
A R E S O L UT I ON O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L O F T HE C I T Y OF R A NC HO
C UC A MO NG A, C A L I F OR NI A , A D O P T I NG , A F F I R MI NG, A ND I NC O R P O R AT I NG B Y
R E F E R E NC E T HE S TA ND A R D C O NF L I C T O F I NT E R E S T P R O V I S I O NS OF
C A L I F O R NI A C O D E O F R E G UL AT I ONS T I T L E 2, S E C T I O N 18730 A ND
A ME ND I NG A P P E ND I X I , D E S I G NAT E D P O S I T I O NS , TO T HE C O NF L I C T OF
I NT E R E S T C O D E O F T HE C I T Y O F R A NC HO C UC A MO NG A
K.CI TY MANAGER’S STAFF REPORTS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements.
K.1.Consideration to Approve an Amendment to the City Manager's E mployment Agreement.
Page 7
L.COUNCI L BUSI NESS
L .1.Consideration of the City C ouncil L ibrary S ubcommittee's Recommendation Regarding a
New A ppointment to the L ibrary B oard of Trustees.
L .2.Consideration to Appoint B ryan Dopp to the Historic P reservation and P lanning C ommission
to F ill a Vacant Seat for a Term B eginning November 21, 2018 and Ending D ecember 31,
2019.
L .3.C O UNC I L A NNO UC E ME NT S
(Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.)
L .4.I NT E R -A GE NC Y UP D AT E S
(Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.)
M.I DENTI FI CATI ON OF I TEMS FOR NEXT MEETI NG
N.ADJOURNMENT
C E R TIF IC AT IO N
I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the C ity of R ancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at
least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
R ancho C ucamonga, California and on the City's website.
Page 8
Rancho Cucamonga
Update
City of
Presentation Agenda:
•History of Assessor
•The Assessor’s Roles
•Latest Assessment Data
•Recorder-Clerk Update
•Historical Archives Update
History of the Assessor
Assessor History
•Property taxes have been levied
since civilization began.
•In ancient Egypt, assessors were
called scribes.
•Scribes kept records for the Pharaoh
about who owned land, the size of
their fields and the amount of
livestock.
Assessor History Continued
•When a Pharaoh died, the entire staff
was usually buried alive with the
Pharaoh to serve them in the
afterlife…
…That is, except for the assessor!
•The assessor knew too much for the
new pharaoh to simply let die.
Assessor History Continued
•Fast forward to California in 1850
•California Constitution provided that
each county was to have a
constitutionally elected:
•County Assessor
•District Attorney
•Sheriff
•and a Local Governing Body
Assessor History Continued
•In 1853, the California state legislature
created the County of San Bernardino
from what was formerly Los Angeles
County, San Diego and Mariposa
Counties
Assessor Roles
The Assessor’s Roles
•During the early years, the Assessor covered
the entire county by horseback to
determine the assessed value of all
properties.
•The Assessor was also:
•the Superintendent of Schools
•Registrar of Voters
•listed all persons subject to military duty
The Assessor’s Roles
•Today, as San Bernardino County’s Assessor,
I am responsible for:
•Locating and identifying all taxable properties
•Establishing the assessed value of the
properties
•Completing both annual and supplemental
assessment rolls
NOT The Assessor’s Roles
•Don’t send out tax bills
•Don’t collect taxes
•Have nothing to do with Assessment Districts.
Assessment Roll
Data
2018 Annual Property Assessment Roll
Assessment roll countywide contained 813,482
taxable parcels valued at $221,726,218,130.
The Countywide average increase in real estate
values was 7.3%.
Source: www.sbcounty.gov/arc
Historical Trend (1978-Present)
2017-18 Roll Values:City of Rancho Cucamonga
Year Secured Unsecured Total
2017 $23,863,221,090 $1,075,087,663 $24,938,308,753
2018 $25,301,664,330 $1,109,392,377 $26,411,056,707
% Change 6.0%3.2%5.9%
Source: www.sbcounty.gov/arc
Ten -Year Trend
$8,929,574,188
Additional Assessment Roll
Data Available online:
www.sbcountyARCblog.org
Recorder-Clerk
Update
Recorder-Clerk Update
In 2017 -
•Recorded over 550,000 documents.
•Issued and Recorded over 10,000 Marriage Licenses.
•Married over 4,800 San Bernardino County couples.
•Issued over 90,000 certificates.
•Filed over 14,000 Fictitious Business Names.
•Cataloged over 30,000 items in the Historical Archives
Historical Archives
Update
Historical Archives
•#ThrowbackThursday Video Series
on Social Media
•Highlights Local History
•Goal to Preserve and Protect History
•Received 2018 NACo Award
#tbt Rancho Cucamonga
Videos Available Online Include:
The Story of Helendale
Norton Air Force Base
Why San Bernardino County is so big?
The Mojave Desert
Thank you!
For more info visit:
www.sbcounty.gov/arc
Follow Assessor Bob Dutton
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L ayne, F inance D irector
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E B I-WE E K LY PAY RO L L I N T HE AM O UNT
O F $593,607.42 AND WE E K LY C HE C K RE G IS T E RS I N T HE AM O UNT O F
$311,516.91 D AT E D O C T O B E R 23, 2018 T HRO UG H NO V E M B E R 5, 2018 .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends F ire Board approve payment of demands as presented.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALY S IS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 Check Register
Page 9
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
13,205.000.0013,205.00CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA10/24/201800008386AP
1,523.760.001,523.76CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT10/24/201800008387AP
1,830.500.001,830.50RCCEA10/24/201800008388AP
11,996.480.0011,996.48RCPFA10/24/201800008389AP
80,000.000.0080,000.00SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800008390AP
631.60631.600.00AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R10/25/201800008391AP
631.60631.600.00ALMAND, LLOYD10/25/201800008392AP
499.68499.680.00BANTAU, VICTORIA10/25/201800008393AP
585.98585.980.00BAZAL, SUSAN10/25/201800008394AP
1,214.461,214.460.00BELL, MICHAEL L.10/25/201800008395AP
1,152.401,152.400.00BERRY, DAVID10/25/201800008396AP
923.03923.030.00BROCK, ROBIN10/25/201800008397AP
826.04826.040.00CAMPBELL, GERALD10/25/201800008398AP
1,327.271,327.270.00CAMPBELL, STEVEN10/25/201800008399AP
499.68499.680.00CARNES, KENNETH10/25/201800008400AP
1,152.401,152.400.00CLABBY, RICHARD10/25/201800008401AP
1,618.701,618.700.00CLOUGHESY, DONALD R10/25/201800008402AP
540.73540.730.00CORCORAN, ROBERT10/25/201800008403AP
1,618.701,618.700.00COSTELLO, DENNIS M10/25/201800008404AP
631.60631.600.00COX, KARL10/25/201800008405AP
968.28968.280.00CRANE, RALPH10/25/201800008406AP
499.68499.680.00CROSSLAND, WILBUR10/25/201800008407AP
1,214.461,214.460.00DAGUE, JAMES10/25/201800008408AP
540.73540.730.00DE ANTONIO, SUSAN10/25/201800008409AP
585.98585.980.00DEANS, JACKIE10/25/201800008410AP
923.03923.030.00DOMINICK, SAMUEL A.10/25/201800008411AP
1,214.461,214.460.00EAGLESON, MICHAEL10/25/201800008412AP
1,618.701,618.700.00EGGERS, BOB10/25/201800008413AP
499.68499.680.00FRITCHEY, JOHN D.10/25/201800008414AP
631.60631.600.00HEYDE, DONALD10/25/201800008415AP
249.30249.300.00INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN10/25/201800008416AP
1,152.401,152.400.00KILMER, STEPHEN10/25/201800008417AP
1,214.461,214.460.00LANE, WILLIAM10/25/201800008418AP
1,538.021,538.020.00LARKIN, DAVID W10/25/201800008419AP
1,264.921,264.920.00LEE, ALLAN J.10/25/201800008420AP
1,093.581,093.580.00LENZE, PAUL E10/25/201800008421AP
1,152.401,152.400.00LONCAR, PHILIP10/25/201800008422AP
183.34183.340.00LONGO, JOE10/25/201800008423AP
499.68499.680.00LUTTRULL, DARRELL10/25/201800008424AP
509.70509.700.00MACKALL, BEVERLY10/25/201800008425AP
968.28968.280.00MAYFIELD, RON10/25/201800008426AP
631.60631.600.00MCKEE, JOHN10/25/201800008427AP
631.60631.600.00MCNEIL, KENNETH10/25/201800008428AP
923.03923.030.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS10/25/201800008429AP
1,714.621,714.620.00MORGAN, BYRON10/25/201800008430AP
1,152.401,152.400.00MYSKOW, DENNIS10/25/201800008431AP
499.68499.680.00NAUMAN, MICHAEL10/25/201800008432AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:1
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 10
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
585.98585.980.00NEE, RON10/25/201800008433AP
183.34183.340.00NELSON, MARY JANE10/25/201800008434AP
1,214.461,214.460.00O'BRIEN, TOM10/25/201800008435AP
558.94558.940.00PLOUNG, MICHAEL J10/25/201800008436AP
1,586.771,586.770.00POST, MICHAEL R10/25/201800008437AP
1,618.701,618.700.00PROULX, PATRICK10/25/201800008438AP
1,214.461,214.460.00REDMOND, MIKE10/25/201800008439AP
1,214.461,214.460.00ROEDER, JEFF10/25/201800008440AP
631.60631.600.00SALISBURY, THOMAS10/25/201800008441AP
499.68499.680.00SMITH, RONALD10/25/201800008442AP
1,736.351,736.350.00SORENSEN, SCOTT D10/25/201800008443AP
499.68499.680.00SPAGNOLO, SAM10/25/201800008444AP
826.04826.040.00SPAIN, WILLIAM10/25/201800008445AP
499.68499.680.00SULLIVAN, JAMES10/25/201800008446AP
1,461.551,461.550.00TAYLOR, STEVE10/25/201800008447AP
1,214.461,214.460.00TULEY, TERRY10/25/201800008448AP
631.60631.600.00VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS10/25/201800008449AP
923.03923.030.00VARNEY, ANTHONY10/25/201800008450AP
1,538.021,538.020.00WALTON, KEVIN10/25/201800008451AP
1,304.961,304.960.00YOWELL, TIMOTHY A10/25/201800008452AP
540.000.00540.00METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, THE10/31/201800008453AP
226,125.000.00226,125.00SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA10/31/201800008454AP
17,457.600.0017,457.60ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC10/24/201800395036AP
28.000.0028.00ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.10/24/201800395037AP
50.000.0050.00ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL10/24/201800395038AP
40.970.0040.97AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE10/24/201800395039AP
504.900.00504.90AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES10/24/201800395040AP
1,250.000.001,250.00AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.10/24/201800395041AP
1,080.000.001,080.00AROCHO, ALMA10/24/201800395042AP
131.990.00131.99AUTO AND RV SPECIALISTS INC.10/24/201800395043AP
62.000.0062.00BARNES AND NOBLE10/24/201800395044AP
327.600.00327.60BAST, KAROLYN10/24/201800395045AP
1,883.900.001,883.90BERN MARIES PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS10/24/201800395046AP
1,332.500.001,332.50BOOKE, CHRISTOPHER10/24/201800395047AP
1,300.000.001,300.00BUTLER, KYMBERLI SKYE10/24/201800395048AP
334.37334.370.00BW PRINTWORKS10/24/201800395049AP
110.400.00110.40C V W D10/24/201800395050AP
***83,112.391,390.3681,722.03C V W D10/24/201800395053AP
254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE10/24/201800395054AP
100.000.00100.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395055AP
8.440.008.44CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395056AP
250.000.00250.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395057AP
297.730.00297.73CALIN, ANGELA10/24/201800395058AP
250.000.00250.00CASTILLO, JESSIE10/24/201800395059AP
431.470.00431.47CAWELTI, SEAN10/24/201800395060AP
***5,938.502,889.843,048.66CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC.10/24/201800395061AP
220.12220.120.00CHARIOT SPRING COMPANY10/24/201800395062AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:2
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 11
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
2,924.270.002,924.27CINTAS CORPORATION #15010/24/201800395063AP
37.500.0037.50CITY RENTALS10/24/201800395064AP
1,085.780.001,085.78CLARK, KAREN10/24/201800395065AP
1,434.410.001,434.41CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC.10/24/201800395066AP
7,191.000.007,191.00CLIMATEC LLC10/24/201800395067AP
134.470.00134.47CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR INC10/24/201800395068AP
1,332.500.001,332.50CORMIER, JAMES10/24/201800395069AP
1,124.551,124.550.00CREATIVE PROMOTIONAL IDEAS10/24/201800395070AP
1,990.660.001,990.66D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY10/24/201800395071AP
3,025.080.003,025.08DAISY10/24/201800395072AP
4,760.234,760.230.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE10/24/201800395073AP
348.50348.500.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE10/24/201800395074AP
246.930.00246.93DAVIDSON, CHANELLE10/24/201800395075AP
69.540.0069.54DAVIS, SAM10/24/201800395076AP
880.990.00880.99DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES10/24/201800395077AP
71.540.0071.54DIRECTV10/24/201800395078AP
1,271.340.001,271.34DOG WASTE DEPOT10/24/201800395079AP
172.000.00172.00DOLLARHIDE, GINGER10/24/201800395080AP
708.000.00708.00DUNN, ANN MARIE10/24/201800395081AP
389.980.00389.98E-Z-GO10/24/201800395082AP
283.200.00283.20EASTERLING, RAY10/24/201800395083AP
5.000.005.00EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP.10/24/201800395084AP
60.000.0060.00EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT.10/24/201800395085AP
***1,350.00325.001,025.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL10/24/201800395086AP
52.000.0052.00EXPERIAN10/24/201800395087AP
307.240.00307.24EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY10/24/201800395088AP
2,709.000.002,709.00FEHR AND PEERS10/24/201800395089AP
750.000.00750.00FELIPE'S CATERING10/24/201800395090AP
17,371.420.0017,371.42FORTIN LAW GROUP10/24/201800395091AP
***3,207.52337.822,869.70FRONTIER COMM10/24/201800395092AP
93.980.0093.98FRONTIER COMM10/24/201800395093AP
213.350.00213.35GAMBOA, MINERVA10/24/201800395094AP
92.650.0092.65GARCIA, ELISA10/24/201800395095AP
2,216.100.002,216.10GEORGE HILLS COMPANY10/24/201800395096AP
189.600.00189.60GIORDANO, MARIANNA10/24/201800395097AP
1,612.590.001,612.59GOLDEN SUN10/24/201800395098AP
1,392.070.001,392.07GRAINGER10/24/201800395099AP
425.610.00425.61GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.10/24/201800395100AP
7,542.500.007,542.50GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC10/24/201800395101AP
300.000.00300.00GRIFFITHS, VICTORIA MICHELLE10/24/201800395102AP
12,777.500.0012,777.50HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO10/24/201800395103AP
960.000.00960.00HAMILTON, MONIQUE10/24/201800395104AP
1,170.000.001,170.00HAMPTON YOGA10/24/201800395105AP
237.990.00237.99HI WAY SAFETY INC10/24/201800395106AP
1,369.420.001,369.42HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 64510/24/201800395107AP
1,400.000.001,400.00ICMA10/24/201800395108AP
1,600.000.001,600.00IDEAL GLASS TINTING10/24/201800395109AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:3
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 12
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
50.000.0050.00INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS INC10/24/201800395110AP
987.50987.500.00INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY SERVICES INC10/24/201800395111AP
1,096.320.001,096.32INTELESYS ONE INC10/24/201800395112AP
301.700.00301.70INTERNATIONAL COATINGS COMPANY INC10/24/201800395113AP
139.000.00139.00JACOBS, JAMES10/24/201800395114AP
1,500.000.001,500.00JOHNSON, WENDI10/24/201800395115AP
250.000.00250.00JONATHAN-CHOI, GISUNG10/24/201800395116AP
439.990.00439.99KINETIC LIGHTING INC10/24/201800395117AP
***5,745.303,278.802,466.50KVAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC10/24/201800395118AP
175.000.00175.00LA FRAMBOISE, NATHANAEL JAMES10/24/201800395119AP
392.000.00392.00LATREACE, RAINEY10/24/201800395120AP
276.320.00276.32LAU, MELISSA10/24/201800395121AP
5,340.990.005,340.99LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC10/24/201800395122AP
546.000.00546.00LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE10/24/201800395123AP
800.000.00800.00LOPEZ, MICHAEL RAMON10/24/201800395124AP
500.000.00500.00LOPEZ, SELINA10/24/201800395125AP
99,001.000.0099,001.00MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC10/24/201800395126AP
2,890.000.002,890.00MATLOCK DESIGN BUILD INC10/24/201800395127AP
4.000.004.00MATTHEW BENDER AND COMPANY INC10/24/201800395128AP
400.000.00400.00MATTIE, RICK10/24/201800395129AP
27.7127.710.00MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY10/24/201800395130AP
290.000.00290.00MEDIWASTE DISPOSAL10/24/201800395131AP
2,532.132,532.130.00MEDLEY FIRE PROTECTION INC10/24/201800395132AP
839.470.00839.47MITTERLEHNER, AKEIME10/24/201800395133AP
16.900.0016.90MORALES, ALYSSA10/24/201800395134AP
17.930.0017.93MOUNTAIN MOTOR SPORTS10/24/201800395135AP
160.000.00160.00MURGUIA, MARISELA10/24/201800395136AP
113.96113.960.00NAPA AUTO PARTS10/24/201800395137AP
9,828.560.009,828.56NBS10/24/201800395138AP
250.000.00250.00NEAL, RENA10/24/201800395139AP
869.540.00869.54NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC10/24/201800395140AP
63.060.0063.06NIELSEN, EMILY10/24/201800395141AP
524.130.00524.13OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA10/24/201800395142AP
400.910.00400.91ONTARIO WINNELSON CO10/24/201800395143AP
36.520.0036.52ONTRAC10/24/201800395144AP
118.000.00118.00ORELLANA, OSCAR10/24/201800395145AP
872.780.00872.78OTT, LAURA10/24/201800395146AP
666.000.00666.00OTT, SHARON10/24/201800395147AP
1,362.500.001,362.50PACHECO, ART10/24/201800395148AP
22,580.000.0022,580.00PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC10/24/201800395149AP
957.600.00957.60PAPAZOGLU, NORAY10/24/201800395150AP
655.140.00655.14PAPE GROUP INC, THE10/24/201800395151AP
3,500.000.003,500.00PARS10/24/201800395152AP
72.000.0072.00PATTON SALES CORP10/24/201800395153AP
96.580.0096.58PEP BOYS10/24/201800395154AP
10.000.0010.00PICAZO, RAFAEL10/24/201800395155AP
66.980.0066.98PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC10/24/201800395156AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:4
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 13
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
933.120.00933.12PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC10/24/201800395157AP
285.54285.540.00QUALITY TRUCK ELECTRIC INC10/24/201800395158AP
55.9855.980.00QUINN COMPANY10/24/201800395159AP
573.060.00573.06R AND R AUTOMOTIVE10/24/201800395160AP
3,166.000.003,166.00RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE10/24/201800395161AP
15,000.000.0015,000.00RC19968 LLC10/24/201800395162AP
329.520.00329.52REGENCY ENTERPRISES INC10/24/201800395163AP
1,415.470.001,415.47REYES COCA-COLA BOTTLING LLC10/24/201800395164AP
160.000.00160.00RIGLEMAN, ENCARNACION ONTIVEROS10/24/201800395165AP
7,823.600.007,823.60RJM DESIGN GROUP INC10/24/201800395166AP
1,548.450.001,548.45ROADRUNNER PHARMACY10/24/201800395167AP
255.000.00255.00ROTO ROOTER10/24/201800395168AP
395.000.00395.00ROW TRAFFIC SAFETY INC10/24/201800395169AP
424.860.00424.86ROYAL INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS CITY OF INDUSTRY10/24/201800395170AP
15,000.000.0015,000.00S R M CONSTRUCTION INC10/24/201800395171AP
360.96360.960.00SAFE-ENTRY TECHNICAL INC10/24/201800395172AP
4,946.260.004,946.26SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY10/24/201800395173AP
2,206.000.002,206.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT10/24/201800395174AP
3,234.080.003,234.08SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT10/24/201800395175AP
34,042.780.0034,042.78SAN BERNARDINO CTY10/24/201800395176AP
6,610.000.006,610.00SANS INSTITUTE10/24/201800395177AP
1,581.640.001,581.64SBPEA10/24/201800395178AP
710.610.00710.61SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/24/201800395179AP
41.810.0041.81SIGN SHOP, THE10/24/201800395180AP
3,751.150.003,751.15SILVER & WRIGHT LLP10/24/201800395181AP
***5,487.53367.465,120.07SO CALIF GAS COMPANY10/24/201800395182AP
***22,208.482,901.1219,307.36SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395188AP
10,510.300.0010,510.30SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395189AP
10,173.270.0010,173.27SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395190AP
11,524.570.0011,524.57SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395191AP
11,183.830.0011,183.83SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395192AP
436.140.00436.14SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395193AP
8,376.380.008,376.38SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395194AP
1,831.900.001,831.90SPORTBALL10/24/201800395195AP
9,500.000.009,500.00SPORTS FACILITIES ADVISORY10/24/201800395196AP
534.750.00534.75STOTZ EQUIPMENT10/24/201800395197AP
106,862.410.00106,862.41SUPERION LLC10/24/201800395198AP
3,890.550.003,890.55SYSCO LOS ANGELES INC10/24/201800395199AP
2,965.100.002,965.10SYSTEMS SOURCE INC10/24/201800395200AP
660.00660.000.00THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL10/24/201800395201AP
61,104.000.0061,104.00TORGA ELECTRIC10/24/201800395202AP
226.000.00226.00TORRE, STEVEN DE LA10/24/201800395203AP
432.000.00432.00TYUS, IDA10/24/201800395204AP
343.720.00343.72ULINE10/24/201800395205AP
676.700.00676.70UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL10/24/201800395206AP
30,450.000.0030,450.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC10/24/201800395207AP
281.340.00281.34UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC10/24/201800395208AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:5
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 14
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
93.000.0093.00UNITED WAY10/24/201800395209AP
11,440.000.0011,440.00UPSCO POWERSAFE SYSTEMS INC10/24/201800395210AP
2,343.020.002,343.02UTILIQUEST10/24/201800395211AP
40.160.0040.16VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES10/24/201800395212AP
7,200.330.007,200.33VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395217AP
421.110.00421.11VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395218AP
98.800.0098.80VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395219AP
1,200.000.001,200.00VICK, LINDA10/24/201800395220AP
7,138.930.007,138.93VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY10/24/201800395221AP
75.000.0075.00VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL10/24/201800395222AP
11,380.800.0011,380.80VISION SERVICE PLAN CA10/24/201800395223AP
2,273.360.002,273.36VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC10/24/201800395224AP
1,798.000.001,798.00WAINWRIGHT, JANICE RODGERS10/24/201800395225AP
***10,446.41121.7610,324.65WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY10/24/201800395226AP
139.04139.040.00WINZER CORPORATION10/24/201800395227AP
675.000.00675.00WONDERS OF WILDLIFE INC10/24/201800395228AP
21,224.2521,224.250.00YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC10/24/201800395229AP
100.000.00100.00ZAHNISER,LINSAY10/24/201800395230AP
2,415.910.002,415.91ZOETIS US LLC10/24/201800395231AP
1,618.701,618.700.00CURATALO, JAMES10/25/201800395232AP
1,424.301,424.300.00KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM10/25/201800395233AP
1,618.701,618.700.00TOWNSEND, JAMES10/25/201800395234AP
249.30249.300.00WALKER, KENNETH10/25/201800395235AP
723.870.00723.87LEIVA, TATIANA10/25/201800395236AP
10,000.000.0010,000.00SERVPRO OF SOUTH RANCHO CUCAMONGA10/25/201800395237AP
142.380.00142.38SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/25/201800395238AP
568.230.00568.23SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/25/201800395239AP
635.520.00635.52ABC LOCKSMITHS10/25/201800395240AP
***266.6814.76251.92CARQUEST AUTO PARTS10/25/201800395241AP
1,428.570.001,428.57CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC10/25/201800395242AP
611.56611.560.00DUMBELL MAN FITNESS EQUIPMENT, THE10/25/201800395243AP
69.390.0069.39EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS10/25/201800395244AP
2,216.560.002,216.56FORD OF UPLAND INC10/25/201800395245AP
35.050.0035.05HOSE MAN INC10/25/201800395246AP
4,356.194,356.190.00KME FIRE APPARATUS10/25/201800395247AP
1,885.090.001,885.09MAIN STREET SIGNS10/25/201800395248AP
3,229.610.003,229.61MITY LITE INC.10/25/201800395249AP
***4,738.071,060.473,677.60OFFICE DEPOT10/25/201800395250AP
***4,718.812,843.311,875.50ORKIN PEST CONTROL10/25/201800395252AP
88.360.0088.36PSA PRINT GROUP10/25/201800395253AP
177.880.00177.88SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC10/25/201800395254AP
1,450.000.001,450.00SAFETY CENTER INC10/25/201800395255AP
151.520.00151.52SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC10/25/201800395256AP
71.3071.300.00SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC10/25/201800395257AP
433.220.00433.22THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC10/25/201800395258AP
***3,492.081,480.342,011.74CALIFORNIA DPT OF TAX & FEE ADMINISTRATION10/31/201800395261AP
1,188.850.001,188.858TH ST. COLLISION10/31/201800395262AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:6
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 15
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
388.800.00388.80A'JONTUE, ROSE ANN10/31/201800395263AP
***193,112.3048,278.00144,834.30ACCELA INC10/31/201800395264AP
211.800.00211.80ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.10/31/201800395265AP
48.600.0048.60ACTION AWARDS INC.10/31/201800395266AP
427.82427.820.00ADAPT CONSULTING INC10/31/201800395267AP
367.000.00367.00ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC.10/31/201800395268AP
8,424.438,424.430.00ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT INC10/31/201800395269AP
1,076.680.001,076.68AMERICAN TRAINING RESOURCES INC10/31/201800395270AP
16.420.0016.42ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES INC10/31/201800395271AP
170.260.00170.26ARS AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL10/31/201800395272AP
12.000.0012.00ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION10/31/201800395273AP
683.050.00683.05ATKINSON BAKER INC10/31/201800395274AP
4,096.000.004,096.00AUFBAU CORPORATION10/31/201800395275AP
2,700.000.002,700.00BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC10/31/201800395276AP
84.9984.990.00BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC10/31/201800395277AP
348.850.00348.85BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C.10/31/201800395278AP
250.000.00250.00BROGDEN, KATHLEEN10/31/201800395279AP
508.330.00508.33BROWN, JENNIFER10/31/201800395280AP
36.320.0036.32BURRIS, MATT10/31/201800395281AP
71,003.010.0071,003.01BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC.10/31/201800395282AP
434.850.00434.85C V W D10/31/201800395283AP
5,763.540.005,763.54C V W D10/31/201800395284AP
254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE10/31/201800395285AP
4,393.680.004,393.68CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST10/31/201800395286AP
3,846.600.003,846.60CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION10/31/201800395287AP
6,462.170.006,462.17CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF10/31/201800395288AP
50.0050.000.00CAPIO10/31/201800395289AP
***14,416.536,358.128,058.41CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS10/31/201800395290AP
519.09519.090.00CINTAS CORPORATION #15010/31/201800395291AP
150.000.00150.00CLOUGHERTY, JOHN FRANCIS10/31/201800395292AP
23.050.0023.05CURASI, GINA10/31/201800395293AP
596.270.00596.27DAISY10/31/201800395294AP
6,631.110.006,631.11DATA TICKET INC10/31/201800395295AP
1,500.000.001,500.00DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC.10/31/201800395296AP
451.020.00451.02DAVIS, SAM10/31/201800395297AP
28.180.0028.18DE GROOT, CARLY10/31/201800395298AP
1,415.440.001,415.44DELTA DENTAL10/31/201800395299AP
42,581.080.0042,581.08DELTA DENTAL10/31/201800395300AP
27,062.830.0027,062.83DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION10/31/201800395301AP
8,618.790.008,618.79DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION10/31/201800395302AP
175.780.00175.78DLIMAGING10/31/201800395303AP
917.140.00917.14ECOHERO SHOW LLC, THE10/31/201800395304AP
62.280.0062.28FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP10/31/201800395305AP
51.1351.130.00FLEET SERVICES INC.10/31/201800395306AP
15.000.0015.00FLETCHER, JENNIFER10/31/201800395307AP
200.000.00200.00FRIENDS OF THE PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL10/31/201800395308AP
140.080.00140.08G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS10/31/201800395309AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:7
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 16
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
1,300.000.001,300.00GARON WYATT INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES10/31/201800395310AP
490.000.00490.00GATEWAY PET CEMETERY AND CREMATORY10/31/201800395311AP
171.940.00171.94GLOBALSTAR USA10/31/201800395312AP
28.4428.440.00GLOVER, MICHELE10/31/201800395313AP
103.750.00103.75GOMEZ, ANNA10/31/201800395314AP
3,000.000.003,000.00GONSALVES AND SON,JOE A10/31/201800395315AP
***1,792.17180.821,611.35GRAINGER10/31/201800395316AP
132.000.00132.00HEARTSAVERS LLC10/31/201800395317AP
250.000.00250.00HEISSER, KRISTY10/31/201800395318AP
1,522.680.001,522.68HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC10/31/201800395319AP
36,387.970.0036,387.97HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES10/31/201800395320AP
101,993.85101,993.850.00HMC ARCHITECTS10/31/201800395321AP
833.000.00833.00HO, HOWARD10/31/201800395322AP
156.94156.940.00HOYT LUMBER CO., SM10/31/201800395323AP
2,212.502,212.500.00INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY SERVICES INC10/31/201800395324AP
3,057.600.003,057.60INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY10/31/201800395325AP
5,000.000.005,000.00INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS10/31/201800395326AP
2,683.800.002,683.80JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY10/31/201800395327AP
567.240.00567.24KAMALABADI, IRAJ10/31/201800395328AP
570.000.00570.00KEITH, JORRY10/31/201800395329AP
690.000.00690.00KELLEY, SHIRLEY D10/31/201800395330AP
25,730.930.0025,730.93LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.10/31/201800395331AP
930.930.00930.93LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC10/31/201800395332AP
***16,332.4535.0016,297.45LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE10/31/201800395333AP
***58,254.352,350.8455,903.51MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC10/31/201800395334AP
250.000.00250.00MCGUIRE, JENNIFER10/31/201800395335AP
66.210.0066.21MCI10/31/201800395336AP
103.420.00103.42MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY10/31/201800395337AP
50,000.000.0050,000.00METROLINK10/31/201800395338AP
1,953.620.001,953.62MIDWEST TAPE10/31/201800395339AP
***25,848.00456.0025,392.00MIJAC ALARM COMPANY10/31/201800395340AP
15.000.0015.00MINKLEY-GONZALEZ, MONIKA10/31/201800395341AP
270.000.00270.00MUSICSTAR10/31/201800395342AP
1,125.920.001,125.92NEOPOST USA INC10/31/201800395343AP
868.000.00868.00OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA10/31/201800395344AP
3.760.003.76ONTRAC10/31/201800395345AP
380.000.00380.00PIC-O-RAMA10/31/201800395346AP
2,083.500.002,083.50PRECISION GYMNASTICS10/31/201800395347AP
646.50646.500.00PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC10/31/201800395348AP
1,927.181,927.180.00RESCUE RESPONSE GEAR LLC10/31/201800395349AP
81.960.0081.96RILEY, ERIKA10/31/201800395350AP
350.00350.000.00ROTO ROOTER10/31/201800395351AP
***176.407.66168.74ROYAL INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS CITY OF INDUSTRY10/31/201800395352AP
2,250.000.002,250.00S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395353AP
4,777.500.004,777.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395354AP
4,095.000.004,095.00S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395355AP
4,777.500.004,777.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395356AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:8
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 17
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
4,145.750.004,145.75S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395357AP
3,553.500.003,553.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395358AP
4,145.750.004,145.75S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395359AP
250.000.00250.00SALAZAR, MIRANDA10/31/201800395360AP
15,249.000.0015,249.00SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT10/31/201800395361AP
12,562.8612,562.860.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY10/31/201800395362AP
730.55730.550.00SCL10/31/201800395363AP
2,340.000.002,340.00SECC CORP10/31/201800395364AP
862.00862.000.00SIGN SHOP, THE10/31/201800395365AP
***609.3066.12543.18SO CALIF GAS COMPANY10/31/201800395366AP
***8,163.921,676.026,487.90SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/31/201800395370AP
18.610.0018.61SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/31/201800395371AP
552.000.00552.00SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS10/31/201800395372AP
250.000.00250.00SPECIALIZED CARE FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY10/31/201800395373AP
7,440.300.007,440.30SPORTBALL10/31/201800395374AP
500.000.00500.00TAMBUNAN, LYDIA10/31/201800395375AP
445.000.00445.00TEXAS MEDICAL SCREENING LLC10/31/201800395376AP
133,803.150.00133,803.15TOM'S TRUCK CENTER INC10/31/201800395377AP
83,480.040.0083,480.04TOVEY/SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION INC10/31/201800395378AP
429.880.00429.88TRINITY EQUIPMENT RENTALS10/31/201800395379AP
103.000.00103.00U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC10/31/201800395380AP
1,425.680.001,425.68U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250010/31/201800395381AP
23,202.550.0023,202.55U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250010/31/201800395382AP
2,360.000.002,360.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC10/31/201800395383AP
134.250.00134.25UPS10/31/201800395384AP
95.320.0095.32VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER LLC10/31/201800395385AP
134.690.00134.69VOHNE LICHE KENNELS INC10/31/201800395386AP
2.340.002.34WALKER, JACKIE LE DONNA10/31/201800395387AP
12.450.0012.45WHEELER, EVELYN10/31/201800395388AP
30,000.000.0030,000.00WLPX DAY CREEK, LLC.10/31/201800395389AP
105.000.00105.00WORLD ELITE GYMNASTICS10/31/201800395390AP
14,136.250.0014,136.25YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC10/31/201800395391AP
475.200.00475.20YOUNG REMBRANDTS10/31/201800395392AP
***3,124.743,070.8853.86ABC LOCKSMITHS11/01/201800395393AP
13,479.740.0013,479.74BRODART BOOKS11/01/201800395397AP
271.530.00271.53HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC11/01/201800395398AP
651.390.00651.39HOSE MAN INC11/01/201800395399AP
1,095.140.001,095.14INTERSTATE BATTERIES11/01/201800395400AP
305.690.00305.69MINUTEMAN PRESS11/01/201800395401AP
7,064.930.007,064.93OFFICE DEPOT11/01/201800395402AP
2,118.150.002,118.15ORKIN PEST CONTROL11/01/201800395403AP
38.790.0038.79PSA PRINT GROUP11/01/201800395404AP
613.080.00613.08SHRED IT USA LLC11/01/201800395405AP
34,702.860.0034,702.86SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC11/01/201800395406AP
732.000.00732.00STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC11/01/201800395407AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:9
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 18
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
$2,491,990.13
$311,516.91
Note:
Grand Total:
Total Fire:
$2,180,473.22Total City:
*** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:10
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 19
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :L ori E . S assoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L . L ayne, F inance D irector
S andra G. Ramirez, Management Analyst I I I
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE C E IV E AND F IL E C URRE NT I NV E S T M E NT
S C HE D UL E AS O F O C T O B E R 31, 2018.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the President and Members of the Board of D irectors receive and file the attached
current investment schedule f or the R ancho Cucamonga F ire Protection D istrict as of October 31, 2018.
BACKGROUND:
T he attached investment schedule as of O ctober 31, 2018 reflects cash and investments managed by the
F inance/Treasury Management Division and is in conf ormity with the requirements of California
Government C ode S ection 53601 and the Rancho Cucamonga F ire P rotection District’s adopted
I nvestment P olicy as approved by the P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors on April 17,
2017.
ANALY S IS:
T he District’s Treasurer is required to submit a quarterly investment report to the P resident and Members
of the B oard of D irectors in accordance with California Government C ode S ection 53646. T he quarterly
investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the
report. However, the D istrict Treasurer has elected to provide this report on a monthly basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Portfolio Management - P ortf olio Summary October 31, 2018
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:I van R ojer, F ire Chief
S andy Griffin, E MS Administrator
Ruth C ain C P P B , P rocurement Manager
P amela J . Nibert, Management A nalyst I I I
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F T HE P URC HAS E O F E M E RG E NC Y M E D I C AL
S UP P L IE S AND M AT E RIAL S F RO M L IF E AS S IS T, INC . IN AN AM O UNT
NO T T O E X C E E D $67,000.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the F ire B oard approve and award the purchase of E mergency Medical Supplies and
Materials f or the Rancho C ucamonga F ire Protection D istrict (District), on an as needed basis, to L ife
Assist, I nc., of Rancho Cordova, C alif ornia, in accordance with Request for Bid (“R F B”) #18/19-110, in an
annual amount not to exceed $67,000.
BACKGROUND:
I n response to a variety of illnesses and injuries, each staffed and equipped f rontline District response unit
provides A dvanced L if e S upport (A L S) services. F iref ighters, cross-trained as licensed P aramedics, are
responsible f or patient assessment, emergency care and advanced treatment. These services can include
the administration of controlled medications, advanced airway control and maintenance, cardiac treatment
and trauma management. A ll A L S response units must be equipped and continuously replenished with
medical supplies and medications to maintain the minimum amount required by the County L ocal E MS
Authority (L E MS A ).
ANALY S IS:
T he District provided specif ications f or medications and supplies to the Procurement D ivision for review
and determination of the best method of procurement. T he P rocurement Division prepared and posted a
formal R equest f or B id (R F B ) #18/19-110 to the City’s automated procurement system. A total of one
hundred and seventy-six (176) vendors were notified, and seventeen (17) prospective bidders
downloaded the solicitation documents. F ive (5) bid responses were received. L if e-Assist, I nc. was the
lowest, most responsible, responsive bidder.
T he cost of medications continues to be unstable and fluctuate f requently due to a lack of manuf acturing
plants in the United States. Additionally, the merging and acquisition of various pharmaceutical companies
has the added potential to drive the cost of medications up even f urther as the demand for these
medications increases and the supplier availability decreases. Awarding the bid to L ife Assist, whom has
Page 27
conf irmed pricing until J une 30, 2019, provides an overall cost savings for the District. This award also
assists with cost containment and has a positive fiscal impact as it supports purchasing medications and
supplies from the vendor with the most competitive pricing.
All documentation for the bid is on f ile in the P rocurement D ivision.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate f unds were budgeted and approved in F Y18/19 f or Emergency Medical S upplies and Materials
in Emergency Medical S ervices/Operations & Maintenance/E MS Supplies & Materials Account No.
3281504-5200, f or an amount not to exceed $67,000.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
T he award of this bid to L if e A ssist, I nc. will f ulf ill the Council goal of providing premiere public safety
services to our community.
Page 28
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L ayne, F inance D irector
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E B I-WE E K LY PAY RO L L I N T HE AM O UNT
O F $1,127,301.90 AND WE E K LY C HE C K RE G IS T E RS IN T HE AM O UNT O F
$2,180,473.22 D AT E D O C T O B E R 23,2018 T HRO UG H NO V E M B E R 5, 2018.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends City Council approve payment of demands as presented.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
ANALY S IS:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 Check Register
Page 29
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
13,205.000.0013,205.00CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA10/24/201800008386AP
1,523.760.001,523.76CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT10/24/201800008387AP
1,830.500.001,830.50RCCEA10/24/201800008388AP
11,996.480.0011,996.48RCPFA10/24/201800008389AP
80,000.000.0080,000.00SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800008390AP
631.60631.600.00AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R10/25/201800008391AP
631.60631.600.00ALMAND, LLOYD10/25/201800008392AP
499.68499.680.00BANTAU, VICTORIA10/25/201800008393AP
585.98585.980.00BAZAL, SUSAN10/25/201800008394AP
1,214.461,214.460.00BELL, MICHAEL L.10/25/201800008395AP
1,152.401,152.400.00BERRY, DAVID10/25/201800008396AP
923.03923.030.00BROCK, ROBIN10/25/201800008397AP
826.04826.040.00CAMPBELL, GERALD10/25/201800008398AP
1,327.271,327.270.00CAMPBELL, STEVEN10/25/201800008399AP
499.68499.680.00CARNES, KENNETH10/25/201800008400AP
1,152.401,152.400.00CLABBY, RICHARD10/25/201800008401AP
1,618.701,618.700.00CLOUGHESY, DONALD R10/25/201800008402AP
540.73540.730.00CORCORAN, ROBERT10/25/201800008403AP
1,618.701,618.700.00COSTELLO, DENNIS M10/25/201800008404AP
631.60631.600.00COX, KARL10/25/201800008405AP
968.28968.280.00CRANE, RALPH10/25/201800008406AP
499.68499.680.00CROSSLAND, WILBUR10/25/201800008407AP
1,214.461,214.460.00DAGUE, JAMES10/25/201800008408AP
540.73540.730.00DE ANTONIO, SUSAN10/25/201800008409AP
585.98585.980.00DEANS, JACKIE10/25/201800008410AP
923.03923.030.00DOMINICK, SAMUEL A.10/25/201800008411AP
1,214.461,214.460.00EAGLESON, MICHAEL10/25/201800008412AP
1,618.701,618.700.00EGGERS, BOB10/25/201800008413AP
499.68499.680.00FRITCHEY, JOHN D.10/25/201800008414AP
631.60631.600.00HEYDE, DONALD10/25/201800008415AP
249.30249.300.00INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN10/25/201800008416AP
1,152.401,152.400.00KILMER, STEPHEN10/25/201800008417AP
1,214.461,214.460.00LANE, WILLIAM10/25/201800008418AP
1,538.021,538.020.00LARKIN, DAVID W10/25/201800008419AP
1,264.921,264.920.00LEE, ALLAN J.10/25/201800008420AP
1,093.581,093.580.00LENZE, PAUL E10/25/201800008421AP
1,152.401,152.400.00LONCAR, PHILIP10/25/201800008422AP
183.34183.340.00LONGO, JOE10/25/201800008423AP
499.68499.680.00LUTTRULL, DARRELL10/25/201800008424AP
509.70509.700.00MACKALL, BEVERLY10/25/201800008425AP
968.28968.280.00MAYFIELD, RON10/25/201800008426AP
631.60631.600.00MCKEE, JOHN10/25/201800008427AP
631.60631.600.00MCNEIL, KENNETH10/25/201800008428AP
923.03923.030.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS10/25/201800008429AP
1,714.621,714.620.00MORGAN, BYRON10/25/201800008430AP
1,152.401,152.400.00MYSKOW, DENNIS10/25/201800008431AP
499.68499.680.00NAUMAN, MICHAEL10/25/201800008432AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:1
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 30
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
585.98585.980.00NEE, RON10/25/201800008433AP
183.34183.340.00NELSON, MARY JANE10/25/201800008434AP
1,214.461,214.460.00O'BRIEN, TOM10/25/201800008435AP
558.94558.940.00PLOUNG, MICHAEL J10/25/201800008436AP
1,586.771,586.770.00POST, MICHAEL R10/25/201800008437AP
1,618.701,618.700.00PROULX, PATRICK10/25/201800008438AP
1,214.461,214.460.00REDMOND, MIKE10/25/201800008439AP
1,214.461,214.460.00ROEDER, JEFF10/25/201800008440AP
631.60631.600.00SALISBURY, THOMAS10/25/201800008441AP
499.68499.680.00SMITH, RONALD10/25/201800008442AP
1,736.351,736.350.00SORENSEN, SCOTT D10/25/201800008443AP
499.68499.680.00SPAGNOLO, SAM10/25/201800008444AP
826.04826.040.00SPAIN, WILLIAM10/25/201800008445AP
499.68499.680.00SULLIVAN, JAMES10/25/201800008446AP
1,461.551,461.550.00TAYLOR, STEVE10/25/201800008447AP
1,214.461,214.460.00TULEY, TERRY10/25/201800008448AP
631.60631.600.00VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS10/25/201800008449AP
923.03923.030.00VARNEY, ANTHONY10/25/201800008450AP
1,538.021,538.020.00WALTON, KEVIN10/25/201800008451AP
1,304.961,304.960.00YOWELL, TIMOTHY A10/25/201800008452AP
540.000.00540.00METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, THE10/31/201800008453AP
226,125.000.00226,125.00SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA10/31/201800008454AP
17,457.600.0017,457.60ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC10/24/201800395036AP
28.000.0028.00ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.10/24/201800395037AP
50.000.0050.00ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL10/24/201800395038AP
40.970.0040.97AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE10/24/201800395039AP
504.900.00504.90AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES10/24/201800395040AP
1,250.000.001,250.00AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.10/24/201800395041AP
1,080.000.001,080.00AROCHO, ALMA10/24/201800395042AP
131.990.00131.99AUTO AND RV SPECIALISTS INC.10/24/201800395043AP
62.000.0062.00BARNES AND NOBLE10/24/201800395044AP
327.600.00327.60BAST, KAROLYN10/24/201800395045AP
1,883.900.001,883.90BERN MARIES PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS10/24/201800395046AP
1,332.500.001,332.50BOOKE, CHRISTOPHER10/24/201800395047AP
1,300.000.001,300.00BUTLER, KYMBERLI SKYE10/24/201800395048AP
334.37334.370.00BW PRINTWORKS10/24/201800395049AP
110.400.00110.40C V W D10/24/201800395050AP
***83,112.391,390.3681,722.03C V W D10/24/201800395053AP
254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE10/24/201800395054AP
100.000.00100.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395055AP
8.440.008.44CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395056AP
250.000.00250.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF10/24/201800395057AP
297.730.00297.73CALIN, ANGELA10/24/201800395058AP
250.000.00250.00CASTILLO, JESSIE10/24/201800395059AP
431.470.00431.47CAWELTI, SEAN10/24/201800395060AP
***5,938.502,889.843,048.66CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC.10/24/201800395061AP
220.12220.120.00CHARIOT SPRING COMPANY10/24/201800395062AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:2
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 31
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
2,924.270.002,924.27CINTAS CORPORATION #15010/24/201800395063AP
37.500.0037.50CITY RENTALS10/24/201800395064AP
1,085.780.001,085.78CLARK, KAREN10/24/201800395065AP
1,434.410.001,434.41CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC.10/24/201800395066AP
7,191.000.007,191.00CLIMATEC LLC10/24/201800395067AP
134.470.00134.47CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR INC10/24/201800395068AP
1,332.500.001,332.50CORMIER, JAMES10/24/201800395069AP
1,124.551,124.550.00CREATIVE PROMOTIONAL IDEAS10/24/201800395070AP
1,990.660.001,990.66D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY10/24/201800395071AP
3,025.080.003,025.08DAISY10/24/201800395072AP
4,760.234,760.230.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE10/24/201800395073AP
348.50348.500.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE10/24/201800395074AP
246.930.00246.93DAVIDSON, CHANELLE10/24/201800395075AP
69.540.0069.54DAVIS, SAM10/24/201800395076AP
880.990.00880.99DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES10/24/201800395077AP
71.540.0071.54DIRECTV10/24/201800395078AP
1,271.340.001,271.34DOG WASTE DEPOT10/24/201800395079AP
172.000.00172.00DOLLARHIDE, GINGER10/24/201800395080AP
708.000.00708.00DUNN, ANN MARIE10/24/201800395081AP
389.980.00389.98E-Z-GO10/24/201800395082AP
283.200.00283.20EASTERLING, RAY10/24/201800395083AP
5.000.005.00EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP.10/24/201800395084AP
60.000.0060.00EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT.10/24/201800395085AP
***1,350.00325.001,025.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL10/24/201800395086AP
52.000.0052.00EXPERIAN10/24/201800395087AP
307.240.00307.24EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY10/24/201800395088AP
2,709.000.002,709.00FEHR AND PEERS10/24/201800395089AP
750.000.00750.00FELIPE'S CATERING10/24/201800395090AP
17,371.420.0017,371.42FORTIN LAW GROUP10/24/201800395091AP
***3,207.52337.822,869.70FRONTIER COMM10/24/201800395092AP
93.980.0093.98FRONTIER COMM10/24/201800395093AP
213.350.00213.35GAMBOA, MINERVA10/24/201800395094AP
92.650.0092.65GARCIA, ELISA10/24/201800395095AP
2,216.100.002,216.10GEORGE HILLS COMPANY10/24/201800395096AP
189.600.00189.60GIORDANO, MARIANNA10/24/201800395097AP
1,612.590.001,612.59GOLDEN SUN10/24/201800395098AP
1,392.070.001,392.07GRAINGER10/24/201800395099AP
425.610.00425.61GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.10/24/201800395100AP
7,542.500.007,542.50GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC10/24/201800395101AP
300.000.00300.00GRIFFITHS, VICTORIA MICHELLE10/24/201800395102AP
12,777.500.0012,777.50HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO10/24/201800395103AP
960.000.00960.00HAMILTON, MONIQUE10/24/201800395104AP
1,170.000.001,170.00HAMPTON YOGA10/24/201800395105AP
237.990.00237.99HI WAY SAFETY INC10/24/201800395106AP
1,369.420.001,369.42HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 64510/24/201800395107AP
1,400.000.001,400.00ICMA10/24/201800395108AP
1,600.000.001,600.00IDEAL GLASS TINTING10/24/201800395109AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:3
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 32
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
50.000.0050.00INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS INC10/24/201800395110AP
987.50987.500.00INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY SERVICES INC10/24/201800395111AP
1,096.320.001,096.32INTELESYS ONE INC10/24/201800395112AP
301.700.00301.70INTERNATIONAL COATINGS COMPANY INC10/24/201800395113AP
139.000.00139.00JACOBS, JAMES10/24/201800395114AP
1,500.000.001,500.00JOHNSON, WENDI10/24/201800395115AP
250.000.00250.00JONATHAN-CHOI, GISUNG10/24/201800395116AP
439.990.00439.99KINETIC LIGHTING INC10/24/201800395117AP
***5,745.303,278.802,466.50KVAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC10/24/201800395118AP
175.000.00175.00LA FRAMBOISE, NATHANAEL JAMES10/24/201800395119AP
392.000.00392.00LATREACE, RAINEY10/24/201800395120AP
276.320.00276.32LAU, MELISSA10/24/201800395121AP
5,340.990.005,340.99LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC10/24/201800395122AP
546.000.00546.00LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE10/24/201800395123AP
800.000.00800.00LOPEZ, MICHAEL RAMON10/24/201800395124AP
500.000.00500.00LOPEZ, SELINA10/24/201800395125AP
99,001.000.0099,001.00MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC10/24/201800395126AP
2,890.000.002,890.00MATLOCK DESIGN BUILD INC10/24/201800395127AP
4.000.004.00MATTHEW BENDER AND COMPANY INC10/24/201800395128AP
400.000.00400.00MATTIE, RICK10/24/201800395129AP
27.7127.710.00MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY10/24/201800395130AP
290.000.00290.00MEDIWASTE DISPOSAL10/24/201800395131AP
2,532.132,532.130.00MEDLEY FIRE PROTECTION INC10/24/201800395132AP
839.470.00839.47MITTERLEHNER, AKEIME10/24/201800395133AP
16.900.0016.90MORALES, ALYSSA10/24/201800395134AP
17.930.0017.93MOUNTAIN MOTOR SPORTS10/24/201800395135AP
160.000.00160.00MURGUIA, MARISELA10/24/201800395136AP
113.96113.960.00NAPA AUTO PARTS10/24/201800395137AP
9,828.560.009,828.56NBS10/24/201800395138AP
250.000.00250.00NEAL, RENA10/24/201800395139AP
869.540.00869.54NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC10/24/201800395140AP
63.060.0063.06NIELSEN, EMILY10/24/201800395141AP
524.130.00524.13OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA10/24/201800395142AP
400.910.00400.91ONTARIO WINNELSON CO10/24/201800395143AP
36.520.0036.52ONTRAC10/24/201800395144AP
118.000.00118.00ORELLANA, OSCAR10/24/201800395145AP
872.780.00872.78OTT, LAURA10/24/201800395146AP
666.000.00666.00OTT, SHARON10/24/201800395147AP
1,362.500.001,362.50PACHECO, ART10/24/201800395148AP
22,580.000.0022,580.00PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC10/24/201800395149AP
957.600.00957.60PAPAZOGLU, NORAY10/24/201800395150AP
655.140.00655.14PAPE GROUP INC, THE10/24/201800395151AP
3,500.000.003,500.00PARS10/24/201800395152AP
72.000.0072.00PATTON SALES CORP10/24/201800395153AP
96.580.0096.58PEP BOYS10/24/201800395154AP
10.000.0010.00PICAZO, RAFAEL10/24/201800395155AP
66.980.0066.98PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC10/24/201800395156AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:4
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 33
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
933.120.00933.12PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC10/24/201800395157AP
285.54285.540.00QUALITY TRUCK ELECTRIC INC10/24/201800395158AP
55.9855.980.00QUINN COMPANY10/24/201800395159AP
573.060.00573.06R AND R AUTOMOTIVE10/24/201800395160AP
3,166.000.003,166.00RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE10/24/201800395161AP
15,000.000.0015,000.00RC19968 LLC10/24/201800395162AP
329.520.00329.52REGENCY ENTERPRISES INC10/24/201800395163AP
1,415.470.001,415.47REYES COCA-COLA BOTTLING LLC10/24/201800395164AP
160.000.00160.00RIGLEMAN, ENCARNACION ONTIVEROS10/24/201800395165AP
7,823.600.007,823.60RJM DESIGN GROUP INC10/24/201800395166AP
1,548.450.001,548.45ROADRUNNER PHARMACY10/24/201800395167AP
255.000.00255.00ROTO ROOTER10/24/201800395168AP
395.000.00395.00ROW TRAFFIC SAFETY INC10/24/201800395169AP
424.860.00424.86ROYAL INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS CITY OF INDUSTRY10/24/201800395170AP
15,000.000.0015,000.00S R M CONSTRUCTION INC10/24/201800395171AP
360.96360.960.00SAFE-ENTRY TECHNICAL INC10/24/201800395172AP
4,946.260.004,946.26SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY10/24/201800395173AP
2,206.000.002,206.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT10/24/201800395174AP
3,234.080.003,234.08SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT10/24/201800395175AP
34,042.780.0034,042.78SAN BERNARDINO CTY10/24/201800395176AP
6,610.000.006,610.00SANS INSTITUTE10/24/201800395177AP
1,581.640.001,581.64SBPEA10/24/201800395178AP
710.610.00710.61SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/24/201800395179AP
41.810.0041.81SIGN SHOP, THE10/24/201800395180AP
3,751.150.003,751.15SILVER & WRIGHT LLP10/24/201800395181AP
***5,487.53367.465,120.07SO CALIF GAS COMPANY10/24/201800395182AP
***22,208.482,901.1219,307.36SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395188AP
10,510.300.0010,510.30SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395189AP
10,173.270.0010,173.27SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395190AP
11,524.570.0011,524.57SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395191AP
11,183.830.0011,183.83SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395192AP
436.140.00436.14SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395193AP
8,376.380.008,376.38SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/24/201800395194AP
1,831.900.001,831.90SPORTBALL10/24/201800395195AP
9,500.000.009,500.00SPORTS FACILITIES ADVISORY10/24/201800395196AP
534.750.00534.75STOTZ EQUIPMENT10/24/201800395197AP
106,862.410.00106,862.41SUPERION LLC10/24/201800395198AP
3,890.550.003,890.55SYSCO LOS ANGELES INC10/24/201800395199AP
2,965.100.002,965.10SYSTEMS SOURCE INC10/24/201800395200AP
660.00660.000.00THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL10/24/201800395201AP
61,104.000.0061,104.00TORGA ELECTRIC10/24/201800395202AP
226.000.00226.00TORRE, STEVEN DE LA10/24/201800395203AP
432.000.00432.00TYUS, IDA10/24/201800395204AP
343.720.00343.72ULINE10/24/201800395205AP
676.700.00676.70UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL10/24/201800395206AP
30,450.000.0030,450.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC10/24/201800395207AP
281.340.00281.34UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC10/24/201800395208AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:5
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 34
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
93.000.0093.00UNITED WAY10/24/201800395209AP
11,440.000.0011,440.00UPSCO POWERSAFE SYSTEMS INC10/24/201800395210AP
2,343.020.002,343.02UTILIQUEST10/24/201800395211AP
40.160.0040.16VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES10/24/201800395212AP
7,200.330.007,200.33VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395217AP
421.110.00421.11VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395218AP
98.800.0098.80VERIZON WIRELESS - LA10/24/201800395219AP
1,200.000.001,200.00VICK, LINDA10/24/201800395220AP
7,138.930.007,138.93VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY10/24/201800395221AP
75.000.0075.00VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL10/24/201800395222AP
11,380.800.0011,380.80VISION SERVICE PLAN CA10/24/201800395223AP
2,273.360.002,273.36VORTEX INDUSTRIES INC10/24/201800395224AP
1,798.000.001,798.00WAINWRIGHT, JANICE RODGERS10/24/201800395225AP
***10,446.41121.7610,324.65WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY10/24/201800395226AP
139.04139.040.00WINZER CORPORATION10/24/201800395227AP
675.000.00675.00WONDERS OF WILDLIFE INC10/24/201800395228AP
21,224.2521,224.250.00YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC10/24/201800395229AP
100.000.00100.00ZAHNISER,LINSAY10/24/201800395230AP
2,415.910.002,415.91ZOETIS US LLC10/24/201800395231AP
1,618.701,618.700.00CURATALO, JAMES10/25/201800395232AP
1,424.301,424.300.00KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM10/25/201800395233AP
1,618.701,618.700.00TOWNSEND, JAMES10/25/201800395234AP
249.30249.300.00WALKER, KENNETH10/25/201800395235AP
723.870.00723.87LEIVA, TATIANA10/25/201800395236AP
10,000.000.0010,000.00SERVPRO OF SOUTH RANCHO CUCAMONGA10/25/201800395237AP
142.380.00142.38SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/25/201800395238AP
568.230.00568.23SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES10/25/201800395239AP
635.520.00635.52ABC LOCKSMITHS10/25/201800395240AP
***266.6814.76251.92CARQUEST AUTO PARTS10/25/201800395241AP
1,428.570.001,428.57CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC10/25/201800395242AP
611.56611.560.00DUMBELL MAN FITNESS EQUIPMENT, THE10/25/201800395243AP
69.390.0069.39EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS10/25/201800395244AP
2,216.560.002,216.56FORD OF UPLAND INC10/25/201800395245AP
35.050.0035.05HOSE MAN INC10/25/201800395246AP
4,356.194,356.190.00KME FIRE APPARATUS10/25/201800395247AP
1,885.090.001,885.09MAIN STREET SIGNS10/25/201800395248AP
3,229.610.003,229.61MITY LITE INC.10/25/201800395249AP
***4,738.071,060.473,677.60OFFICE DEPOT10/25/201800395250AP
***4,718.812,843.311,875.50ORKIN PEST CONTROL10/25/201800395252AP
88.360.0088.36PSA PRINT GROUP10/25/201800395253AP
177.880.00177.88SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC10/25/201800395254AP
1,450.000.001,450.00SAFETY CENTER INC10/25/201800395255AP
151.520.00151.52SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC10/25/201800395256AP
71.3071.300.00SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC10/25/201800395257AP
433.220.00433.22THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC10/25/201800395258AP
***3,492.081,480.342,011.74CALIFORNIA DPT OF TAX & FEE ADMINISTRATION10/31/201800395261AP
1,188.850.001,188.858TH ST. COLLISION10/31/201800395262AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:6
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 35
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
388.800.00388.80A'JONTUE, ROSE ANN10/31/201800395263AP
***193,112.3048,278.00144,834.30ACCELA INC10/31/201800395264AP
211.800.00211.80ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.10/31/201800395265AP
48.600.0048.60ACTION AWARDS INC.10/31/201800395266AP
427.82427.820.00ADAPT CONSULTING INC10/31/201800395267AP
367.000.00367.00ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC.10/31/201800395268AP
8,424.438,424.430.00ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT INC10/31/201800395269AP
1,076.680.001,076.68AMERICAN TRAINING RESOURCES INC10/31/201800395270AP
16.420.0016.42ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES INC10/31/201800395271AP
170.260.00170.26ARS AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL10/31/201800395272AP
12.000.0012.00ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION10/31/201800395273AP
683.050.00683.05ATKINSON BAKER INC10/31/201800395274AP
4,096.000.004,096.00AUFBAU CORPORATION10/31/201800395275AP
2,700.000.002,700.00BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC10/31/201800395276AP
84.9984.990.00BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC10/31/201800395277AP
348.850.00348.85BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C.10/31/201800395278AP
250.000.00250.00BROGDEN, KATHLEEN10/31/201800395279AP
508.330.00508.33BROWN, JENNIFER10/31/201800395280AP
36.320.0036.32BURRIS, MATT10/31/201800395281AP
71,003.010.0071,003.01BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC.10/31/201800395282AP
434.850.00434.85C V W D10/31/201800395283AP
5,763.540.005,763.54C V W D10/31/201800395284AP
254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE10/31/201800395285AP
4,393.680.004,393.68CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST10/31/201800395286AP
3,846.600.003,846.60CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION10/31/201800395287AP
6,462.170.006,462.17CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF10/31/201800395288AP
50.0050.000.00CAPIO10/31/201800395289AP
***14,416.536,358.128,058.41CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS10/31/201800395290AP
519.09519.090.00CINTAS CORPORATION #15010/31/201800395291AP
150.000.00150.00CLOUGHERTY, JOHN FRANCIS10/31/201800395292AP
23.050.0023.05CURASI, GINA10/31/201800395293AP
596.270.00596.27DAISY10/31/201800395294AP
6,631.110.006,631.11DATA TICKET INC10/31/201800395295AP
1,500.000.001,500.00DAVID TAUSSIG AND ASSOCIATES INC.10/31/201800395296AP
451.020.00451.02DAVIS, SAM10/31/201800395297AP
28.180.0028.18DE GROOT, CARLY10/31/201800395298AP
1,415.440.001,415.44DELTA DENTAL10/31/201800395299AP
42,581.080.0042,581.08DELTA DENTAL10/31/201800395300AP
27,062.830.0027,062.83DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION10/31/201800395301AP
8,618.790.008,618.79DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION10/31/201800395302AP
175.780.00175.78DLIMAGING10/31/201800395303AP
917.140.00917.14ECOHERO SHOW LLC, THE10/31/201800395304AP
62.280.0062.28FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP10/31/201800395305AP
51.1351.130.00FLEET SERVICES INC.10/31/201800395306AP
15.000.0015.00FLETCHER, JENNIFER10/31/201800395307AP
200.000.00200.00FRIENDS OF THE PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL10/31/201800395308AP
140.080.00140.08G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS10/31/201800395309AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:7
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 36
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
1,300.000.001,300.00GARON WYATT INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES10/31/201800395310AP
490.000.00490.00GATEWAY PET CEMETERY AND CREMATORY10/31/201800395311AP
171.940.00171.94GLOBALSTAR USA10/31/201800395312AP
28.4428.440.00GLOVER, MICHELE10/31/201800395313AP
103.750.00103.75GOMEZ, ANNA10/31/201800395314AP
3,000.000.003,000.00GONSALVES AND SON,JOE A10/31/201800395315AP
***1,792.17180.821,611.35GRAINGER10/31/201800395316AP
132.000.00132.00HEARTSAVERS LLC10/31/201800395317AP
250.000.00250.00HEISSER, KRISTY10/31/201800395318AP
1,522.680.001,522.68HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC10/31/201800395319AP
36,387.970.0036,387.97HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES10/31/201800395320AP
101,993.85101,993.850.00HMC ARCHITECTS10/31/201800395321AP
833.000.00833.00HO, HOWARD10/31/201800395322AP
156.94156.940.00HOYT LUMBER CO., SM10/31/201800395323AP
2,212.502,212.500.00INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY SERVICES INC10/31/201800395324AP
3,057.600.003,057.60INLAND VALLEY DANCE ACADEMY10/31/201800395325AP
5,000.000.005,000.00INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS10/31/201800395326AP
2,683.800.002,683.80JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY10/31/201800395327AP
567.240.00567.24KAMALABADI, IRAJ10/31/201800395328AP
570.000.00570.00KEITH, JORRY10/31/201800395329AP
690.000.00690.00KELLEY, SHIRLEY D10/31/201800395330AP
25,730.930.0025,730.93LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.10/31/201800395331AP
930.930.00930.93LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC10/31/201800395332AP
***16,332.4535.0016,297.45LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE10/31/201800395333AP
***58,254.352,350.8455,903.51MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC10/31/201800395334AP
250.000.00250.00MCGUIRE, JENNIFER10/31/201800395335AP
66.210.0066.21MCI10/31/201800395336AP
103.420.00103.42MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY10/31/201800395337AP
50,000.000.0050,000.00METROLINK10/31/201800395338AP
1,953.620.001,953.62MIDWEST TAPE10/31/201800395339AP
***25,848.00456.0025,392.00MIJAC ALARM COMPANY10/31/201800395340AP
15.000.0015.00MINKLEY-GONZALEZ, MONIKA10/31/201800395341AP
270.000.00270.00MUSICSTAR10/31/201800395342AP
1,125.920.001,125.92NEOPOST USA INC10/31/201800395343AP
868.000.00868.00OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA10/31/201800395344AP
3.760.003.76ONTRAC10/31/201800395345AP
380.000.00380.00PIC-O-RAMA10/31/201800395346AP
2,083.500.002,083.50PRECISION GYMNASTICS10/31/201800395347AP
646.50646.500.00PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC10/31/201800395348AP
1,927.181,927.180.00RESCUE RESPONSE GEAR LLC10/31/201800395349AP
81.960.0081.96RILEY, ERIKA10/31/201800395350AP
350.00350.000.00ROTO ROOTER10/31/201800395351AP
***176.407.66168.74ROYAL INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS CITY OF INDUSTRY10/31/201800395352AP
2,250.000.002,250.00S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395353AP
4,777.500.004,777.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395354AP
4,095.000.004,095.00S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395355AP
4,777.500.004,777.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395356AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:8
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 37
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
4,145.750.004,145.75S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395357AP
3,553.500.003,553.50S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395358AP
4,145.750.004,145.75S C C E ELECTRICAL SERVICES10/31/201800395359AP
250.000.00250.00SALAZAR, MIRANDA10/31/201800395360AP
15,249.000.0015,249.00SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT10/31/201800395361AP
12,562.8612,562.860.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY10/31/201800395362AP
730.55730.550.00SCL10/31/201800395363AP
2,340.000.002,340.00SECC CORP10/31/201800395364AP
862.00862.000.00SIGN SHOP, THE10/31/201800395365AP
***609.3066.12543.18SO CALIF GAS COMPANY10/31/201800395366AP
***8,163.921,676.026,487.90SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/31/201800395370AP
18.610.0018.61SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON10/31/201800395371AP
552.000.00552.00SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS10/31/201800395372AP
250.000.00250.00SPECIALIZED CARE FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY10/31/201800395373AP
7,440.300.007,440.30SPORTBALL10/31/201800395374AP
500.000.00500.00TAMBUNAN, LYDIA10/31/201800395375AP
445.000.00445.00TEXAS MEDICAL SCREENING LLC10/31/201800395376AP
133,803.150.00133,803.15TOM'S TRUCK CENTER INC10/31/201800395377AP
83,480.040.0083,480.04TOVEY/SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION INC10/31/201800395378AP
429.880.00429.88TRINITY EQUIPMENT RENTALS10/31/201800395379AP
103.000.00103.00U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC10/31/201800395380AP
1,425.680.001,425.68U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250010/31/201800395381AP
23,202.550.0023,202.55U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250010/31/201800395382AP
2,360.000.002,360.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC10/31/201800395383AP
134.250.00134.25UPS10/31/201800395384AP
95.320.0095.32VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER LLC10/31/201800395385AP
134.690.00134.69VOHNE LICHE KENNELS INC10/31/201800395386AP
2.340.002.34WALKER, JACKIE LE DONNA10/31/201800395387AP
12.450.0012.45WHEELER, EVELYN10/31/201800395388AP
30,000.000.0030,000.00WLPX DAY CREEK, LLC.10/31/201800395389AP
105.000.00105.00WORLD ELITE GYMNASTICS10/31/201800395390AP
14,136.250.0014,136.25YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC10/31/201800395391AP
475.200.00475.20YOUNG REMBRANDTS10/31/201800395392AP
***3,124.743,070.8853.86ABC LOCKSMITHS11/01/201800395393AP
13,479.740.0013,479.74BRODART BOOKS11/01/201800395397AP
271.530.00271.53HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC11/01/201800395398AP
651.390.00651.39HOSE MAN INC11/01/201800395399AP
1,095.140.001,095.14INTERSTATE BATTERIES11/01/201800395400AP
305.690.00305.69MINUTEMAN PRESS11/01/201800395401AP
7,064.930.007,064.93OFFICE DEPOT11/01/201800395402AP
2,118.150.002,118.15ORKIN PEST CONTROL11/01/201800395403AP
38.790.0038.79PSA PRINT GROUP11/01/201800395404AP
613.080.00613.08SHRED IT USA LLC11/01/201800395405AP
34,702.860.0034,702.86SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC11/01/201800395406AP
732.000.00732.00STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC11/01/201800395407AP
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:9
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 38
AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date
10/23/2018 through 11/5/2018
Agenda Check Register
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
AND
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Check No.
$2,491,990.13
$311,516.91
Note:
Grand Total:
Total Fire:
$2,180,473.22Total City:
*** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures
16:59:28
11/06/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:10
Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
User:
Report:
Page 39
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ames C . F rost, C ity Treasurer
INIT IAT E D B Y:L ori E . S assoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
Tamara L . L ayne, F inance D irector
S andra G. Ramirez, Management Analyst I I I
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE C E IV E AND F IL E C URRE NT I NV E S T M E NT
S C HE D UL E AS O F O C T O B E R 31, 2018.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City C ouncil receive and f ile the attached current investment schedule for the
C ity of R ancho Cucamonga as of October 31, 2018.
BACKGROUND:
T he attached investment schedule as of O ctober 31, 2018 reflects cash and investments managed by the
F inance/Treasury Management Division and is in conf ormity with the requirements of California
Government Code S ection 53601 and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s adopted I nvestment P olicy as
approved by the City Council on A pril 17, 2017.
ANALY S IS:
T he City Treasurer is required to submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council in accordance
with C alif ornia Government Code Section 53646. T he quarterly investment report is required to be
submitted within 30 days f ollowing the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the C ity
Treasurer has elected to provide this report on a monthly basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Portfolio Management - P ortf olio Summary October 31, 2018
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L . L ayne, F inance D irector
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE C E I V E AND F IL E Q UART E RLY F I NANC IAL
UP D AT E F O R T HE F I RS T Q UART E R O F F IS C AL Y E AR 2018/19.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City C ouncil receive and f ile the attached Quarterly F inancial Update for the
F irst Quarter of F iscal Year 2018/19.
BACKGROUND:
On a quarterly basis, the F inance D irector provides the City Council with a brief update on the budgetary
performance of the C ity’s operating f unds which include the C ity G eneral F und (F und 001), the L ibrary
F und (F und 290), and the F ire District Operating F unds (F unds 281, 282, and 283).
ANALY S IS:
T he Quarterly F inancial Report provides budget and year-to-date actuals (including encumbrances) of both
revenues and expenditures for the City’s operating f unds. Overall, the City’s operating budget for
expenditures is perf orming well as of the end of the first fiscal quarter and is consistent with the prior year.
T he C ity is experiencing some delays in the receipt of its sales tax revenue due to the State’s
implementation of a new sof tware platf orm for its sales tax revenue collection. However, Transient
Occupancy Tax (TO T ) revenues continue to strengthen with increases in the C ity’s hotel occupancy rate
and average daily rate (A D R ) compared to the prior year. Generally, revenues are on track or slightly ahead
of projections and expenditures are on track with or slightly below historical norms. Once additional
revenues are received during the second quarter, the revenue components of the C ity’s operating budget
can be further analyzed. See attached report f or additional details.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Providing the C ity C ouncil with regular financial updates on the City's operating budget supports the
C ouncil's ef f orts to develop mid-range and long-term goals and vision f or the City by providing meaningful,
Page 52
timely information upon which they can base their current and future decisions that impact the C ity's
finances.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Quarterly F inancial Update
Page 53
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Quarterly Financial Update
First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018/19
P a g e 1 | 3
OVERVIEW
This report summarizes the City’s overall financial position
for the current fiscal year through September 30, 2018.
The focus of this report is the City’s operating budget
which is comprised of the City General Fund, the Library
Fund, and the Fire District Operating Funds. The revenue
projections and budgets include necessary adjustments
for encumbrances, carryovers, and any supplemental
appropriations made by the City Council as of September
30, 2018.
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Financial Condition. With 25% of the
year complete, General Fund expenditures are at 26% of
projections (consistent with the prior year) and revenues
are at 9% (compared to 8% in the prior year). Revenues
are typically lower during the first fiscal quarter due to the
timing of certain key revenues such as franchise fees,
property tax, and sales tax.
The expenditures budget and YTD actual figures above
include carryover purchase orders from the prior fiscal
year. Excluding the carryover purchase orders and the
planned usage of reserves to purchase dental/x-ray
equipment for the Animal Center, the City adopted a
balanced budget for Fiscal Year 2018/19.
Expenditures. The YTD actual figure above for
expenditures incorporates all General Fund divisions,
including non-departmental divisions such as General
Overhead. For purposes of departmental analysis, these
non-departmental divisions are excluded from the
following chart.
Departmental operating expenditures (including
outstanding purchase orders/encumbrances) are
generally consistent with the prior year and on target as
of the end of the first fiscal quarter.
The following chart summarizes budgetary performance
by department:
Factors contributing to a slightly higher percentage
expended/encumbered in the departmental budgets
include the following: 1) some contracts cover the entire
fiscal year and must be fully encumbered with a purchase
order at the beginning of the fiscal year; and 2) certain
overhead cost allocations are completely allocated at the
beginning of the fiscal year. Additionally, the Economic
and Community Development Department has a large
carryover purchase order included in their YTD figure for
the preparation of a conceptual design and mixed-use
zone refinements for the Foothill Corridor, causing their
percentage expended/encumbered to be higher than
normal.
Top Seven Revenues. The City’s top seven revenues
account for about 92% of total General Fund revenues
(consistent with the prior year). Following is a summary
of these revenues as of the end of the first fiscal quarter:
General Fund Budget* YTD Actual* Percent
Revenues 83,919,400$ 7,910,455$ 9%
Expenditures 85,375,312$ 21,957,488$ 26%
*Includes carryover purchase orders.
Top Seven Revenues Budget
YTD
Actual
%
Received
Sales Tax 30,954,480 2,555,416 8%
Vehicle license fees* 19,135,120 - 0%
Franchise fees 6,663,600 - 0%
Property tax 9,023,180 137,496 2%
Development fees 3,830,000 1,301,848 34%
Business licenses 2,717,200 755,314 28%
Trans. occupancy taxes 4,505,800 1,039,134 23%
*Includes Property tax in-lieu of VLF
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 54
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Quarterly Financial Update
First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018/19
P a g e 2 | 3
Sales Tax. Revenues as of the quarter ended September
30, 2018 are at 8% of budget (compared to 6% in the
prior year). The percentage is lower than 25% as of the
first fiscal quarter’s end due to the timing of our receipts
from the State and the County. As of the end of the first
fiscal quarter, we have received one month’s allocation of
sales tax revenues from the State and two months’
allocation of Prop 172 revenues. In the prior year, we
had received one month’s allocation of Prop 172 revenues
as of the end of the first quarter.
While the City’s first quarter revenues for sales tax appear
to be reasonable, there is a bigger problem brewing in the
background for sales tax in California as a whole. Back in
May 2018, the CDTFA transitioned to a new software
platform for its sales tax revenue collection. Due to issues
with the software implementation, actual receipts for
sales tax are significantly below estimates for the second
quarter of 2018 and are anticipated to continue to be
understated for the third quarter of 2018. This is due to
delayed funding and partial funding of local tax payments
for thousands of taxpayer accounts. Many businesses are
unable to report their quarterly sales tax information in
the new system and some are submitting paper sales tax
returns along with their payments, which have yet to be
processed by the State due to inadequate staffing levels.
In most cases, the State is holding the money remitted by
taxpayers but it is unable to determine which local
jurisdictions the money should go to at this time.
The City’s sales tax consultant has provided the City with
its best estimate of the revenue shortfall that has yet to
be remitted for the second quarter of 2018. This has been
used to record revenue back to June 30, 2018 for the
City’s annual financial report. However, the software
issue continues to present a problem for estimating
revenues for the third quarter of 2018. After reviewing
unprocessed returns and approximating the full amounts
of partial payments, the consultant estimates that once
all returns are properly processed and the data adjusted
to reflect actual quarter receipts, it appears our sales tax
revenues are continuing to grow modestly from the prior
year which will be in line with budget for the fiscal year.
City management is reaching out to our legislative
advocate to put pressure on the CDTFA on behalf of
Rancho Cucamonga and other large sales tax entities to
get the software issue fixed sooner rather than later. We
will keep you updated as this issue continues to evolve.
Vehicle License Fees (VLF). As of the end of the first fiscal
quarter, we have not received a disbursement of VLF from
the State which is consistent with the prior year. The VLF
relates to excess amounts collected by the State for the
prior fiscal year, and it has typically been received during
the second quarter of our fiscal year. We will receive
property tax in-lieu of VLF from the County in January and
May. No significant variance from budget is anticipated
at this time.
Franchise Fees. We will not receive the largest
components of franchise fee revenues – payments from
Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas
Company – until April 2019. Franchise fees from waste
management and cable are remitted approximately 30
days after the end of each quarter. As such, no revenues
have been received as of September 30, 2018 for the
current fiscal year, which is consistent with the prior fiscal
year.
Property Tax. The first major apportionment of taxes will
occur in December. Included in the property tax budget
is post-RDA property tax revenue of $2,041,430. This
portion of the City’s property taxes will be received in
January and June as part of the County of San
Bernardino’s distribution of the Redevelopment Property
Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF).
Development Fees. Development revenues for building
permits and plan check fees are coming in as anticipated
with collection percentages of 23.78% and 25.14%,
respectively. Engineering fees are coming in at a much
faster pace than anticipated during the first quarter with
collections at 73.67% of budget. However, it is
anticipated that these revenues will level out during the
remainder of the fiscal year and will be in line with budget
by fiscal year end. Planning fees are at a collection
percentage of 16.9% due to the planned fee increase that
will take place on January 1st. Revenues for the year are
anticipated to be in line with budget. It should be noted
that development fees are not received in a linear or
proportional manner throughout the fiscal year.
Business Licenses. Business license revenues are slightly
ahead of projections with a collection percentage of 28%
compared to 24% in the prior year. The peak of the
renewals is not received until January.
Transient Occupancy Taxes. TOT revenues are
performing consistently with the prior year with a
collection percentage of 23% compared to 22% in the
prior year. Based on the September 2018 Lodging
Report, the City’s hotel occupancy rate is at 82.5%, up
Page 55
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Quarterly Financial Update
First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018/19
P a g e 3 | 3
2.4% over the prior year. Additionally, our average daily
rate (ADR), which is the cost per night for hotel rooms in
the City, is at $136.02, up 4.8% over the prior year.
Overall, our strong occupancy rate and ADR should
enable the City to meet its anticipated TOT revenue for
the year, even considering the slightly delayed opening of
one of the newest hotels in the City.
LIBRARY FUND
Library Fund Financial Condition. As of the end of
the first fiscal quarter, Library revenues are at 4% of
projections (compared to 3% in the prior year) and
expenditures are at 41% (compared to 38% in the prior
year). The prior year’s budget included the replacement
of the Bookmobile in the amount of $250,000 which was
not yet expended as of the end of the first quarter. This
resulted in a lower percentage of the overall budget being
expended/encumbered in the prior year.
Property tax makes up approximately 87% of the Library
Fund’s revenues (compared to 85% in the prior year). As
noted above, the first major apportionment of taxes will
occur in December. The Library’s property tax revenues,
however, also include a statutory pass-through from the
former Redevelopment Agency. This pass-through
represents approximately 36.5% of the Library’s property
tax revenues and will be received in January and June as
part of the County’s distribution of the Redevelopment
Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF). Also included in the
property tax budget is post-RDA property tax revenue of
$140,340. These revenues will also be distributed from
the RPTTF.
It should be noted that this is the first quarter that reflects
the Library’s elimination of Library Fines and Fees, which
has had a very positive impact on circulation.
Library expenditures are on target as budgeted. As in the
General Fund, expenditures are slightly higher than 25%
at the end of the first quarter due to the fact that some
contracts cover the entire fiscal year and must be fully
encumbered with a purchase order at the beginning of
the fiscal year, and certain overhead cost allocations are
completely allocated at the beginning of the fiscal year.
FIRE DISTRICT
Fire District Financial Condition. With 25% of the
year complete, Fire District operating revenues are at 4%
of projections (compared to 2% in the prior year) and
expenditures are at 22% (consistent with the prior year).
Property tax comprises approximately 91% of the Fire
District’s operating revenues (consistent with the prior
year) which includes the General Fund, CFD 85-1, and
CFD 88-1. The first major apportionment of taxes will
occur in December. Included in the property tax budget
is post-RDA property tax revenues of $5,761,500. This
amount represents a statutory pass-through from the
former Redevelopment Agency. The full amount of the
pass-through is allocated on a percentage basis between
the Fire District’s operating funds and its capital fund
based upon the operating budget needs of the Fire District
each fiscal year. As noted above, RPTTF revenues will be
received in January and June.
The Fire District’s expenditures are on track as of the end
of the first fiscal quarter.
SUMMARY
Overall, the City’s operating budget for expenditures is
performing well as of the end of the first fiscal quarter
and is consistent with the prior year. Generally, revenues
are on track or slightly ahead of projections and
expenditures are on track with or slightly below historical
norms. Once additional revenues are received during the
second quarter, the revenue components of the City’s
operating budget can be further analyzed.
Library Fund Budget* YTD Actual* Percent
Revenues 5,101,650$ 194,686$ 4%
Expenditures 5,174,495$ 2,122,621$ 41%
*Includes carryover purchase orders.
Fire District Budget* YTD Actual* Percent
Revenues 35,859,340$ 1,280,179$ 4%
Expenditures 35,875,921$ 8,058,283$ 22%
*Includes carryover purchase orders.
Page 56
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:W illiam W ittkopf , P ublic Works S ervices Director
Dean R odia, P arks and L andscape Maintenance S uperintendent
Ruth C ain, C P P B, Procurement Manager
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O P URC HAS E “F E RT IL I ZE R AND P E S T I C ID E S
S UP P L IE S O N AN AS NE E D E D B AS I S ” F RO M S IM P L O T, TARG E T
S P E C IALT Y P RO D UC T S , AND S I T E O NE S UP P LY IN AN AM O UNT NO T T O
E X C E E D $140,000 F O R F IS C AL Y E AR 18/19.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the City Council award the purchase of “F ertilizer and Pesticides Supplies on an A s
Needed B asis” f rom S implot, Target Specialty P roducts, and S ite One S upply, in accordance with
R equest for Bids (R F B) #18/19-106, in an amount not to exceed $140,000 for F iscal Year 18/19.
BACKGROUND:
T he P ublic Works S ervices Department applies f ertilizer and pesticides in the parks and landscape areas
throughout the City. T he use of general and specialized f ertilizers helps to improve plant and turf health.
T he properly scheduled distribution of these fertilizers will stimulate healthy root and plant structure growth.
Having several vendors who can provide the C ity with approved pesticides helps reduce and/or eliminate
unwanted pests and weeds that can impact the C ity’s overall landscape health and appearance. I t will also
reduce the public’s exposure to pest related injuries such as Red F ire A nts or Goathead weeds in our
parks, landscape areas, and paseos. Having the capability to purchase on an “as needed basis” through a
variety of vendors will support the Department’s goal of responding rapidly and with the appropriate
materials to achieve their application goals each day throughout the year and eliminates the liability impacts
associated with the storage of these materials.
ANALY S IS:
T he P ublic Works Services D epartment provided the P rocurement D ivision with specifications f or review
and to determine the best method of procurement. T he Procurement D ivision prepared and posted a
formal R equest for B ids (R F B ) #18/19-106 for “F ertilizer and P esticides S upplies on an A s Needed
Basis” to the City’s automated procurement system. T his bid was solicited as a split award to provide the
greatest flexibility in staff’s ability to f ind the supplies needed at the best price. T here was a total of twenty-
five (25) vendors who were notif ied and ten (10) prospective bidders that downloaded the solicitation
documentation. T hree (3) bid responses were received. A ll applicable bid documentation is on f ile in the
C ity’s electronic bidding system and can be accessed through the City’s website. A copy of R F B #18/19-
106 is attached for ref erence.
Page 57
FISCAL IMPACT:
T he contract price is within the contract services budget line items in the approved budget f or F Y 2018/19.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
T he provision of well-maintained landscape reinforces the C ity’s position as the premier community in the
inland region.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - R F B #18/19-106
Page 58
REQUEST FOR BIDS (“RFB”) #18/19‐106
FOR
FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Procurement Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Deadline for Submissions: August 1, 2018 at 3:00 pm
Attachment 1 - RFB #18/19-106
Page 59
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 2 of 14
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter the “City”), is inviting Request for Bid (“RFB”) responses to
the City’s RFB # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticide Supplies in accordance with the “Specifications
Worksheet, Exhibit B” attached herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFB solicitation must be
registered as a Vendor on the City’s Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the
City’s website at www.cityofrc.us.
Schedule of Events:
Post RFB August 1, 2018
Questions Due August 13, 2018 by 12:00 pm
Addendum Issued August 15, 2018
RFB Response Due Date August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm
Letter of Intent to Award TBD
Anticipated Award Date TBD
(The City reserves the right to change the schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.)
1.2 BUSINESS LICENSE
The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business
License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase
Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in
the performance of duties required under this RFB and will provide copies of licenses/certifications
immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract.
1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS
Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFB or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent
of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing to the applicable Procurement
contact identified herein. All questions must be in writing and no responsibility will be accepted for oral
instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and
shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFB.
1.4 CONTINGENCIES
This RFB should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services but is a Request for Bid
in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract.
However, RFB responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a
Contract based on the RFB response(s) that are pursued should the City decide to do so.
Page 60
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 3 of 14
Completion of this RFB form and its associated Appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may
disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit signed, RFB responses by the due date
and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non‐responsive if the above requirements are
not submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to discard
the response and rebid the RFB.
Any Scope of Work, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this
RFB and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order
(the “Effective Date”), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City has
accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written
agreement signed by both parties.
1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
All questions or clarification requests must be submitted directly through the bid system on or before
August 13, 2018 by 12:00 pm. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an
Addendum and will be posted for download from the City’s bid system in accordance with the above
“Schedule of Events”.
From the issuance date of this Request for Bid until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to
communicate with any City staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews,
demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, or
Debbie Grimes, Procurement Technician, the designated representatives of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
All materials submitted in response to the RFB solicitation will become the property of the City and will
be returned only at the City’s option and at the expense of the vendor submitting the RFB response. A
copy of the RFB response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that
a vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the
California Public Records Act should not be included in the vendor’s RFB response as it may be made
available to the public.
If a vendor’s RFB response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in
the City’s sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be
disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City does not consider such material
to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the
notation or markings. If a vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure
Page 61
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 4 of 14
exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFB response because such
information may be disclosed to the public.
1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS
The vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document
to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and
all requirements are priced in the RFB response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings,
specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor’s sole risk.
Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFB responses
and in this RFB, including any City issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City
will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the
City website; however, it is the Vendor’s responsibility to ascertain that the RFB response includes all
addenda issued prior to the RFB Due Date.
1.8 BRAND NAMES
Any reference to brand names and/or numbers in the solicitation is intended to be descriptive, but not
restrictive, unless otherwise specified. RFB responses offering equivalent items meeting the standards
of quality specified may be considered, unless other specified, providing the RFB response clearly
describes the article offered and how it differs from the referenced brand. Unless a Vendor specifies
otherwise, it is understood that the Vendor is offering a referenced brand item as specified in the
solicitation. The City reserves the right to determine whether a substitute offer is equivalent to and
meets the standards of quality indicated by the brand name references, and the City may require the
supply of additional descriptive material and a sample.
1.9 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The issuance of this RFB does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will be entered
by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to:
Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFB, or RFB procedure.
Reject any or all RFBs.
Reissue a Request for Bids.
Prior to submission deadline for RFBs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures,
including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials,
equipment or services to be provided under this RFB, or the requirements for contents or format of
the RFBs.
Page 62
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 5 of 14
The City recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service,
and the City is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFB response.
The City reserves the right to conduct pre‐award discussions and/or pre‐Contract negotiations with
any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFB responses.
Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFB by any other means.
Determine that no project will be pursued.
The City reserves the right to inspect the Vendor’s place of business prior to award or at any time
during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor’s capabilities and
qualifications.
1.10 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
The City of Rancho Cucamonga complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code
Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or
local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting
the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.
Neither a RFB in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response
to this RFB are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City 's receipt, review, evaluation or any
other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City or any
obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government
Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure
under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt,
and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to
California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City shall make a final
determination if any exemption exists for the City to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City
will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the
City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so.
2. RFB RESPONSE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The following must be received no later than the due date and time specified in the Schedule of Events.
RFB responses and associated documents must be submitted electronically through the bid system. The
Vendor is solely responsible for ensuring that the full RFB response is received by the City in accordance
with the solicitation requirements, prior to the date and time specified in the solicitation.
Page 63
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 6 of 14
2.1 SIGNED REQUEST FOR BID EXHIBITS
Completion of these Exhibits are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFB response
submittal. The following complete signed (where required) Exhibits shall be submitted electronically via
Planet Bids.
2.1.1 NON‐DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City. A
signed “Exhibit A, Conflict of Interest and Non‐Disclosure Agreement,” included herein must be
submitted.
2.1.2 SPECIFICATIONS
Vendor shall review and complete “Exhibit B, Standard Specification Form”. Vendors must indicate
compliance with specifications by a check mark or initials in the “MEETS”, “EXCEEDS”, “NO” or “N/A”.
Indicating “MEETS” to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating “NO” will mean an
exception is being taken this includes submitting a bid for an alternate product. All exceptions must
be fully explained on a separate page titled “EXCEPTIONS”, giving reference to the page and
specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will result
in the response being rejected.
2.1.3 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. The Vendor
understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the response to be considered
non‐responsive. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify, download and
review the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this
RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and shall become part of any final Contract that may be
derived from this RFB. Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of
signature on “Exhibit C, Addendum Acknowledgement Form”, and must be included with the
Vendor RFB response.
2.1.4 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE
It is hereby understood that other governmental entities, such as cities, counties, and special school
districts may utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response
price. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation.
Any such piggy‐back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City is not an agent,
partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that
may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy‐back procurement. Each public agency shall
Page 64
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 7 of 14
accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments to the Vendor. A signed “Exhibit
D, Participation Clause”, must be included with the Vendor RFB response.
2.1.5 VENDOR CERTIFICATION
Vendors must verify by way of signature to “Exhibit E, Vendor Certification Form” that Vendor nor
any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or
federal government agency, and that neither Vendor not any of its proposed subcontractors are tax
delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the
RFB response.
2.1.6 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY
Completion of this RFB form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. Failure to do so may
disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit responses by the due date and time
as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non‐responsive if the above requirements are not
submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to return
the RFB to the Vendor. An “Exhibit F, Signature of Authority”, must be included with the Vendor
RFB response.
Page 65
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 8 of 14
“EXHIBIT A”
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON‐DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the
appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City Contracts, including, but not
limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements (“PSA”) with potential Vendors.
I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information regarding RFB responses received in response to
the RFB #18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides.
I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any
RFB response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not
limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFB
response, or removal of same from designated areas.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and
agree to be bound by commitments contained herein.
______________________________________ (Print Name)
______________________________________ (Relationship to the City)
______________________________________ (Relationship to the Consultant)
______________________________________ (Signature)
______________________________________ (Date)
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
Page 66
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 9 of 14
“EXHIBIT B”
SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET
Vendors must indicate compliance with specifications by check mark or initials in the “MEETS”, “EXCEEDS” or
“NO”. Indicating “MEETS” to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating “NO” will mean an exception
is being taken. All exceptions must be fully explained on a separate page titled “EXCEPTIONS”, giving reference
to the page and specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will
result in the RFB response being rejected.
SPECIFICATIONS MEETS EXCEEDS N/A NO COMMENTS
Product Availability:
All specified products must be readily
available for pick‐up or delivery at the
City’s discretion within ten (10)
business days from placement of the
order.
Product must be readily available for
delivery or customer pick up at any of
the Vendor locations within the above‐
mentioned timeframe.
Alternate Product Submission:
Alternate Products are those products
that have a different formula than what
is called out in item description. Those
Products will require the submittal of a
product label and SDS with the bid
response.
These products also must be labeled for
the City’s consumer market (i.e. Turf
and Ornamental and/or Right‐of‐Way).
Finally, alternate products with a
differing formula from what is called out
in the item description must be
approved by a DPR licensed or certified
City staff member.
When Delivery is required, deliver to:
Page 67
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 10 of 14
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate
Yard, 9153 9th St.,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Receiving hours are between the hours
of 6:30am and 3:30pm Mon – Thu.
Please note:
The quantities listed are estimated
annual amounts and may or may not be
procured during the 18/19 fiscal year.
Order quantities are not guaranteed,
and purchases are made on an as
needed basis only.
Pricing must be valid through June 30,
2019. Price increases will not be
accepted during this period, no
exceptions will be made.
Page 68
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 11 of 14
“EXHIBIT C”
ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Vendor hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFB have been received, if any.
Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFB response to be considered
non‐responsive. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to log into the Bid system to identify and download the number
of addenda that have been posted.
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Printed Name
___________________________________
Title
___________________________________
Date
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
Page 69
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 12 of 14
“EXHIBIT D”
PARTICIPATION CLAUSE
It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may
utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response price for a period of
________ days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation.
Any such piggy‐back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is
not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts
that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy‐back procurement. Each public agency shall accept
sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendor.
Successful Vendor will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify.
YES __________ NO _________
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
Page 70
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 13 of 14
“EXHIBIT E”
VENDOR CERTIFICATION FORM
I certify that neither __________________ (Vendor) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under
suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendor nor any of its
proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California.
I acknowledge that if Vendor or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or
debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendor or any of its subcontractors subsequently
become delinquent in California taxes, our Bid may be disqualified.
___________________________________
Signature
___________________________________
Printed Name
___________________________________
Title
___________________________________
Date
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
Page 71
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Request for Bids (“RFB”) # 18/19‐106 for Fertilizer and Pesticides
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Submittals Due: August 21, 2018, by 3:00 pm Page 14 of 14
“EXHIBIT F”
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY
The undersigned firm declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and
conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFB response is accepted, to furnish all material in
accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost
amounts set forth in the following RFB response. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY DEEM YOUR RFB RESPONSE AS NON‐
RESPONSIVE.
Company Name: Address:
(Street, Su. # City, State, Zip)
Telephone #:
Fax #:
E‐mail address: Web Address:
Authorized Representative: (print) Title:
Signature: Date:
Must be included in final RFB submittal.
Page 72
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AC C E P T P UB L I C IM P RO V E M E NT S AT 12400
ARRO W RO UT E P E R IM P RO V E M E NT AG RE E M E NT RE L AT E D T O C AS E
NO. D RC2016-00726 (S T O RM D RAIN IM P RO V E M E NT S) AS C O M P L E T E,
F IL E T HE NO T IC E O F C O M P L E T I O N, AND AUT HO RIZE T HE RE L E AS E
O F B O ND S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council:
1. A pp ro ve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of
C ase No. D R C2016-00726 (S torm Drain I mprovements) and authorize the City Engineer to file the
appropriate Notice of Completion;
2. R elease F aithful P erformance Bond #S UR0043457 and accept Maintenance B ond #S UR0047496
for the associated public improvements; and
3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance B ond one year f ollowing the
filing of the Notice of C ompletion if the improvements remain f ree f rom defects in material and
workmanship.
BACKGROUND:
C ase No. D R C 2016-00726 was approved by the P lanning C ommission on J une 26, 2017, for the
construction of a 611,573 square f oot warehouse building on 26.63 acres in the General I ndustrial (G I )
D istrict, located at 12400 A rrow Route. T his approval included conditions to construct certain public street,
storm drain, and landscape improvements. An improvement agreement and securities were approved by
the City C ouncil on D ecember 6, 2017 in order to ensure construction of the public storm drain
improvements. I n order to coordinate construction operations, the developer requested and was
approved to proceed with the storm drain improvements under a separate improvement agreement.
Acceptance of all other public improvements will be considered under a separate item at a later date.
ANALY S IS:
All public storm drain improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisf action
of the City E ngineer. T he public improvements will be re-inspected in approximately nine months to ensure
they remain in good order prior to release of the maintenance bond.
Page 73
Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, I P T A rrow R oute D C L P, submitted
F aithful Performance Bond #S UR0043457 in the amount of $ 261,500.00 to ensure satisfactory
completion of the improvements. W ith the completion of the improvements this bond is no longer required,
and the developer has submitted Maintenance B ond #S UR 0047496 to secure maintenance of the
improvements through the one-year warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing Premier Community Status through the construction of high quality public improvements.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 74
Case No. DRC2016-00726
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 75
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AC C E P T P UB L IC IM P RO V E M E NT S AT T HE
NO RT HWE S T C O RNE R O F HE RM O S A AV E NUE AND 6T H S T RE E T
RE L AT E D T O C AS E NO. D RC2016-00522 AS C O M P L E T E , F IL E T HE
NO T I C E O F C O M P L E T I O N, AND AUT HO RI ZE T HE RE L E AS E O F B O ND S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of
C ase No. D R C2016-00522 and authorize the C ity E ngineer to f ile the appropriate Notice of
C ompletion;
2. R elease F aithf ul P erformance B ond No. 4412670 and accept a Maintenance Cash D eposit (C heck
No. 1312) for the associated public improvements; and
3. Authorize the City E ngineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Cash Deposit one year
following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain f ree from defects in
material and workmanship.
BACKGROUND:
C ase No. D R C2016-00522 was approved by the P lanning Commission on J anuary 25, 2017, f or the
construction of a 102,530 square foot warehouse building on 4.78 acres in the General I ndustrial (G I )
D istrict located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and 6th S treet. T his approval included
conditions to construct certain public improvements including street, sidewalk, street trees, and
landscaping improvements. Following the P lanning Commission's approval, on October 4, 2017, the C ity
C ouncil approved an improvement agreement and securities to ensure construction of the required public
improvements.
ANALY S IS:
All public improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisfaction of the C ity
E ngine er. T he public improvements will be re-inspected in approximately nine months to ensure they
remain in good order prior to release of the maintenance bond.
Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, P helan Development C ompany, L L C,
Page 76
submitted F aithful Perf ormance Bond No. 4412670 in the amount of $161,600 to ensure satisfactory
completion of the improvements. W ith the completion of the improvements this bond is no longer required,
and the developer has submitted a Maintenance Cash Deposit (C heck No. 1312) to secure maintenance
of the improvements through the one-year warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing Premier Community Status through the construction of high quality public improvements.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 77
Case No. DRC2016-00522
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 78
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AC C E P T P UB L IC IM P RO V E M E NT S O N T HE WE S T
S I D E O F E AS T AV E NUE , S O UT H O F WIL S O N AV E NUE RE L AT E D T O
T RAC T 16113 AS C O M P L E T E , F IL E T HE NO T IC E O F C O M P L E T IO N AND
AUT HO RI ZE T HE RE L E AS E O F B O ND S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of Tract
16113 and authorize the City E ngineer to file the appropriate Notice of C ompletion;
2. R elease F aithf ul P erformance B ond No. 758971S and accept Maintenance B ond No. 758971S-1
for the associated public improvements; and
3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance B ond one year f ollowing the
filing of the Notice of C ompletion if the improvements remain f ree f rom defects in material and
workmanship.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract 16113 was approved by the Planning C ommission on J une 27, 2001, f or a subdivision of
23 parcels on 17.2 acres of land located on the west side of E ast Avenue, south of W ilson Avenue. T his
approval included conditions to construct certain public improvements including street, landscape, and
storm drain improvements. F ollowing the Planning C ommission's approval, on J uly 21, 2004, the C ity
C ouncil approved an improvement agreement and securities to ensure the construction of the required
public improvements. On J uly 20, 2016, the City C ouncil approved R esolution 16-110 authorizing the
reduction in improvement securities f or Tract 16113 submitted by Desert C andle, L P.
ANALY S IS:
All public improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisfaction of the C ity
E ngine er. T he public improvements will be re-inspected in approximately nine months to ensure they
remain in good order prior to release of the maintenance bond.
Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, D esert C andle, L P, submitted F aithf ul
Perf ormance Bond No. 758971S in the amount of $ 71,800 to ensure satisfactory completion of the
Page 79
improve me nts . W ith the completion of the improvements this bond is no longer required, and the
developer has submitted Maintenance B ond No. 758971S-1 to secure maintenance of the improvements
through the one-year warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing Premier Community Status through the construction of high quality public improvements.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 80
ATTACHMENT 1
Tract 16113
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
Page 81
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AC C E P T P UB L IC I M P RO V E M E NT S O N T HE E AS T
S I D E O F E AS T AV E NUE , S O UT H O F WIL S O N AV E NUE RE L AT E D T O
T RAC T 16114 AS C O M P L E T E , F I L E T HE NO T IC E O F C O M P L E T IO N, AND
AUT HO RI ZE T HE RE L E AS E O F B O ND S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of Tract
16114 (S torm D rain I mprovements) and authorize the City E ngineer to file the appropriate Notice of
C ompletion;
2. R elease Faithful P erformance B ond No's. 758972S and 758973S and accept Maintenance B ond
No's. 758972 S -1 and 758973 S -1 f or the associated public improvements; and
3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance B ond one year f ollowing the
filing of the Notice of C ompletion if the improvements remain f ree f rom defects in material and
workmanship.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Tract 16114 was approved by the P lanning C ommission on A pril 26, 2006, for a subdivision of
21 lots on 15.15 acres of land located on the east side of E ast Avenue, south of W ilson Avenue. T his
approval included conditions to construct certain public improvements including street, landscape, and storm
drain improvements. F ollowing P lanning Commission's approval, on December 20, 2006, an improvement
agreement and securities were approved by the City C ouncil for construction of the public improvements.
On J uly 20, 2016, the C ity Council approved R esolution 16-111 authorizing a reduction in improvement
securities for Tract 16114 submitted by D esert Candle, L P.
ANALY S IS:
All public improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisfaction of the C ity
E ngine er. T he public improvements will be re-inspected in approximately nine months to ensure they
remain in good order prior to release of the maintenance bond.
Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, D esert C andle, L P, submitted F aithf ul
Perf ormance B ond No's. 758972S and 758973S in the amounts of $123,000 and $332,000, respectively,
Page 82
to ensure satisfactory completion of the improvements. W ith the completion of the improvements these
bonds are no longer required, and the developer has submitted Maintenance B ond No's. 758972 S -1 and
758973S-1 to secure maintenance of the improvements through the one-year warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing Premier Community Status through the construction of high quality public improvements.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 83
ATTACHMENT 1
Tract 16114
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
Page 84
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O O RD E R ANNE X AT I O N T O T HE L AND S C AP E
M AI NT E NANC E D IS T RIC T NO. 1 AND S T RE E T L I G HT M AINT E NANC E
D IS T RIC T S NO'S . 1 AND 2 F O R C AS E NO. P M T 2018-03742, L O C AT E D AT
7950 O RC HARD S T RE E T.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the C ity Council approve the attached resolutions ordering the annexation of the
subject property to L andscape Maintenance D istrict No. 1 and S treet L ight Maintenance D istricts No.'s 1
and 2.
BACKGROUND:
C ase No. P MT2018-03742 was submitted f or approval through B uilding & S af ety on September 11,
2018, f or the construction of a 948 square-f oot detached A ccessory D welling Unit (A D U), 96 square-foot
covered patio, and 585 square-f oot garage located at 7950 Orchard S treet.
ANALY S IS:
As part of the review and approval process for this project, the owner and applicant, Aaron Stafford has signed
and submitted a consent and waiver form to join Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (L MD 1) and Street
Light Maintenance District No.'s 1 and 2 (S L D 1 and SL D 2), which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
T his item would annex the subject property into L andscape Maintenance District L MD 1 and S treet
L ighting Districts S L D 1 and S L D 2 providing additional annual revenue in the following amounts to these
districts:
L MD No. 1 $92.21
S L D No. 1 $17.77
S L D No. 2 $39.97
T his development does not add new street lights or street trees f or maintenance by the districts.
Page 85
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing premier community status by ensuring that streetlights and landscaping in L MD 1, S L D 1, and
S L D 2 are properly maintained.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - R esolution L MD 1
Attachment 3 - R esolution S L D 1
Attachment 4 - R esolution S L D 2
Page 86
ATTACHMENT 1
PMT2018-03742
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
Page 87
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. XX-XXX – Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY) FOR
PROJECT CASE NO. PMT2018-03742
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act
of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
(the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance
District No. 1 (General City) (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of
additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of
resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority
protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within
the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of
territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”)
establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply
to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such
District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the
“Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to
finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the
“Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed
forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance
District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and
Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly
waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of
the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the
District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article
XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory
set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared
support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual
assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and
Page 88
Resolution No. XX-XXX – Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory
from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the
maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements;
(2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of
the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory.
(3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory
to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts
not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the
Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional
special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship
to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement.
c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of
the proposed annual assessments.
SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to
the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds
of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of
annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in
Exhibit C.
SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all
assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2018.
Page 89
Resolution No. XX-XXX – Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed
The Owner of the Property is:
STAFFORD, AARON M
The legal description of the Property is:
TRACT 7104 LOT 24
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
1061-741-19-0000
Page 90
Resolution No. XX-XXX – Page 4 of 5
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City):
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1(General City) (the “Maintenance District”) represents
various landscaped areas, parks and community trails located at various sites throughout the City.
These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. As such, the parcels
within this District do not represent a distinct district area as do the other LMD’s within the City.
Typically, new parcels within this District have been annexed upon development.
The various sites maintained by the District consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street
trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East
and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park,
and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park.
Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. PMT2018-03742:
None
Page 91
Resolution No. XX-XXX – Page 5 of 5
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Landscape Maintenance District No.1 (General City):
The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2018/19. The following
table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City)
for PMT2018-03742:
Land Use
Basis
EBU*
Factor
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $92.21
Multi-Family Residential Unit 0.50 92.21
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 92.21
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
1 Parcels x 1 EBU Factor x $92.21 Rate per EBU = $92.21 Annual Assessment
Page 92
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR
PMT2018-03742
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act
of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
(the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance
District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of
additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of
resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority
protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within
the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of
territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”)
establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply
to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such
District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the
“Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to
finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the
“Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed
forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance
District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and
Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly
waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of
the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the
District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article
XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory
set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared
support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual
assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and
Page 93
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory
from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the
maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements;
(2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of
the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory.
(3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory
to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts
not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the
Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional
special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship
to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement.
c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of
the proposed annual assessments.
SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to
the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds
of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of
annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in
Exhibit C.
SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all
assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2018.
Page 94
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed
The Owner of the Property is:
STAFFORD, AARON M
The legal description of the Property is:
TRACT 7104 LOT 24
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
1061-741-19-0000
Page 95
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 4 of 5
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets):
Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to
fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial
streets throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the
City.
The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on
arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City.
Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project PMT2018-03742:
None
Page 96
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 5 of 5
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets):
The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2018/19. The following
table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets)
for PMT2018-03742:
Land Use
Basis
EBU
Factor*
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $17.77
Multi-Family Residential Parcel 1.00 17.77
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 17.77
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
1 Parcels x 1 EBU Factor x $17.77 Rate per EBU = $17.77 Annual Assessment
Page 97
ATTACHMENT 4
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) FOR
PMT2018-03742
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act
of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California
(the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance
District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of
additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of
resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority
protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within
the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of
territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”)
establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply
to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such
District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the
“Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to
finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the
“Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed
forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance
District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and
Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly
waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of
the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the
District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article
XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory
set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared
support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual
assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and
Page 98
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also
expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory
from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the
maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements;
(2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of
the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory.
(3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory
to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts
not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the
Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional
special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the
Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship
to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement.
c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of
the proposed annual assessments.
SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to
the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds
of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of
annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in
Exhibit C.
SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all
assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2018.
Page 99
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 3 of 5
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed
The Owner of the Property is:
STAFFORD, AARON M
The legal description of the Property is:
TRACT 7104 LOT 24
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
1061-741-19-0000
Page 100
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 4 of 5
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets):
Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to fund
the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets
throughout the City but excluding those areas already in another local maintenance district.
Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue.
The sites maintained by the District consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or
a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue.
Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project PMT2018-03742:
None
Page 101
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 5 of 5
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets):
The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2018/19. The following
table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets)
for PMT2018-03742:
Land Use
Basis
EBU
Factor*
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $39.97
Multi-Family Residential Unit 1.00 39.97
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 39.97
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
1 Parcels x 1 EBU Factor x $39.97 Rate per EBU = $39.97 Annual Assessment
Page 102
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
E duardo Diaz, Assistant E ngineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AC C E P T P UB L IC I M P RO V E M E NT S O N NO RT H AND
S O UT H S ID E O F F E RO N B O UL E VARD B E T WE E N IND US T RIAL L ANE AND
HE L M S AV E NUE RE L AT E D T O C AS E NO. D RC2016-00695 AS C O M P L E T E,
F IL E T HE NO T IC E O F C O M P L E T IO N, AND AUT HO RI ZE RE L E AS E O F
B O ND S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of
C ase No. D R C2016-00695 and authorize the C ity E ngineer to f ile the appropriate Notice of
C ompletion;
2. R elease F aithful P erformance Bond #811399S and accept Maintenance B ond #811399S-1 for the
associated public improvements; and
3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance B ond one year f ollowing the
filing of the Notice of C ompletion if the improvements remain f ree f rom defects in material and
workmanship.
BACKGROUND:
C ase No. D R C2016-00695 was approved by the Planning C ommission on S eptember 28, 2017, f or the
development of a 64,510 square-foot warehouse and an 85,661 square-foot warehouse on 2.85 and 4.4
acres, respectively, in the General I ndustrial (G I ) District located on the north and south side of F eron
Boulevard between I ndustrial L ane and Helms Avenue. This approval included conditions to construct
certain public improvements including street, sidewalk, and landscape improvements. F ollowing the
Planning C ommission's approval, on December 6, 2017, the City Council approved an improvement
agreement and securities to ensure construction of the required improvements.
ANALY S IS:
All public improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisfaction of the C ity
E ngine er. T he public improvements will be re-inspected in approximately nine months to ensure they
remain in good order prior to release of the maintenance bond.
Page 103
Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, F eron Rancho C ucamonga P roperties,
L L C , submitted F aithf ul Perf ormance Bond #811399S in the amount of $ 98,000 to ensure satisfactory
completion of the improvements. W ith the completion of the improvements this bond is no longer required,
and the developer has submitted Maintenance B ond #811399 S -1 to secure maintenance of the
improvements through the one-year warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
Enhancing Premier Community Status through the construction of high quality public improvements.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Page 104
ATTACHMENT 1
Case No. DRC2016-00695
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
Page 105
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
Romeo M. D avid, Associate Engineer
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F A P URC HAS E O RD E R T O O NWARD
E NG I NE E RI NG F O R T HE D E S IG N O F T HE F I S C AL Y E AR 2018/19 AD A
AC C E S S RAM P S AT VARI O US L O C AT IO NS P RO J E C T.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the C ity C ouncil authorize issuance of a purchase order in an amount up
to $250,000 to Onward E ngineering to provide survey and design services f or the F iscal Year 2018/19
A D A Access R amps at Various L ocations project.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, a list of access ramps is developed f or compliance review against the requirements of the
Americans with Disability A ct (A D A ) design guidelines. A list of access ramps is
currently being compiled such that A D A access ramps repairs are incorporated into the upcoming street
resurf acing projects programed in F iscal Year 2018/19.
ANALY S IS:
Staf f is in the process of finalizing the list of local and non-local streets that will be scheduled for
resurf acing next summer based on the f unding available in the F iscal Year 2018/19 budget. S tate policy
requires the City to evaluate all access ramps on streets that will be resurfaced to determine if upgrades
are required to meet current A D A standards and guidelines. A s the list is finalized, the number and location
of access ramps will be identified f or construction or reconstruction. I n order to ensure that these
upgraded access ramps are in place in time for the upcoming resurf acing project, the design and survey
services of an outside consultant are required. Staf f has received a cost proposal from Onward
Engineering, one of the City's on-call engineering f irms, to provide topographic survey, design, and cost
estimation for each access ramp location. T he cost proposal is based on a per location fee of $1,400 or
$700 where topographic survey is already available. B ased on the current estimate of 142 locations, the
final design f ee is anticipated to be less than the $250,000 budget available. E nvironmental: Staf f has
determined that the project is Categorically E xempt per the C alif ornia E nvironmental Quality A ct (C E Q A )
Article 19. Categorical E xemptions. I n A ccordance with S ection 15301 “Existing Facilities” subsection (c),
C lass 1 projects consist of minor alteration of existing public f acilities, therefore, the scope of work is
considered categorically exempt from C E Q A .
Page 106
FISCAL IMPACT:
A total of $250,000 has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2018/19 for the construction of A D A-compliant
access ramps at various locations citywide. T heref ore, suf f icient funding exists to issue a purchase order
in an amount up to $250,000 to Onward E ngineering f or this design work. F unding is made available from
the Measure I Fund (F und 177) and Gas Tax R&T 7360 F und (F und 174), all of which are identified under
C apital I mprovement Project A ccount No.'s and in the amounts listed below:
A ccount N o.F unding S ource D escripon A mount
11773035650/1150177-
0
Measure I fund (177)A D A Required
Ramps
$100,000
11743035650/1150174-
0
Gas Tax R&T 7360 F und
(174)
A D A Required
Ramps
$150,000
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
T he proposed A D A access ramp design will enhance the City's position as the premier community in our
region by improving accessibility on City streets.
Page 107
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Matt Burris, D eputy C ity Manager/E conomic and C ommunity Development
S UB J E C T:D IS S O L UT I O N O F T HE C O RRID O R D E S IG N AUT HO RI T Y (210 F O O T HI L L
F RE E WAY ) J O INT P O WE RS AUT HO RI T Y.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the City C ouncil adopt the attached resolution to dissolve the Corridor Design A uthority
(210 F oothill F reeway) J oint Powers Authority and terminate the A uthority’s J oint Exercise of Powers
Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
T he Corridor Design Authority (210 F oothill F reeway) J oint P owers Authority (J PA ) was formed on
September 13, 1994 to assist cities with the planning and design of the 210 F oothill Freeway extension,
due to the importance of the freeway expansion to each city along the route. T he seven (7) cities included
in the J PA are C laremont, F ontana, L a Verne, Montclair, R ancho C ucamonga, Rialto and Upland. A f ter the
freeway was completed in November 2002, the A uthority continued meeting 4 times per year until 2010
when it agreed to meet 3 times per year.
ANALY S IS:
Attendance has steadily declined f or over seven years and the Authority has struggled to f ind reasons to
meet and topics for discussion. I n the past, the Authority addressed many on-going issues of interest
including f reeway landscaping, maintenance and billboards as well as trail issues across the foothill cities.
T he cities have also used this J PA meeting as a method of communication with C altrans in both D istricts 7
and 8 (L os A ngeles and S an Bernardino C ounties). T he A uthority was ef f ective in f acilitating a regional
approach to solving these issues associated with the new f reeway.
To such, the A uthority concluded that it has outlived its original purpose and is no longer needed. T he
Authority gave direction at their October 9, 2018 meeting to request that each C ity C ouncil f or the member
cities dissolve the J PA since the Authority is currently being used in a more informational capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
None applicable.
Page 108
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 Resolution No. X X X
Page 109
1
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ____________________ DISSOLVING THE
CORRIDOR DESIGN AUTHORITY AND TERMINATING
THE AUTHORITY’S JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT
A. RECITALS.
1. The cities of Claremont, Fontana, La Verne, Rancho Cucamonga,
Rialto, and Upland entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement on September
13, 1994, creating the Corridor Design Authority (the “Authority”) for the purpose of
jointly exercising powers for the administration of a consolidated program of design
and maintenance along the Route 30 Freeway Corridor, which is now referred to as
the 210 Foothill Freeway (the “Freeway”). The City of Montclair was later admitted
into the Authority, and together with the six cities referenced above are collectively
referred to herein as the “Cities.”
2. The Freeway was completed in November 2002 and each of the Cities has
participated in regular ongoing meetings for discussion and review of the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA).
3. The Authority has satisfied its established purpose by designing,
constructing, and providing for the on-going maintenance of the Freeway, and the Cities
now desire to terminate the Agreement and dissolve the Authority.
4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the Corridor
Design Authority, dated September 13, 1994, shall terminate upon the adoption of a
resolution of termination by each of the Cities. The date of termination shall be the
date of adoption for the most recently adopted resolution of termination. Upon
termination of the Agreement, the Authority shall cease to exist.
SECTION 3. Upon termination of the Authority, the Secretary of the Authority
shall notify the California Secretary of State, the California Controller, and the
Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino and their respective Local Area
Formation Commissions. The Secretary shall prepare any documentation required
for this purpose. The Secretary shall provide copies of all documentation to each of
Page 110
2
the Cities.
SECTION 4. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to take any
and all actions necessary for the termination of the Agreement and dissolution of the
Authority.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 20__.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Mayor
I, _____________, City Clerk of the City of _________________, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of ______________ held on the _____ day of ___________, 20__ by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
______________________
City Clerk
Page 111
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn Gillison, City Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Darryl Polk, I nnovation and Technology Director
Ruth C ain, P rocurement Manager
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E T HE US E O F A S TAT E O F C AL IF O RNI A
D E PART M E NT O F G E NE RAL S E RV IC E S (D G S) C O O P E RAT I V E
C O NT RAC T WIT H C I S C O S Y S T E M S, INC. T O P RO C URE D ATA
C O M M UNIC AT I O NS P RO D UC T S AND S E RV I C E S F RO M C O NV E RG E O NE,
I NC.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
I t is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to utilize the cooperative agreement between D G S
and Cisco S ystems, I nc., under the lead State of Utah, National A ssociation of S tate P rocurement
Officials (NA S P O)/Western S tates C ontracting Alliance (W S C A) C ooperative Purchasing Organization
Master P rice Agreement Number #A R233, f or the procurement of data communications products and
services not to exceed $200,000 in total value f or the 2018/19 F iscal Year.
BACKGROUND:
T he Department of I nnovation and Technology (D oI T ) manages and maintains the C ity’s data network,
connecting 25 C ity f acilities f or data and phone communications and serving as the access point for the
C ity’s internet services. I n 2016, the City C ouncil authorized a comprehensive rebuild of the C ity’s data
network, updating the equipment to state-of -the-art Cisco appliances allowing f or enhanced perf ormance
and security.
C onvergeOne, formerly SigmaNet, has worked with the City of R ancho Cucamonga since 2014 providing
professional and managed services for the C ity’s enterprise data network. ConvergeOne also worked
closely with the C ity of Rancho Cucamonga on the design and implementation of our current network
environment and is familiar with the architecture, methodology and configuration of the City’s networking
hardware and security services. I n 2018, the City transitioned f rom managed services, where
C onvergeOne actively monitored the C ity’s data network and provided alerting, to prof essional services
providing on-demand assistance or project-based tasking from C ity staf f overseeing the network.
ANALY S IS:
T he transition f rom managed services to professional services provides increased value to the City by
allowing incremental investment in key areas that provide the greatest impact on security and performance.
Under the new model, staf f is responsible for monitoring the performance of the network and
Page 112
troubleshooting routine problems. I n the event additional resources or expertise are needed for exigent or
large-scale issues, staf f would then enlist C onvergeOne professional services under limited scope
proposals to address that specif ic issue.
T he W S C A -NA S P O Master P rice A greement for Cisco Systems was awarded in November 2013 to a
list of qualif ied vendors supplying Cisco D ata Communications P roducts and S ervices. T he agreement is
between the S tate of California Department of General S ervices and C isco S ystems, I nc., under the lead
State of Utah and was awarded based on a competitive bid process requesting each participating vendor
to provide pre-def ined discounts based on equipment categories or discounted fixed- costs f or specif ic
devices. T his cooperative agreement expires in May 31, 2019 under its current terms and conditions.
T he D epartment of I nnovation and Technology reviewed the Master P rice A greement No. A R233 with the
C ity’s P rocurement D ivision and has determined that the terms and process of the contract meet the C ity’s
procurement standards. Utilizing the agreement for the procurement of data communications products and
services will allow for more direct interaction with the supplier, reducing the probability of errors due to
vendor substitution or interpretation of desired specifications.
All supporting documents related to this item are on f ile with the P rocurement D ivision.
FISCAL IMPACT:
F unding in the amount of $200,000 for network services was approved as part of the annual budget
process for the 2018/19 F iscal Year in A ccount No. 1001209-5300 (O&M/Computer E quipment). Staf f
plans to request similar f unding in subsequent f iscal years, using the budget approval process, to continue
providing supplemental services for network support as needed.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
T his authorization will directly support Council's overarching goal of enhancing public safety by increasing
the resiliency and ensuring performance of the C ity's mission critical data network.
Page 113
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn Gillison, City Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ennif er Hunt Gracia, Community Services D irector
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE AP P O INT M E M B E RS WI T H E X P I RI NG
T E RM S T O T HE RANC HO C UC AM O NG A C O M M UNI T Y & ART S
F O UND AT I O N B O ARD O F D IRE C T O RS.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the C ity C ouncil consider reappointing four Rancho C ucamonga Community & Arts
F oundation members to new f our year terms commencing J anuary 1, 2019 and expiring December 31,
2022.
BACKGROUND:
T he purpose of the Rancho Cucamonga C ommunity & A rts F oundation (R C C A A F) is to raise and
manage f unds to assist in the promoting and enriching the visual and performing arts at the Victoria
Gardens Cultural C enter and the community.
T he R C C A A F has one member with an expired term and three members whose terms will be expiring in
D ecember 2019. A ll four members have submitted requests to be reappointed to new four year terms.
ANALY S IS:
Al Arguello, Nick B aker, R osemarie B rown, and B ryan S nyder are enthusiastic supporters of the arts in the
community and the L ewis F amily P layhouse and look f orward to continuing to be active members of the
R ancho Cucamonga Community & A rts F oundation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
None.
Page 114
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer
L inda Ceballos, E nvironmental Programs Manager
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F O RD I NANC E NO . 941 AM E ND I NG C HAP T E R 8.17
AND 8.19 O F T HE RANC HO C UC AM O NG A M UNIC I PAL C O D E T O
I NC O RP O RAT E RE Q UIRE M E NT S RE L AT E D T O RE F US E,
RE C Y C L AB L E S, O RG ANIC S AND C O NS T RUC T I O N AND D E M O L I T I O N
WAS T E C O L L E C T I O N.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends that the City Council consider first reading of Ordinance No. 941 amending Chapters
8.17 and 8.19 of the R ancho C ucamonga Municipal Code establishing requirements related to ref use,
recyclables, organics, and construction and demolition waste collection.
BACKGROUND:
C hapter 8.17 of the Municipal Code established the requirements for residential refuse, recyclables and
green waste collection and C hapter 8.19 established the requirements for commercial and industrial
ref use, recyclables, construction, and demolition waste collection. T he last amendment to both of these
chapters occurred in 2014 during the citywide municipal code update.
ANALY S IS:
T he City is required to meet specific waste diversion and green house gas reduction goals set by the State of
California. T he changes contained in the proposed amendment will align the code with current legislation
related to these requirements. Related State mandated programs include Assembly Bill 341 which requires
mandatory recycling for businesses and multifamily complexes; Assembly Bill 1594 which redefines alternative
daily cover (i.e. organics that are used as daily landfill cover) as disposal rather than diversion; and Assembly
Bill 1826 which requires organics recycling for businesses. T here are also new industry terms and definitions
that are proposed to be incorporated into the code for clarity. Additionally, the Municipal Code sections related
to Construction and Demolition Diversion need to be updated to meet the requirements of the California Green
Building Code. T he proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 8.17 to establish requirements for residential,
commercial, and industrial refuse, recyclables, and organics collection. New requirements include Mandatory
Commercial Recycling and Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling.
C hapter 8.19 would be amended to establish requirements specific to construction and demolition waste
collection. New requirements include an increase in the waste diversion requirement f or all construction
and demolition projects, to align with the California Green Building C ode and Construction and D emolition
Page 115
Self -Haul Guidelines and P ermit. The Construction and Demolition D iversion deposits and administrative
fees that were previously incorporated into Ordinance 711, when adopted in 2003, would be removed from
the municipal code and set by resolution. A draft resolution incorporating these fees is anticipated to be
presented to the City Council for consideration on December 5, 2018. Finally, both C hapters have been
reorganized to eliminate duplication.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As mentioned above, waste diversion requirements are mandated and monitored by the State of
C alif ornia. F ailure to meet waste diversion requirements could result in the assessment of f ines on the
C ity. T he proposed ordinance and amendment of the municipal code sets the framework and procedures
identif ied by staff to meet current diversion requirements.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
None.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 941
Page 116
ATTACHMENT 1
11231-0001\2132528v10.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 941
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 8.17 (REFUSE,
RECYCLABLES AND ORGANICS COLLECTION) AND
CHAPTER 8.19 (CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
COLLECTION) OF TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 8.17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 8.17. – REFUSE, RECYCLABLES, AND ORGANICS COLLECTION
Sec. 8.17.020. - Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be
construed as hereinafter set out, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning
was intended:
Animal waste means manure or any form of solid excrement produced by any and all
forms of domestic animals or commercial livestock.
Authorized Collector means a solid waste enterprise operating under the provisions of a
Collection Agreement approved by the City Council.
Bin means a metal container with hinged lids and wheels with a capacity of less than ten
(10) cubic yards.
Bulky item means any large item that would not typically be accommodated within a cart,
including, but not limited to, appliances and furniture. Bulky items do not include car bodies, car
parts, Construction and Demolition Debris or items requiring more than two persons to move.
Cart means a plastic container with a hinged lid and wheels serviced by an automated or
semi-automated truck with a capacity of no less than thirty-two (32) and no greater than one
hundred and one (101) gallons.
City means the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
City Clerk means the city clerk of the City, or his or her designee.
City Manager means the city manager of the City, or his or her designee.
City Council means the City Council of the City.
Collection Agreement means an agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to
Section 8.17.040 of this Chapter, authorizing a solid waste enterprise to provide solid waste and
recyclables collection services within all or any part of the territory of the City.
Page 117
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 2 of 21
Commercial premises means, for the purposes of this chapter, all commercial and
industrial sites, including, but not restricted to, retail and wholesale stores, factories, service
shops, hospitals, convalescent homes, hotels, motels, restaurants, and office complexes,
however, not including residential premises.
Construction and demolition waste shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.19.020.
Container means any and all types of solid waste containers, including cans/barrels, carts,
bins and roll-off boxes.
E-waste means any electronic product nearing or at the end of its useful life, including, but
not limited to, computers and their components, televisions, VCRs, stereos, copiers and fax
machines.
ESD Director means the Engineering Services Department Director, or his or her
designee.
Engineering Services Department or ESD means the Engineering Services Department
of the City.
Food waste means all kitchen and table scraps; animal and vegetable waste that is
generated during or results from the storage, preparation, cooking or handling of food stuffs;
discarded paper that is contaminated with food waste; fruit waste, grain waste, dairy waste, meat
and fish waste.
Green waste means tree and shrubbery trimmings, vegetation matter resulting from land
clearing, grass cuttings, weeds, straw, leaves, wood chips, sawdust, garden organic materials
and other discarded plant or vegetation material.
Hazardous waste means a waste, or combination of waste which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may do either of the following:
A. Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or
B. Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment
when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise
managed.
The term “hazardous waste” includes, but is not limited to, universal waste and medical waste.
Occupants means and includes every owner of, and every tenant or person who is in
possession of, is the inhabitant of, or has the care and control of, an inhabited residence or
commercial premises.
Organic Materials or Organics mean food waste and green waste, collectively or
individually.
Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, or group or combination
acting as a unit.
Page 118
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 3 of 21
Recycling means the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting
solid waste that would otherwise be subject to disposal in a landfill, and returning it to the
economic mainstream in the form of raw materials for new, reused, or reconstituted products
which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace.
Recyclables or Recyclable Materials mean solid waste that is source separated, has some
potential economic value, and is set aside, handled, packaged, or offered for collection in a
manner different from refuse in order to allow it to be processed for recycling. The term
“recyclables” does not include refuse or hazardous waste.
Refuse means and includes any and all putrescible and non-putrescible solid and
semisolid waste, including, but not limited to, garbage, solid waste matter, trash, ashes, industrial
wastes, animal wastes, vegetable solid and semisolid wastes and combustible and
noncombustible wastes. The term “refuse” does not include source separated recyclable
materials, source separated organic materials, construction and demolition debris, bulky items,
hazardous or household hazardous waste, E-waste, universal waste, medical waste, sharps, low
level radioactive waste, or green waste.
Residential premises means each place used for residential purposes, including, but not
restricted to: single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, apartments, condominiums,
townhouses, mobile home parks, and trailer courts, whether or not utilizing dumpster-type bins,
however, not including hospitals, convalescent homes, hotels and motels.
Roll-off Box means solid waste collection containers of ten (10) yards or larger.
Scavenging means the unauthorized collection, removal, or possession of solid waste
intended for collection by the City, authorized collector or authorized recycling agent.
Sharps includes, but is not limited to, home-generated hypodermic needles, pen needles,
syringes, intravenous needles and lancets.
Solid Waste means all discarded putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid
wastes including refuse, recyclable materials, organic materials, construction and demolition
debris, bulky items, and any combination thereof which are permitted for disposal of in a Class III
landfill, and which are included in the definition of the non-hazardous solid waste set forth in the
California Code of Regulations.
Solid Waste, Recyclables, and Organics Collection Services shall mean the collection,
storage, or transfer of solid waste.
Solid Waste Collector means any solid waste enterprise engaged in the collection,
transportation and/or disposal of refuse, recyclables and/or organic waste in the City.
Solid Waste Enterprise shall mean any individual, partnership, joint venture,
unincorporated private organization, or private corporation which is regularly engaged in the
business of providing solid waste, recyclables, and organics collection services.
Streets means the public streets, ways and alleys, except state freeways, as the same
now or may hereafter exist within the City.
Page 119
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 4 of 21
Truck means any truck, trailer, semitrailer, conveyance or vehicle used or intended to be
used for the purpose of collecting refuse, recyclables or organics, or to haul or transport refuse,
recyclables or organics.
Universal Waste means discarded consumer products containing mercury, lead, cadmium
and other substances that are hazardous to human health and the environment, including, but
not limited to, batteries and fluorescent tubes.
Sec. 8.17.030. - Authorization of collection agreement by City Council.
The City Council may authorize, by contract, one or more solid waste enterprises to
provide solid waste and recyclables collection services for residential and commercial/industrial
users or customers, including but not limited to the collection of construction and demolition waste.
In the sole discretion of the City Council, the solid waste, recyclables, and organics collection
services may be authorized on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis, and with or without
competitive bidding, and may relate to any class or type of solid waste within all or any part of the
territory of the City.
No person or business shall collect or dispose of solid waste in the City unless that person
has entered into a collection agreement with the City, except as otherwise specifically provided in
this chapter or franchise agreement, and irrespective of any permit issued by any other
governmental agency authorizing collection of solid waste, recyclables, or organics. Any such
collection agreement shall be in addition to any business license or permit otherwise required by
this Code. Authorized collectors operating in the City on the effective date of this chapter under
a non-exclusive collection agreement may continue to operate only until the rights thereunder are
terminated or revoked, or until such rights expire pursuant to the provisions of Section 49520 of
the Public Resources Code.
Sec. 8.17.040. - Collection agreements; permits and licenses.
A. The terms and provisions of any collection agreement for solid waste and
recyclables collection services may relate to or include, without limitation such
requirements, conditions, policies and procedures as may be mutually agreed
upon by the parties to the collection agreement and which will, in the judgment and
discretion of the City Council, best serve the public interest and protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
B. Each authorized collector with a collection agreement shall pay a collector fee in
an amount set forth in the collection agreement.
C. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of a collection agreement which
is authorized and approved by the City Council and the provisions of this chapter,
the provisions of the collection agreement shall control.
D. Every authorized collector shall obtain and maintain at all times during the
authorized collector’s operations a business license issued by the City, and all
applicable permits and licenses required by any public agency having jurisdiction.
Sec. 8.17.050. - Unlawful collection; Exemptions.
Page 120
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 5 of 21
It is unlawful for any person to collect or transport solid waste (as defined in section
8.17.020) within the City unless such person is an authorized collector, as defined in this chapter,
or is exempted as outlined in subsections A through E below. It is unlawful for any person to
permit, allow or enter into any agreement whatsoever for the collection or transportation of solid
waste from any residential premises, commercial premises, or construction or demolition project
with any person who is not an authorized collector as herein defined except as permitted in
subsections A through E below.
Medical waste (as defined in the Medical Waste Management Act, Health and Safety Code
Section 117600 et seq., as amended from time to time, or any successor provision or provisions
thereto) shall not be collected by an authorized collector. Anyone producing or possessing
medical wastes shall store, handle and dispose of such materials only in the manner approved
by the county health officer or designated deputy, and in accordance with the Health and Safety
Code.
The collection or transport of the following are exempt from the obligation to utilize an
authorized collector:
A. The collection and removal of recyclables for donation or sale by the owner or
occupant of a residential or commercial premises that are separated either for
reuse, for processing at recycling facilities, or for manufacture of new products.
No cost or fees of any sort, including those for hauling, processing, sorting, or use
of containers may be charged by the recycler, non-profit, or agency collecting the
recyclables.
B. The occasional removal and disposal of solid waste from a residential or
commercial premises by the occupant or owner thereof.
C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent any occupant from regularly collecting and
disposing of solid waste generated in or on the occupant’s premises, as an
alternative to receiving, and paying for solid waste collection services from an
authorized collector; provided, however, that such occupant shall comply with all
other provisions of this chapter applicable to occupants. No occupant shall employ
or engage any solid waste enterprise, other than an authorized collector, to haul
or transport refuse from the occupant’s premises. Any occupant desiring to collect
and dispose of solid waste generated in or on his or her premises (“self-haul”),
must first obtain a self-haul permit from the City, renewed annually, and pay the
annual self-haul permit fee in an amount established by resolution of the City
Council. Each occupant issued a self-haul permit must dispose of the solid waste
at the occupant’s expense, at a landfill, transfer station or processing facility
meeting all applicable regulatory requirements. Each occupant issued a self-haul
permit shall, every six months, file with the City Manager a report detailing the
quantity and nature of all solid waste removed from the occupant’s premises. The
report shall be delivered to the City Manager on or before January 1 and July 1 of
each year for the immediately preceding six-month period. The report shall identify
the waste disposal or processing facility utilized by the occupant and shall include
copies of all receipts evidencing disposal or delivery issued by such disposal or
processing facility during the six-month period. A failure to file any required report
is a violation of this chapter, punishable as an infraction or by administrative
penalty as provided in this Code.
Page 121
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 6 of 21
D. The self-hauling of construction and demolition debris from a job site by a
contractor, with an approved construction and demolition self-haul permit, subject
to the provisions of section 8.19.090.
E. The collection and removal of green waste by individual residents, property owners
and businesses, including, but not limited to, professional landscapers, weed
abatement contractors or arborists, when the collection is directly related to their
work.
Sec. 8.17.060. - Scavenging prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person other than an authorized collector to remove or
otherwise handle any solid waste contained in any solid waste container that has
been placed curbside or elsewhere, for collection by an authorized collector,
without the prior written consent of the authorized collector, or the property owner,
tenant or agent thereof having exclusive use of such container.
B. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of an infraction. In
addition, the violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute a
nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of
restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner
provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.
Sec. 8.17.070. - Collection in emergencies.
In emergencies, such as the breakdown of equipment, or other unforeseen or
unpreventable circumstances, where, in the judgment of the City Manager, the particular situation
justifies such action, the City Manager may issue limited or temporary permits to private persons
or corporations to perform any of the services regulated by this chapter, subject to such
reasonable fees, charges and conditions as the circumstances may warrant and as the parties
involved may agree upon; provided that such fees and charges received from or paid to any
private persons or corporations under this section for any period exceeding 15 days’ duration shall
be approved by the City Council.
Sec. 8.17.080. - Hours of collection.
A. Authorized collectors shall not collect solid waste within a residential area between
the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
B. Authorized collectors shall not collect solid waste from a commercial premises in
close proximity to a residential area between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
the following day or in a manner which reasonably would cause a noise
disturbance to a residential area. All other solid waste collections may take place
at any time, unless limited by the City Manager.
Sec. 8.17.090. - Refuse, recyclables and organics containers.
A. It shall be the duty of every owner, tenant, lessee or occupant of a residential
premises to deposit refuse, recyclables and organics in the containers designated
for refuse, recyclables and organics collection provided by the authorized collector.
All refuse, recyclables and organics accumulated between collection days shall be
Page 122
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 7 of 21
contained and stored within watertight metal or heavy gauge plastic containers
approved by the City, with a tight-fitting, closed lid to prevent leakage prior to
collections. Each owner, tenant, lessee or occupant shall keep the exterior of all
designated containers, including lids, clean from accumulated grease or
decomposing materials and shall keep the storage area for all designated
containers clean and clear of loose materials or bulky items.
B. All containers shall be stored out of public view, except on collection day or when
placed out for collection pursuant to section 8.17.100.
C. Containers shall be kept in enclosures as approved by the City.
Sec. 8.17.100. - Placement of Containers for Collection.
A. It shall be the duty of every owner, tenant, lessee or occupant of a residential
premises to set out or place containers for the collection of solid waste, recyclables
and organics, as follows: Any container for the purpose of collection and removal
of solid waste, recyclables and organics from residential premises shall be placed
at the curb in front of the premises occupied by the person depositing the same,
there to be collected by the authorized collector, provided that the authorized
collector may designate some other location for the placement of containers when
such placement will expedite collection. Containers must be placed at least three
feet from any obstruction, including but not limited to street lights, mail boxes, and
parked vehicles.
B. Containers shall be placed no further than ten feet from the curb line of a public
street, or, if there is no such curb, no further than ten feet from the paved portion
of the public street; in the event the container is to be collected from a public alley,
the container shall be placed within ten feet of the edge of the right-of-way of the
alley.
C. In no case shall any container be placed within the public right-of-way or any place
that would create a hazardous situation as deemed by the City Manager.
D. Property owners must obtain a right-of-way permit from the Engineering Services
Department prior to placing containers for temporary service for the purpose of
collecting solid waste, recyclables, organics and/or construction or demolition
debris in the public right-of-way.
Sec. 8.17.110. - Time and date of placement of containers.
A. No person shall place, or cause to be placed, any solid waste, recyclables or
organics, or any container or container for solid waste, recyclables and organics,
in any public highway or in any place or in any manner other than hereinabove
provided, or at any time other than the days established by the City for the
collection of such solid waste on the particular route involved, any earlier than
sunset of the day preceding the day designated for collection; and all containers
shall be removed from the place of collection prior to 8:00 p.m. of the day the
containers have been emptied. At all other times, containers for solid waste,
recyclables and organics shall be stored out of public view in accordance with
section 8.17.090.B.
Page 123
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 8 of 21
B. Each owner, occupant, tenant or lessee of a residential premises shall maintain
the same in a sanitary condition. If the container should not be emptied and the
contents removed on the date and time scheduled by the authorized collector, they
should immediately notify the authorized collector or the City; and it shall be the
duty of the authorized collector to forthwith arrange for the collection and disposal
of the refuse.
C. Solid waste and bulky items which exceed the limitations hereinabove set out may,
in the discretion of the authorized collector, be scheduled for special collection
upon the application of the occupant of the premises. Special collection charges
may be assessed by the authorized collector for this service with prior approval of
abovementioned occupant of the premises.
D. No person, other than the owner thereof, the owner’s agents or employees or an
officer or employee of the City or an authorized collector’s agents or employees
authorized for such purposes, shall tamper or meddle with any solid waste,
recycling, or organics container or the contents thereof, or remove the contents of
any container, or remove any container from the location where the same shall
have been placed by the owner thereof or owner’s agent.
E. Subject to the authorizations and exceptions under section 8.17.050, it shall be
unlawful for any person to place or leave standing a container not provided by an
authorized collector on any public or private property within the City for the purpose
of collection and disposal of solid waste. Collection containers unlawfully placed
within the City are considered a public nuisance and shall be subject to removal
pursuant to the process identified below and enforcement as stipulated in section
1.12.030.
F. The City Manager may cause the posting of a notice to remove, as described
below, in a conspicuous place on any collection containers placed on any public
or private property within the City in violation of this section. A notice to remove
posted pursuant to the provisions of this section shall specify the nature of the
violation and shall state that the collection containers must be removed within 24
hours or they may be removed and stored by the City, and the contents disposed
of, at the expense of the solid waste container’s owner thereof. The posting of a
notice to remove shall constitute constructive notice to the owner and user of the
requirement to remove the collection container.
G. If the collection containers are not removed within 24 hours after the notice to
remove is posted, the City Manager may direct the removal and storage of the
collection containers and the disposal of their contents. The owner of the collection
container shall be liable to reimburse the City for the actual costs of removal and
storage of the collection container, for disposal of its contents, for the cost of
posting the notice, and for any administrative fees that would be owed to the City.
All amounts due to the City must be paid before the collection container may be
returned to the owner. Such amounts shall constitute a civil debt owed by the
owner of the collection container to the City, and the owner shall be liable for any
legal costs and fees resulting from any action brought by the City for the recovery
of such amounts. Failure to respond to the notice to remove is a misdemeanor
and punishable by fine and/or imprisonment as identified in section 1.12.010.
Page 124
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 9 of 21
H. After the City has removed a collection container, the City Manager shall promptly
cause notice to be mailed to the owner to claim the stored property. If the collection
container is not claimed and all due fees and costs paid within 15 days after
notification is mailed to the owner, the collection container and its contents shall
be deemed abandoned property and may be disposed of accordingly. If the
contents of the collection container include the presence of biodegradable wastes,
hazardous constituents, or other environmental or sanitary threats, the City
Manager may order the immediate appropriate disposition of the contents so as to
protect the public’s health and safety, and the container’s owner shall be liable for
the costs and fees of disposal. If the owner of the unlawfully placed container is
unknown and no party responds to the notice to remove, the City Manager shall
deem the container and its contents as abandoned property and dispose of it
accordingly.
I. After a collection container has once been removed by the City pursuant to a notice
to remove, the owner thereof shall be deemed to have actual notice of the
provisions of this section, including the prohibition of placement of collection
containers by any person other than those authorized or exempted under this
section. In the event of a subsequent placement of a collection container owned
by the same owner, the City Manager may immediately, without the posting of the
notice of removal, direct the removal and storage of the unlawfully placed collection
container and shall, in such case, give notice to the owner to claim the collection
container.
Sec. 8.17.120. - Refuse removal.
All refuse created, produced or accumulated in or about a residential premises or
commercial premises in the City shall be removed from the premises at least once each week. It
is unlawful and a misdemeanor for the occupant of any of the above-described premises to fail or
neglect to provide for the removal of refuse at least as often as prescribed in this section. Each
day’s violation of this section shall be treated and considered as a separate and distinct offense.
The City Manager may require a greater number of collections per week upon finding that
an unhealthy, unsightly, or public nuisance condition is created. In such an event, the customer
shall be required to pay for the additional service at the current fee schedule.
Sec. 8.17.130. - Special provisions regarding method of disposal.
A. The removal of wearing apparel, bedding or other refuse from residential premises,
as defined in section 8.17.020, or other places where highly infectious or
contagious diseases have been present, shall be performed under the supervision
and direction of the county health officer and such refuse shall neither be placed
in containers nor left for regular collection and disposal.
B. Highly flammable or explosive or radioactive refuse shall not be placed in
containers for regular collection and disposal, but shall be removed under the
supervision of the City and/or the fire district at the expense of the owner or
possessor of the material.
C. Refuse and recyclables containing water or other liquids shall be drained before
being placed in a container.
Page 125
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 10 of 21
D. No hazardous waste, universal waste, medical waste, sharps, battery acid,
poisonous, caustic or toxic material or any other substance capable of damaging
clothing or causing injury to a person shall be mixed or placed with any refuse,
recyclables or organics which is to be collected, removed or disposed of by an
authorized collector. Such items shall be removed at the occupant’s expense only
after arrangements have been made with the authorized collector or City for such
removal.
Sec. 8.17.140. - Burning, burial or dumping.
No person shall burn, bury or dump refuse, recyclables or organics within the City at any
time, unless a special permit for such burning, burial or dumping has been issued pursuant to
authority conferred by the City Council, and/or the fire district.
Sec. 8.17.150. - Contamination of organics and recycling.
A. No person shall place in any container identified for recyclables or organic
materials any material that would inhibit its recyclability or compostability. The
containers designated for recyclables or organics shall be used only for recyclables
or organics and no other material.
B. If, upon inspection by the authorized collector or City staff, it is determined that the
recycling or organics collection container is contaminated, it shall be red-tagged
with a warning notice; and the container shall not be collected. If the customer
wishes to have a return collection prior to the next scheduled collection day, the
customer shall be charged the special collection fee established in the current rate
schedule. After the first warning, customers will be charged a contamination fee
as established in the current rate schedule, and the container will not be serviced
as recyclable; it will be subsequently serviced as trash. The contamination fee will
be automatically assessed if hazardous or biohazardous materials are placed in
any collection container.
C. The City Manager has the authority to order the removal of a recycling or organics
collection container if a customer continues to contaminate a recycling or organics
collection container after receiving three contamination notices.
Sec. 8.17.160. - Duration of storage.
No person shall store or accumulate any refuse at any residential premises or commercial
premises in any container or at any location other than as hereinabove set forth, or for a period
of time in excess of seven days, provided that if a holiday occurs during that period, the period
shall be extended one additional day.
Sec. 8.17.170. - Mandatory payment for collection service; exceptions.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each occupant shall utilize the
services of an authorized collector for the collection of solid waste from a
residential or commercial premises of such occupant, and shall pay collection fees
to the authorized collector as set by the authorized collector and authorized by
resolution of the City Council. The obligation of each occupant to pay such solid
waste collection fees shall be a civil debt due and owing to the authorized collector,
Page 126
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 11 of 21
from the occupant to whom the collection services are made available. Every
person or property owner required to arrange for solid waste collection or the
collection of recyclables or organics shall be liable for the fees and charges for
such collection, whether or not collection services are utilized, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter. A failure to make timely payment constitutes a violation
of this chapter. All revisions in collection fees sought to be imposed by an
authorized collector must be submitted to the City Council for review and must be
approved by resolution of the City Council following a public hearing upon which
no less than ten days’ prior written notice has been provided to the property owner.
B. Lien authorized.
1. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 38790.1 and 25831, charges for
solid waste collection services furnished on behalf of the City by an
authorized collector that remain delinquent for a period of at least 60 days
shall constitute a lien against the parcel of land for which the refuse
collection services were provided. At least once each year, the City Council
shall cause to be prepared a report of delinquent fees. The City Council
shall fix a time, date, and place for hearing the report and any objections or
protests to the report. The City Council shall cause notice of the hearing
to be mailed to the property owners listed on the report, not less than ten
days prior to the date of the hearing. At the hearing, the City Council shall
hear any objections or protests of property owners liable to be assessed
for delinquent fees. The City Council may make revisions or corrections to
the report as it deems just, after which, by resolution, the report shall be
confirmed.
2. The delinquent fees set forth in the report as confirmed shall constitute
special assessments against the respective parcels of land and are a lien
on the property for the amount of the delinquent fees. A certified copy of
the confirmed report shall be filed with the county auditor for the amounts
of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as
they appear on the current assessment roll. The lien created attaches upon
recordation of a certified copy of the resolution of confirmation in the office
of the county recorder. The assessment may be collected at the same time
and in the same manner as ordinary county ad valorem property taxes are
collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same
procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for those taxes.
3. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of county ad
valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the assessment, except that
if any real property to which the lien would attach has been transferred, or
conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide
encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to
the date on which the first installment of the taxes would become
delinquent, then the lien that would otherwise be imposed by this section
shall not attach to the real property and the delinquent fees, as confirmed,
relating to the property shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for
collection.
Page 127
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 12 of 21
C. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply to any owner, tenant,
or person having lawful possession of a residential or commercial unit, who
provides evidence satisfactory to the City Manager that the residential or
commercial unit has not been occupied by any person for 60 or more consecutive
days, for the period of time the property is unoccupied.
Sec. 8.17.180. - Hazardous wastes.
No owner, tenant, lessee or occupant of a commercial or residential premises shall place
any hazardous waste in any container serviced by the authorized collector. In the event that an
owner, tenant, lessee or occupant of a commercial or residential premises places any hazardous
waste in a container serviced by the authorized collector, the authorized collector will not be
required to either collect the material in the container or separate out the material before
processing the entire container. The authorized collector shall notify the property occupant in the
event that it inadvertently removes a container that contains hazardous waste. The property
occupant shall be held responsible for the costs associated with proper handling and disposal of
the hazardous materials. The authorized collector shall notify customers, owners, tenants,
lessees or occupants of any hazardous waste found in containers by placing a tag on the
container. Pursuant to section 8.17.150, a contamination fee will be automatically assessed if
hazardous or biohazardous materials are placed in any collection container. The authorized
collector shall keep a daily log with the address of each customer, owner, tenant, lessee or
occupant whose container was not serviced and will provide a copy of the log to the City on a
monthly basis.
Sec. 8.17.190. – Mandatory commercial recycling.
A. The following businesses shall recycle and divert from the landfill recyclable
materials generated by the business in accordance with this section:
1. A commercial business that generates four cubic yards or more of solid
waste per week;
2. A multi-family dwelling of five units or more.
B. Businesses subject to this section shall arrange for recycling services, consistent
with state and local laws, rules, regulations and requirements, to the extent that
these services are offered and reasonably available from a local service provider.
A business subject to this section shall take at least one of the following actions:
1. Source separate recyclable materials from refuse and subscribe to a basic
level of recycling service that includes collection, self-hauling, or other
arrangements for the pickup of the recyclable materials with the City’s
authorized collector.
2. Source separate recyclable materials from refuse and self-haul the
recyclables to a certified recycling or material recovery facility for
processing.
3. Source separate recyclable materials from refuse and arrange for pickup
of the recyclable materials for donation or sale to a recycler or non-profit as
defined in section 8.17.050.
Page 128
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 13 of 21
C. To comply with section 8.17.190.B, property owners or managers of multi-family
dwellings may require tenants to source separate their recyclables from refuse.
Tenants must source separate their recyclable materials as required by property
owners or managers of multi-family dwellings subject to this section.
D. A business meeting the conditions of section 8.17.190.A. may request an
exemption from the requirements of section 8.17.190.B. by submitting an
application on a form prescribed by the ESD Director. After reviewing the
exemption request, the ESD Director shall either approve or disapprove the
exemption request. To be eligible for an exemption from requirements of this
section, the business must demonstrate that:
1. There are no recyclable materials being generated by any activities of the
business;
2. There is inadequate storage space for the storage of recyclable materials;
or
3. There is no viable market for the recycling materials or recycling facility
available.
Sec. 8.17.200. – Mandatory commercial organics recycling.
A. The following businesses shall recycle and divert from the landfill organic materials
generated by the business, in accordance with the following conditions:
1. On and after January 1, 2017, a business that generates four cubic yards
or more of organic waste per week shall arrange for recycling services
specifically for organic waste.
2. On and after January 1, 2019, a business that generates four cubic yards
or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for recycling
services specifically for organic waste.
B. A business meeting the conditions of section 8.17.200.A. shall take at least one of
the following actions:
1. Source separate organic waste from other refuse and subscribe to a basic
level of organic waste recycling service with the City’s authorized collector,
for the pickup of organics;
2. Source separate organic waste from refuse and self-haul the organic waste
to a certified recycling or material recovery facility for processing; or
3. Source separate organics from refuse and arrange for pickup of the organic
waste for donation or sale for reuse or processing.
C. A business meeting the conditions of Section 8.17.200.A. may request an
exemption from the requirements of Section 8.17.200.B. by submitting an
application on a form prescribed by the ESD Director. After reviewing the
exemption request, the ESD Director or his/her designee shall either approve or
Page 129
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 14 of 21
disapprove the exemption request. To be eligible for an exemption from the
requirements of Section 8.17.200.B, the business must demonstrate that:
1. There is less than one half of a cubic yard per week of organic waste being
generated by any activities of the business;
2. There is inadequate storage space for the storage of organic waste; or
3. There is no viable market for the organic waste or organic waste recycling
facility available.
Section 2. Chapter 8.19 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 8.19. – CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE COLLECTION
Sec. 8.19.010. - Collection agreement required.
No person shall collect or dispose of construction and demolition waste in the City unless
that person has entered into a collection agreement with the City pursuant to Chapter 8.17, except
as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, and irrespective of any permit issued by any
other governmental agency authorizing collection of solid waste or recyclables.
Sec. 8.19.020. - Construction and demolition waste definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
A. Applicant means any individual, firm, limited liability company, association,
partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public
or private corporation, or any other entity who applies to the City for the applicable
permits to undertake any construction, demolition, or renovation projects within the
City.
B. Authorized Collector shall have the meaning ascribed in section 8.17.020.
C. Certified Recycling or Material Recovery Facility shall have the meaning ascribed
in section 8.19.080.
D. Construction means the building, rehabilitation, remodeling, renovation, repair or
enlargement of any facility or structure, or any portion thereof, and includes
additions, alterations, or tenant improvements to an existing facility or structure.
E. Construction and demolition waste or C&D Waste means discarded or used
materials removed from construction, remodeling, repair, demolition, or renovation
operations on any pavement, house, commercial building, or other structure, or
from landscaping.
F. Construction and demolition diversion administrative fee or C&D administrative fee
means the fee required to sufficiently compensate the City for all expenses
incurred in administering the C&D Diversion Program requirements for covered
construction and demolition projects.
Page 130
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 15 of 21
G. Construction and Demolition Diversion Deposit or C&D Diversion Deposit means
the fee required as security for performance for covered construction and
demolition projects to ensure the applicant complies with the requirements of this
chapter.
H. Contractor means any person or entity holding, or required to hold, a contractor’s
license of any type under the laws of the state, or who performs (whether as
contractor, subcontractor or owner-builder) any construction, demolition,
remodeling, or landscaping service relating to buildings or accessory structures in
the City. A person or company employed, whether for a fee or otherwise, to haul
or remove recyclables and construction and demolition debris generated by a
contractor is not a contractor for purposes of this chapter.
I. Deconstruction means the careful dismantling of buildings and structures in order
to salvage as much as possible.
J. Demolition means the decimating, razing, ruining, tearing down or wrecking of any
facility, structure, pavement or building, whether in whole or in part, whether interior
or exterior.
K. Divert, diverted, or diversion means to recycle, reuse or salvage, or a combination
of recycling, reusing, and salvaging of C&D Waste to avoid disposal in a landfill.
L. Diversion requirement means the percentage of total construction and demolition
debris for each project diverted from landfills.
M. ESD Director shall have the meaning ascribed in section 8.17.020.
N. Engineering Services Department or ESD shall have the meaning ascribed in
section 8.17.020.
O. Project means any activity that requires an application for a building or demolition
permit or any similar permit from the City.
P. Recycling and reuse means the process of collecting, sorting, treating, and
reconstituting C&D Waste for use as a raw material for new, reused, or
reconstituted products which meet industry standards.
Q. Renovation means any change, addition or modification to an existing structure.
R. Salvage means the controlled removal of materials from a project for the purpose
of reuse or storage for later reuse.
S. Self-haul Construction and Demolition Waste Permit means the permit issued by
the City to a contractor that meets the criteria in section 8.19.090.
T. Waste Diversion Report means the report to be completed and submitted to the
City by the applicant at project completion summarizing the actual tonnage of
waste generated as a result of the project by material type and supported by actual
weight tickets and receipts.
Page 131
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 16 of 21
U. Waste Management and Recycling Plan means the form prescribed by the City for
completion by the applicant as portion of the building and/or demolition permit
process.
Sec. 8.19.030. - Construction and demolition diversion requirements.
A. All construction and demolition projects are required to divert a minimum of
65 percent of the tonnage generated as a result of the project from the landfill.
Separate calculations and reports will be required for the demolition and for the
construction portion of projects involving both demolition and construction.
B. Every structure planned for demolition shall be made available for deconstruction,
salvage and recovery prior to demolition. It shall be the responsibility of the owner,
the general contractor and all subcontractors to recover the maximum feasible
amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to
demolition. Recovered and salvaged designated recyclable and reusable
materials from the deconstruction phase shall qualify to be counted in meeting the
diversion requirements of this chapter. Recovered or salvaged materials may be
given or sold on the premises, or may be removed to reuse warehouse facilities
for storage or sale.
Sec. 8.19.040. – Waste management and recycling plan.
A. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, each person who applies for a
building or demolition permit pursuant to chapter 17.010 shall complete a “Waste
Management and Recycling Plan” document to be issued by the Engineering
Services Department. Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, no building or
demolition permit shall be issued unless the “Waste Management and Recycling
Plan” has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Engineering
Services Department. Any changes to the approved plan must be brought to the
attention of the Engineering Services Department for review and approval prior to
commencing work.
B. The ESD Director is authorized to create guidelines setting forth the information to
be included in the “Waste Management Plan,” as well as the form thereof. At a
minimum, the “Waste Management Plan” shall delineate all of the following:
1. The C&D Waste to be generated by the project.
2. The square footage of the proposed project.
3. The estimated weight of the C&D Waste to be generated by the project,
listed by material types.
4. The estimated weight of the C&D Waste to be generated by the project to
be diverted, listed by material types.
5. The certified recycling or material recovery facility or facilities to which C&D
Waste will be taken, listed by material types.
Page 132
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 17 of 21
6. The estimated weight of the C&D Waste that will be landfilled.
Sec. 8.19.050. - Construction and demolition waste diversion deposit requirements and
exemptions.
Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, each person who applies for a building or
demolition permit pursuant to chapter 17.010 shall remit a diversion deposit in the amount set
forth by resolution of the City Council. The diversion deposit shall be remitted at the same time
the permit application is filed.
Deposit amounts are based on square footage and shall be set by resolution of the City
Council.
The diversion deposit shall be returned, without interest, in accordance with Section
8.19.060. The deposit shall be forfeited entirely if there is a failure to comply with the requirements
of this chapter.
Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, each person who applies for a building or
demolition permit pursuant to chapter 17.010 will remit an administrative fee sufficient to
compensate the City for all expenses incurred in administering the C&D Diversion Program
requirements for covered construction and demolition projects. The amount of this fee shall be
determined in accordance with the current resolution of the City Council determining the same.
Within 60 days following the completion of the demolition or construction project, the
contractor (or permit applicant) shall, as a condition precedent to final inspection and to issuance
of any certificate of occupancy, submit documentation to the Engineering Services Department,
which proves compliance with the requirements of section 8.19.040. The documentation shall
consist of a completed Waste Diversion Report with information of actual data of tonnage of
materials recycled and diverted, supported by originals or certified photocopies of receipts and
weight tickets or other records of measurement from recycling companies, deconstruction
contractors and/or landfill and disposal companies. Receipts and weight tickets will be used to
verify whether materials generated from the site have been or are to be recycled, reused,
salvaged or otherwise disposed of.
If a project involves both demolition and construction, the report and documentation for
the demolition project must be submitted and approved by the Engineering Services Department
before issuance of a building permit for the construction project. In the alternative, the applicant
may submit a letter stating that no waste or recyclable materials were generated from project, in
which case this statement shall be subject to verification by the Engineering Services Department.
Any deposit posted pursuant to subsection E of this section shall be forfeited if the applicant does
not meet the timely reporting requirements of this section.
The following projects must meet the waste diversion requirements as described in this
Chapter but shall not be required to submit a C&D diversion deposit:
Residential single-family homes up to four units.
Construction projects of less than $100,000 in value.
Roofing projects that do not include tear-off of existing roof.
Page 133
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 18 of 21
The following projects are exempt from the waste diversion requirements and C&D
diversion deposit as described in this Chapter:
Work for which only a plumbing permit, an electrical permit or a mechanical permit
is required.
Sec. 8.19.060. – Authority to issue refunds of diversion deposits.
A. The ESD Director may authorize the refund of any diversion deposit, which was
erroneously paid or collected.
B. The ESD Director may authorize the refund of any diversion deposit when the
building permit application is withdrawn or cancelled before any work has begun.
C. The ESD Director may authorize the refund of a diversion deposit when at least 65
percent of the waste generated by the project was diverted from landfill disposal.
D. The ESD Director may authorize a partial refund of a diversion deposit when less
than 65 percent by weight of the waste generated by the project was diverted from
landfill disposal if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the ESD Director
that (i) a proportion of the percentages of the tons of waste generated by the
demolition and/or construction project was diverted from landfills and recycled or
reused, and (ii) that a good faith effort has been made to achieve the required
diversion percentages. The partial refund shall not exceed that proportion the
diversion waste bears to 65 percent by weight of the total waste generated.
E. The ESD Director shall not authorize the refund of any diversion deposit, or any
portion thereof, unless the original building permit applicant files a written request
for refund and provides documentation satisfactory to the ESD Director in support
of the request.
The ESD Director shall not authorize a refund of any diversion deposit, or portion thereof,
if any of the required waste diversion documentation does not list the City of Rancho Cucamonga
as the city of origin, and/or the required waste diversion documentation is not from the authorized
collector or a facility identified in the Waste Management Plan.
The ESD Director shall not authorize a refund of any diversion deposit, or portion thereof,
if the applicant does not include a weight ticket document for all landfilled and recycled C&D
Waste as a result of the project.
Sec. 8.19.070. - Waste diversion methods.
A. For the purpose of this chapter, the term “diverted” or “diversion” means a
reduction of the amount of waste being disposed in landfills by any of the following
methods:
1. Use of new construction methods, as described in regulations promulgated
by the ESD Director, that reduce the amount of waste generated.
2. On-site reuse of waste.
Page 134
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 19 of 21
3. Delivery of the waste from the site to a certified recycling facility.
4. Other methods as approved in regulations promulgated by the ESD
Director.
B. All of the waste diversion methods which may qualify for a refund of a diversion
deposit are subject to restrictions and documentation requirements set forth in
regulations promulgated by the ESD Director.
Sec. 8.19.080. - Recycling facility certification requirements.
A. For the purpose of this chapter, “certified recycling or material recovery facility”
means a recycling, composting, materials recovery or reuse facility that has been
certified by the ESD Director as meeting all of the requirements in paragraph “B”
of this Section.
B. The ESD Director shall issue a certification only if the owner or operator of the
facility submits documentation satisfactory to the ESD Director:
1. That the facility has obtained all applicable federal, state, and local permits,
and is in full compliance with all applicable regulations; and
2. The percentage of incoming waste from construction, demolition, and
alteration activities that is diverted from landfill disposal meets the required
minimum percentage set forth in regulations promulgated by the ESD
Director.
Sec. 8.19.090. - Self hauling.
A. For purposes of this section, “job site” means a location at which construction and
demolition debris are generated by a contractor.
B. Subject to subsection C, a contractor may self-haul construction and demolition
debris, as defined in section 8.19.020, generated by the contractor at the job site.
When acting as a general contractor the contractor may haul these same materials
for any contractor acting as a subcontractor at the same job site.
C. The right of a contractor to self-haul or haul hereunder is subject to the following
conditions:
1. All contractors generating any of the recyclables or C&D Waste, as defined
by section 8.19.020, to be self-hauled or hauled shall have a valid City
business license; and
2. The contractor owns hauling equipment and the equipment is clearly
marked with the identity of the contractor including, as a minimum threshold
requirement, the company name, address, and phone number; and
3. The contractor must be performing construction and demolition work on the
permitted job site; the contractor cannot serve solely as a hauler of debris
from the job site; and
Page 135
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 20 of 21
4. The contractor must be named on the building permit; and
5. The contractor provides a copy of the vehicle registration; and
6. The contractor provides proof of insurance for the vehicle; and
7. The contractor’s equipment shall be operated by an employee of the
contractor at all times during any self-haul to a disposal or processing
facility in a manner consistent with all appropriate laws and regulations; and
8. The contractor performing the self-haul holds a current building and
demolition permit which covers all recyclables or construction and
demolition debris for which the contractor will be performing self-hauling,
and the contractor complies with the construction and demolition provisions
of the City; and
9. The contractor shall hold a construction and demolition self-haul permit and
pay the applicable C&D self-haul permit fee as set by the City Council. The
C&D self-haul permit and applicable fee are issued per project and are valid
only for the duration of the specific project; and
10. The contractor performing the self-haul must comply with all requirements
of this chapter 8.19, including submittal of a Waste Management and
Recycling Plan and a diversion deposit.
Sec. 8.19.100. - Enforcement.
If an applicant who is subject to the requirements set forth in this chapter fails to comply
with Sections 8.19.040 and/or 8.19.050 prior to commencement of work on a covered project, the
project shall be subject to a “stop work” order issued by the City until the Waste Management
Plan is submitted as required and has been approved by the ESD Director pursuant to Section
8.19.040.
It is unlawful for any person to collect or transport solid waste (as defined in section
8.17.020) within the City unless such person is an authorized collector, as defined in section
8.17.020, or is exempted as outlined in section 8.17.050, subsections A through E. It is unlawful
for any person to permit, allow or enter into any agreement whatsoever for the collection or
transportation of solid waste from any residential premises, commercial premises, or construction
or demolition project with any person who is not an authorized collector as herein defined except
as permitted in 8.17.050, subsections A through E.
Each violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and be
subject to abatement as such, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 8.20. The costs of abatement
of any such nuisance shall be a lien upon the property involved.
Sec. 8.19.110. - Diversion deposits.
Diversion deposits shall be used only for:
A. Payment of diversion deposit refunds;
Page 136
Ordinance 94111231-0001\2132528v10.doc – Page 21 of 21
B. Costs of administration of the program established by this chapter;
C. Cost of programs whose purpose is to divert from landfill disposal the waste from
construction, demolition and alteration projects; and
D. Costs of programs whose purpose is to develop or improve the infrastructure
needed to divert from landfill disposal the waste from construction, demolition and
alteration projects.”
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be posted in at least three public places within the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and shall be effective from and after 30 days following its adoption.
Page 137
Ordinance 711
Amending Chapter 8.17 and 8.19
of Title 8 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code
November 21, 2018
Chapter 8.17
Refuse, Recyclables, and Organics
Collection
•The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 8.17 to
establish requirements for residential, commercial and
industrial refuse, recyclables and organics collection.
•The City is required to meet specific waste diversion,
and greenhouse gas reduction goals as set forth by the
State of California.
•Assembly Bill 341-Mandatory Commercial Recycling
•Assembly Bill 1826 –Mandatory Organics Recycling
Chapter 8.19
Construction and Demolition
Waste Collection
•Amendment to Chapter 8.19 is necessary align the
minimum waste diversion requirements for construction
and demolition projects with the California Green
Building Code.
•The amendment includes Construction and Demolition
Self-Haul Guidelines and Permit.
•The C&D Diversion deposits and administrative fees
that were previously incorporated into Ordinance 711,
when adopted in 2003, would be removed from the
municipal code and set by resolution.
Mandatory State Requirements
•Failure to meet waste diversion requirements could
result in the assessment of fines on the City.
•The proposed ordinance and amendment of the
municipal code sets the framework and procedures
identified by staff to comply with current waste
diversion requirements.
Questions?
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Candyce Burnett, City P lanner
Dat Tran, A ssistant Planner
S UB J E C T:C O NT INUE D P UB L IC HE ARING O F AP P E AL O F P L ANNI NG C O M M I S S I O N
D E C I S I O N D RC 2018-00865 – C O NS ID E RAT IO N O F AN AP P E AL O F T HE
P L ANNING C O M M IS S IO N’S AP P RO VAL O F HIL L S ID E D E S IG N RE V I E W
D RC 2016-00672 – AND RE S E N ARC HIT E C T URE – T HI S AP P E AL INV O LV E S
A RE Q UE S T F O R S IT E P L AN AND ARC HIT E C T URAL RE V IE W O F A
P RO P O S E D 6,175 S Q UARE F O O T S ING L E -FAM I LY D WE L L ING UNIT AND
A 674 S Q UARE F O O T D E TAC HE D S E C O ND D WE L L ING UNIT O N A
VAC ANT L O T T O TAL ING 12,044 S Q UARE F E E T, L O C AT E D IN T HE L O W
(L ) RE S ID E NT I AL D IS T RIC T IN T HE HI L L S I D E O V E RL AY D I S T RI C T O N
T HE NO RT H S I D E O F C AM INO P RE D E RA; AP N: 0207-641-12. T HIS I T E M
I S E X E M P T F RO M T HE RE Q UI RE M E NT S O F T HE C AL IF O RNI A
E NV I RO NM E NTAL Q UAL I T Y AC T (C E Q A) AND T HE C IT Y’S C E Q A
G UI D E L I NE S UND E R C E Q A S E C T IO N 15303 – NE W C O NS T RUC T IO N O R
C O NV E RS IO N O F S M AL L S T RUC T URE S.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the C ity C ouncil take one of the f ollowing actions:
• A dopt the attached R esolution No. 18-120 approving the A ppeal of the P lanning C ommission D ecision
D R C 2018-00865, and deny the approval of Hillside Design Review D R C2016-00672.
• A dopt the attached R esolution No. 18-121 upholding the decision of the P lanning Commission to
approve Hillside Design Review D R C2016-00672, and deny the appeal that was f iled.
BACKGROUND:
A. P roject D escription: T he applicant, Andresen A rchitecture, on behalf Hector and Angela Galvan,
proposed a 6,175 square foot, three-story, single-family residence on Camino Predera. The project site is
roughly 500 f eet southeast of the intersection of C amino P redera and R ed Hill C ountry C lub Drive in the
L ow (L ) Residential D istrict, Hillside Overlay D istrict. T he project also includes a 674 square foot
accessory dwelling unit (A D U) at the rear of the lot.
B. Environmental Assessment: T he Planning Department staf f previously determined that the project is
exempt from the requirements of the California E nvironmental Quality A ct (C E Q A) and the City’s C E Q A
Guidelines. T he previous C E Q A determination is detailed on P age 22 of the City C ouncil S taff R eport
Page 138
(Attachment 1).
C . P lanning Commission P ublic Hearing: On October 10, 2018, the P lanning C ommission conducted a
public hearing for the project. The Commission approved the project in a 4-1 vote (4 in favor, 1 against)
and adopted Resolution No. 18-69 that included special and standard conditions of approval.
D . A ppeal L etter : On October 18, 2018, a letter was submitted to the City within the required 10-day
period appealing the P lanning C ommission’s approval of the project. T he letter was signed by 11
residents (“the appellants”) f rom the neighborhood.
E. City Council P ublic Hearing: On November 7, 2018, the City Council conducted a public hearing
regarding the appeal of the Planning C ommission decision to approve Hillside D esign R eview D R C 2016-
00672. T he City Council received testimony from the applicant, Doug A ndresen of A ndresen Architecture,
for the project and from residents within the Camino P redera neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Galvan were not
in attendance as they were out of the country for personal reasons.
After receiving public testimony, the C ity C ouncil deliberated on the matter. At the conclusion of these
deliberations, the C ity C ouncil asked the applicant and the appellants whether they would be willing to meet
again to discuss potential solutions to the concerns and arguments that gave rise to the appeal. I n order to
afford the applicant and appellants an opportunity to potentially resolve their dispute, the C ity Council
continued the public hearing to November 21, 2018. T he C ity C ouncil directed S taff to prepare two
R esolutions for their consideration at that meeting in case the applicant and appellants could not resolve
their dispute.
UP D AT E :
T he City conducted a meeting with the applicant and certain appellants at City Hall on T hursday, November
15, 2018 to determine if there were any potential solutions that had not already been considered. A third-
party, independent f acilitator, Susan Harden (S usan J ackson Harden, I nc.), was retained by the C ity to
conduct the meeting. T he applicant, his clients, and seven appellants were in attendance.
T he discussion initially revolved around a revised design of the home as proposed by the applicant. T he
applicant had brought the existing design drawings with notations and markups identifying the proposed
changes to the plans. T he applicant proposed removing the third (top) f loor of the home and shifting the
rooms that would have been on the third f loor to the rear yard area of the project site. The modif ication
reduced the highest point of the house by 9 f eet. T he living area of the proposed house would be
approximately 150 square f eet smaller. Conceptually, the idea of reducing the building height by 9’,
removing the top floor, and reducing the living area appeared to be acceptable to all the appellants that
attended the meeting. T here was also limited and potentially productive discussion around the option of
adjusting the location of accessory dwelling unit (A D U) to provide more distance from the rear property
line.
T he discussion moved on to the City’s review and submittal requirements for the revised design. T he
applicant requested that the C ity Council make a decision on the revised design based on the annotated
plans at the November 21, 2018 hearing. The applicant would then work with Staff to refine the design and
prepare construction drawings based on the annotated plans. The reason f or this request was to reduce
the amount of time and resources that would be necessary to make the proposed modifications to the
Page 139
applicants’ plans. T he applicants stated that they had spent a considerable amount of time and resources
and they did not want to incur additional costs prior to approval or f urther extend the review and approval
process.
T he appellants stated that they were uncomf ortable with this approach and wanted at least a concept plan
that would show how the proposed modif ications and resulting massing and scale would be realized for
consideration by the C ity C ouncil. T he discussion reached an impasse when the applicant and his clients
decided that the request for additional information illustrating the new proposal was not a request they were
comf ortable fulfilling and, thus, no suitable compromise could be reached. T he applicants ended
discussions, excused themselves, and the meeting ended without a resolution to the matter.
C O RRE S P O ND E NC E :
T he item was previously advertised as a public hearing in the I nland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the
property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project
site. As this item is a continuance of the City Council public hearing on November 7, 2018, it was not
required to be publicly advertised. Since the C ity C ouncil public hearing on November 7, 2018, S taff has
not received any additional correspondence.
ANALY S IS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
Attachment 1 - D raf t Resolution f or Approval of Appeal of Planning C ommission D ecision D R C 2018-
00865
Attachment 2 - D raf t Resolution f or Denial of A ppeal of P lanning Commission Decision D R C2018-00865
Attachment 3 – City Council Staf f R eport dated November 7, 2018
Page 140
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION NO. 18-120
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, GRANT THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION DRC2018-00865, AND OVERTURN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE HILLSIDE
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Andresen Architecture, on behalf of Hector and Angela Galvan,
proposed a 6,175 square foot, three-story, single-family residence on Camino Predera. The
project site is roughly 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Camino Predera and Red Hill
Country Club Drive in the Low (L) Residential District, Hillside Overlay District.
2. On October 10, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the
project. The Commission approved the project in a 4-1 vote (4 in favor, 1 against) and adopted
Resolution No. 18-69 that included special and standard conditions of approval.
3. On October 18, 2018, a letter was submitted to the City appealing the Planning
Commission’s approval of the project, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject Appeal of Planning Commission Decision is referred to as "the
appeal."
4. On November 7, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal. After receiving public testimony, the City Council
deferred final action on the appeal and continued the matter until the November 21, 2018 City
Council meeting in order to afford the applicant and the appellants a further opportunity to discuss
a mutually acceptable solution to the appeal.
5. On November 15, 2018, City staff facilitated a meeting between the applicant, the
property owners and appellants at City Hall. A third-party, independent mediator, Susan Harden
(Susan Jackson Harden, Inc.), was retained by the City to mediate the meeting. A mutually
acceptable solution was not reached.
6. On November 21, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reopened
the duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and concluded said hearing on that date.
7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial all evidence presented to this Council during the
above-referenced public hearings on November 7, 2018 and November 21, 2018, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds
Page 141
EXHIBIT C
as follows:
a. The project site is a vacant, rectangular lot facing Camino Predera. The property
ranges from 82 to 92 feet in width and 138 to 139 feet in depth. The lot slopes upward from the
street and has an elevation of approximately 1,332 feet at the south property line and an elevation
of approximately 1,364 feet at the north property line. This results in a grade change of 32 feet
from the north to the south property line; and
b. The original application, Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672, is for the site
plan and architectural review of a 6,175 square foot, three-story, single-family dwelling unit on the
project site. The project site is located in the Low (L) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay
District (HOD). The proposed lot coverage is approximately 34 percent. The proposed setbacks
are as follows: front and rear: 53 feet and 41 feet, respectively; interior sides: 6.83 and 10 feet.
The overall building height is 30 feet and a total of 3 stories tall; and
c. The grading of the project involves fill and excavation of approximately 2,500
square feet of dirt, with a net removal of approximately 2,300 square feet of dirt from the site. The
depth of the removal is up to 18 feet below the existing grade to accommodate a subterranean
garage. The project incorporates limited use terracing and grade separation to attempt to contour
the building to the natural slope. The terracing and grade separation leaves portions of the
structure to extend two stories vertically from the finish grade. The vertical height creates a
structure of significant mass and scale that blocks the some of the views of other homes to the
rear of the site.
d. The proposed residence has a contemporary design theme, which includes a flat
roof, smooth stucco finish, metal railings with glass panels, and copper roofing. The proposed
residence also incorporates stone veneer, decorative wood trims and fascia, and decorative
garage doors. The architectural design of the residence incorporates variations in the roof height
to interrupt the wall plane at the side and rear elevations. The building mass is broken up though
multiple wall plane changes and the incorporation of exterior decks and patio areas along the
front and rear elevations. In general, the contemporary design them is a significant deviation from
the traditional architectural styles (e.g. Mediterranean, Craftsman and ranch) in the neighborhood;
and
e. The project also includes an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the lot.
The ADU has a floor area of 674 square feet. Per Development Code Section 17.42.040-1, solid
roof structures located within the rear yard are permitted to be up to 5 feet from the side and rear
property lines. The ADU is setback 5 feet from the rear property line, and 18 and 20 feet from the
east and west property lines, respectively. The structure also has eaves extending 1’-6” along the
side, but these eaves do not extend into the side setback. The overall height of the ADU is 15 feet
and is below the maximum height of 16 feet permitted for solid roof, accessory structures in the
rear yard. The City Council finds that the ADU itself complies with applicable provisions of State
law and the City’s Development Code. Therefore, the City Council does not base its decision to
grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision on the project’s inclusion of
an ADU; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
includes Goals and Policies intended to facilitate overall hillside development. The Goals and
Policies establish that development should be sensitive to the natural form of the hillside.
Development should limit the extent of onsite grading and provide for innovative design and
Page 142
EXHIBIT C
arrangement of building site to retain significant habitat and features. Building designs, such as
massing, height and architecture, should be designed in a way to blend into the surrounding
hillside conditions. In this case, however, the project proposes extensive onsite grading that is not
sensitive to the hillside’s natural form. Approximately 2,400 square feet of onsite dirt will be
removed, and 100 square feet to be added, resulting in a net loss of 2,300 square feet of hillside
terrain from the project site. The proposed dirt excavation is up to 18 feet in depth, exceeding the
5 depth limit established in the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (Section
17.122.020.G.i). The grading plan also proposes to flatten portions of the hillside in order to
accommodate the finished floor of the building, creating areas of the hillside that do not contour
with the natural hillside conditions. The design of the primary house, along with the orientation of
the ADU on the lot, also does not blend into the hillside terrain per the guidelines of the General
Plan. The combined square footage of both structures onsite is 6,849 square feet and exceeds
the size of other homes in the neighborhood, whereas a smaller home would better facilitate the
General Plan’s policy of development that is sensitive to the natural form of the hillside. The
building’s mass and scale make it difficult to follow the natural contours of the hillside terrain, with
areas of the building extending significantly above the hillside to allow for more living space. The
overall building envelope extends significantly above the existing skyline. The result is an impact
to the view to the homes in the neighborhood.
b. The proposed project is not in accordance with the objectives of the Hillside
Design Standards and Guidelines (Section 17.122.020) of the Development Code. The objective
of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines is to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas.
The Section 17.122.020.D.1 of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines state that a building must
be terraced to follow slope and employ grade separation techniques in order to permit the
structure to step up the natural slope. The project site is an upslope lot with an elevation decline
of approximately 32 feet from the north to south property line. Due to the change in grade,
significant terracing and grade separations are required to permit the structure to step up with the
natural slope. The proposed home is not adequately terraced to permit the structure to step up
with the natural slope. Portions of the home consists of walls that extend two stories vertically and
does not incorporate terracing. Grade separation was provided, separating the home into two
separate levels. However, the finished floor of the home consists of two large pads that did not
adequately follow the contours of the home. Without adequate terracing or grade separations, the
home does not meet the intent of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines for appropriate
development of hillside areas.
c. The proposed use is not in compliance with applicable provisions of the Hillside
Design Standards and Guidelines (Section 17.122.020) of the Development Code. As stated in
Section B above, Section 17.122.020.D.1 requires buildings to be terraced to follow the slope and
make use of grade separations to permit the structure to step up to the natural slope. The
proposed home is not adequately terraced to permit the structure to step up with the natural slope.
Portions of the home consists of walls that extend two stories vertically and does not incorporate
terracing. Grade separation was provided, separating the home into two separate levels.
However, the finished floor of the home consists of two large pads that did not adequately follow
the contours of the home. The project is also inconsistent with general Design Standards and
Guidelines (Section 17.120.030) of the Development Code. Section 17.120.030.A.2.r states that
“The height and bulk of buildings shall not unduly block views and solar access of adjacent and
other nearby buildings.” The height of the building envelope extends up to 30 feet from the finished
grade and house is 3 stories. The other homes in the neighborhood are a maximum of 2 stories
tall. The proposed building’s overall height and location along Camino Predera, in front of other
homes, significantly blocks the views of the homes to the north of the project site. Therefore, the
project is inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be
detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
Page 143
EXHIBIT C
vicinity. The proposed 6,849 square foot single-family dwelling unit is not compatible with the
other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed home’s mass and scale is incompatible with the
mass and scale of other homes in the neighborhood. The average square footage of the home is
4,241 square feet, 2,608 square feet below the size of the proposed home. The proposed home’s
size exceeds the biggest home in the neighborhood at 5,369 square feet. Additionally, the
contemporary architectural style of the home is incompatible with the existing homes in the
neighborhood. The existing homes in the neighborhood consists of traditional architectural styles,
such as Mediterranean, Craftsman and ranch styles. The proposed contemporary architectural
style is incompatible with the traditional architectural styles and would impact the visual quality of
the neighborhood. The flat roof is in contrast to the existing pitched roof design of other homes in
the neighborhood, and the house incorporates a variety of contemporary building materials, such
as copper, that isn’t compatible with the traditional building materials of other homes in the
neighborhood. Therefore, the project poses a detriment to the welfare of the neighborhood.
4. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4),
which applies to projects that are rejected or disapproved by a public agency. The City Council’s
decision to grant the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Hillside Design
Review DRC2016-00672 will overturn the approval to construct the proposed 6,175 square feet
home and disapprove the project.
5. Based upon all of the evidence in the record and the findings and conclusions set forth
in this Resolution above, this Council hereby grants the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
DRC2018-00865, and overturns the Planning Commission’s approval of the approval of Hillside
Design Review DRC2016-00672.
6. This Council hereby provides notice to the applicant, Andresen Architecture, that the
time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is
governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 and 1094.6.
7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to
the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Andresen Architecture, at the address identified in City
records.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018.
Page 144
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION NO. 18-121
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION DRC2018-00865, AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE HILLSIDE
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The applicant, Andresen Architecture, on behalf of Hector and Angela Galvan,
proposed a 6,175 square foot, three-story, single-family residence on Camino Predera. The
project site is roughly 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Camino Predera and Red Hill
Country Club Drive in the Low (L) Residential District, Hillside Overlay District.
2. On October 10, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the
project. The Commission approved the project in a 4-1 vote (4 in favor, 1 against) and adopted
Resolution No. 18-69 that included special and standard conditions of approval.
3. On October 18, 2018, a letter was submitted to the City appealing the Planning
Commission’s approval of the project, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject Appeal of Planning Commission Decision is referred to as "the
appeal."
4. On November 7, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal. After receiving public testimony, the City Council
deferred final action on the appeal and continued the matter until the November 21, 2018 City
Council meeting in order to afford the applicant and the appellants a further opportunity to discuss
a mutually acceptable solution to the appeal.
5. On November 15, 2018, City staff facilitated a meeting between the applicant, the
property owners and appellants at City Hall. A third-party, independent mediator, Susan Harden
(Susan Jackson Harden, Inc.), was retained by the City to mediate the meeting. A mutually
acceptable solution was not reached.
6. On November 21, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reopened
the duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and concluded said hearing on that date.
7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public hearings on November 7, 2018 and November 21, 2018, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
Page 145
EXHIBIT C
a. The project site is a vacant, rectangular lot facing Camino Predera. The property
ranges from 82 to 92 feet in width and 138 to 139 feet in depth. The lot slopes upward from the
street and has an elevation of approximately 1,332 feet at the south property line and an elevation
of approximately 1,364 feet at the north property line. This results in a grade change of 32 feet
from the north to the south property line; and
b. Street improvements such as a sidewalk, curb, and gutter are present along
Camino Predera; however, street trees and parkway landscaping improvements have not been
installed and will be required to be constructed as a condition of approval; and
c. The application is for the site plan and architectural review of a 6,175 square
foot, three-story, single-family dwelling unit on the project site. The project complies with all the
requirements of the Low (L) Residential District. The maximum lot coverage permitted is 40
percent. The proposed lot coverage is approximately 34 percent. The required and proposed (in
parenthesis) setbacks are as follows: front and rear: 37 (53) feet and 20 (41) feet, respectively;
interior sides: 5 (6.83) and 10 (10) feet. All setbacks are measured to the wall face of the house;
and
d. The proposed residence has eaves that project 1’-6” into both side setback areas
and a chimney that extends 2 feet into the west side setback area. Per the Development Code,
eaves may project into required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages
are supported only at, or behind, the building setback line. Chimneys may project into required
yards a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property
line. The chimney is set back 8 feet from the property line.
e. The overall building height is 30 feet, which is the maximum permitted within the
Hillside Overlay District; and
f. The proposed residence has a contemporary design theme, which includes a flat
roof, smooth stucco finish, metal railings with glass panels, and copper roofing. The proposed
residence also incorporates stone veneer, decorative wood trims and fascia, and decorative
garage doors. The architectural design of the residence incorporates variations in the roof height
to interrupt the wall plane at the side and rear elevations. The building mass is broken up though
multiple wall plane changes and the incorporation of exterior decks and patio areas along the
front and rear elevations. The residence will be painted earth tone colors in compliance with
Section 17.122.020.D.2. The existing dwelling units along Camino Predera consist of a variety of
architectural styles. Through the use of the above-noted design elements, the dwelling unit meets
the City’s 360 degree architecture requirements, and the design of the residence is compatible
with the surrounding houses in the neighborhood; and
g. The project also includes an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the lot.
The ADU has a floor area of 674 square feet. Per Development Code Section 17.42.040-1, solid
roof structures located within the rear yard are permitted to be up to 5 feet from the side and rear
property lines. The ADU is setback 5 feet from the rear property line, and 18 and 20 feet from the
east and west property lines, respectively. The structure also has eaves extending 1’-6” along the
side, but these eaves do not extend into the side setback. The overall height of the ADU is 15 feet
and is below the maximum height of 16 feet permitted for solid roof, accessory structures in the
rear yard; and
h. The project complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which seeks
to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is an upslope lot with an
elevation decline of approximately 32 feet from the north to south property line. Due to the change
in grade, the dwelling unit incorporates a flat-roofed, terraced design concept that follows the
natural contours of the project site. Roof levels at the front of the residence are located at a lower
Page 146
EXHIBIT C
level than roof levels at the rear of the residence. Additionally, the dwelling unit features split pads
and grade separations to permit the structure to follow the natural slope. Design elements such
as front-facing roof gables were not utilized at the front of the residence, so that the roof would be
oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The maximum height of the house is 15 feet
at setbacks and 30 feet overall as measured from finished grade, thereby complying with the
building envelope requirements.
3. Based upon all of the evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this
Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The General Plan designation for the project site is Low Residential. The project
proposes a 6,175 square foot single-family dwelling unit with a 674 square foot, detached
accessory dwelling unit on a 12,044 square foot lot. The size and design of the residence is
consistent with the goals of the Low Residential Land Use Designation to provide a single-family
dwelling unit within the allowable density range of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project is
also consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. The Goals and Policies recognize
that the Development Code and Hillside Ordinance contain a comprehensive set of hillside
development regulations. These regulations provide specific requirements that projects must
adhere to and facilitate these goals and policies. The project’s design is consistent with the
Development Code and the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines, the latter of which is
established through the Hillside Ordinance. The house’s height is limited to 30 feet and
incorporates some degree of terracing to follow the natural topography in the neighborhood. The
home’s design incorporated a flat roof and a subterranean garage. Both features reduce the mass
and scale of the building. These design features were intended to minimize the overbuilding of
hillside lots or crowding and to preserve the natural features of the land, as intended by the Goals
and Policies of the General Plan. The General Plan also includes a section dedicated to overall
Community Design goals. The Community Design (LU-69 through LU-73) section establish
General Design Principles the encourage high quality design of new developments in the City.
The Principles encourage innovative design that strive to serve a community’s residents. The
Principles also encourage high-quality, architectural styles that promote “novel variations” from
standardized model buildings. The proposed residence has a contemporary design theme, which
includes a variety of secondary materials and finishes. While the design style is different from the
traditional architectural style of other homes in the neighborhood, the style is consistent with the
intent of the General Plan’s Community Design Principles. The Staff Report submitted to City
Council prior to the public hearing (dated November 7, 2018) included an analysis of other Guiding
Principles, Goals and Policies of the General Plan (Attachment 3). The report analyzed and
provided an explanation of how the project met each of the applicable Guiding Principles, Goals
and Policies of the General Plan. The project was deemed to be generally consistent with the
General Plan’s goals of blending development with hillside conditions and maintaining
compatibility with the residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
General Plan.
b. The proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Development
Code and the purpose in which the site is located. The project site is located in the Low Residential
(L) District, which encourages the development of low-density, single-family dwelling units on
individual lots. In order to achieve the intended neighborhood density, the Development Code
specifies a maximum limit of 4 dwelling units per acre (0.25 acres per lot). The proposed project
is a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit on a 12,044 square foot (0.27 acres)
lot. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the Low Residential (L)
District designation. The project also complies with the intent of the Hillside Overlay District, which
seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is an upslope lot with
an elevation decline of approximately 32 feet from the north to south property line. Due to the
change in grade, the single-family dwelling unit incorporates a terraced design concept which
Page 147
EXHIBIT C
permits the residence to follow the natural contours of the project site. Roof levels at the front of
the dwelling unit are located at a lower level than roof levels at the rear of the residence. The
dwelling unit incorporates the use of split pads and grade separations to permit the structure to
step up with the natural slope. Design elements such as front-facing roof gables were not
permitted at the front of the dwelling unit so that the roof would be oriented in the same direction
as the natural slope. The maximum height of the dwelling unit is 15 feet at setbacks and 30 feet
overall as measured from finished grade. Hillside Design Section 17.122.020.D.1.C requires that
dwelling units in the Hillside Overlay District be designed to fit within a 30 foot high building
envelope, which the dwelling unit is in compliance with.
c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code. The project complies with all the requirements of the Low (L) Residential
District. The maximum lot coverage permitted is 40 percent. The proposed lot coverage is
approximately 34 percent. The required and proposed (in parenthesis) setbacks are as follows:
front and rear: 37 (53) feet and 20 (41) feet, respectively; interior sides: 5 (6.83) and 10 (10) feet.
All setbacks are measured to the wall face of the house. The proposed dwelling unit has eaves
that project 1’-6” into both side setback areas, and a chimney that extends 2 feet into the west
side setback area. Per the Development Code, eaves may project into required yards a maximum
distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages are supported only at, or behind, the building
setback line. Chimneys may project into required yards a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided
such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property line. The chimney is set back 8 feet from the
property line. The overall height of the dwelling unit is 30 feet which is the maximum permitted
height in the Hillside Overlay District.
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The proposed single-family dwelling unit is of similar scale and size
to that of the surrounding neighborhood and complies with the Development Code. The size of
the proposed house (6,175 square feet) is larger than previously proposed houses built since
2000 along Camino Predera. Including the ADU, the combined floor area of the project is 6,849
square feet. Because the garage is partially located underground, 1,231 square feet of the
structure would be obscured from view on three sides by the surrounding grade. As a result, the
visible mass of the house above ground is 4,944 square feet. For comparison, that is less than
the floor area of the house at 8054 Camino Predera (5,369 square feet above ground) and 703
square feet more than the average floor area (4,241 square feet, all above ground) of all the
houses along Camino Predera that have been built since 2003. The home may result in view
obstructions to nearby properties, but such obstructions are limited due to the undergrounding of
the garage structure and also other design features of the home. The project incorporates some
degree of terracing to follow the natural topography in the neighborhood and limits the overall
height of the building to 30 feet as required per the Development Code, thereby reducing the
overall mass and scale of the building. Therefore, given the intended residential use of the building
and the overall size and design of the building, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 –– New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Section 15303 allows for the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The
proposed project is a single-family residence on a single lot within the Low (L) Residential District.
The residence meets all applicable development standards and zoning regulations of the
Development Code. Therefore, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above
Page 148
EXHIBIT C
and all of the evidence in the record, this Council hereby denies the Appeal of Planning
Commission Decision DRC2018-00865, thereby upholding the Planning Commission approval of
Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672.
6. This Council hereby provides notice to the appellants that the time within which judicial
review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6.
7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to
the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Ms. Renee Massey, at the address identified in City
records.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018.
Page 149
Page 1 of 23
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council hear the appeal, receive public testimony and review the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672, and
direct staff to prepare a resolution for one of the following:
•Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Hillside Design Review
DRC2016-00672, and deny the appeal that was filed.
•Approve the Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision DRC2018-00865, and deny the
approval of Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672.
•Continue the public hearing to allow the applicant time to work with Staff on revisions and
return it to the City Council for further review at an unspecified date in the future.
Based on the City Council’s direction, Staff will prepare a draft resolution and present it to the City
Council for action at the next available meeting.
BACKGROUND:
DATE: November 7, 2018
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Candyce Burnett, City Planner
Dat Tran, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DRC2018-00865 –
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672 – ANDRESEN
ARCHITECTURE – THIS APPEAL INVOLVES A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 6,175 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT AND A 674 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED
SECOND DWELLING UNIT ON A VACANT LOT TOTALING 12,044 SQUARE
FEET, LOCATED IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE
HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CAMINO
PREDERA; APN: 0207-641-12. THIS ITEM IS EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) AND THE CITY’S CEQA GUIDELINES UNDER CEQA SECTION
15303 – NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL
STRUCTURES.
Attachment 3
Page 150
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 2 of 23
A. Project Description: The applicant, Andresen Architecture, on behalf of Hector and Angela
Galvan, proposed a 6,175 square foot, three-story, single-family residence on Camino
Predera. The project site is Lot 35 of Tract 10035 and is roughly 500 feet southeast of the
intersection of Camino Predera and Red Hill Country Club Drive in the Low (L) Residential
District, Hillside Overlay District. The project also includes a 674 square foot accessory
dwelling unit (ADU at the rear of the lot.
B. Review Process Timeline: The Hillside Design Review application for the proposal was
submitted to the City in August 2016. City Staff processed the application and during several
cycles of review requested that the applicant provide additional information about the project
and revise the design of the house to ensure compliance with the General Plan and
Development Code. The City deemed the application “Complete” for processing purposes in
April 2018. The next step in the process was for the applicant to conduct a Neighborhood
Meeting. This meeting is required by the City for all projects that will be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and that are adjacent to residential development. The City requires
that all owners of property within 660 feet of the project site be notified by mail by the applicant
at least two (2) weeks prior to the meeting.
C. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant held the Neighborhood Meeting at Valley Vista
Elementary School on May 22, 2018. Approximately 16 residents, the applicant and his
clients, and the planner from the City assigned to the project were in attendance. The applicant
provided an overview of the proposed project to the residents and fielded questions from
them. The residents had questions about the technical details of the project including the
height, size, and building setbacks of the house and the amount of grading that would be
required to construct the house. Their primary concerns were a) the size and scale of the
proposed house and the ADU would be larger than the existing houses in the neighborhood
and b) their view to the south, overlooking the hillside and the valley below, would be
blocked. The applicant stated that he would review the plans and make modifications where
possible to address these two issues. The residents also had questions regarding the City’s
policies and standards regarding the construction of new houses in hillside neighborhoods.
They stated that the project was not in keeping with the City’s Hillside Ordinance. Staff
explained to the residents that the project was designed in compliance with Section
17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code (the Hillside Ordinance).
The residents also stated that the meeting was noticed incorrectly. They stated that the
distance within which property owners received the mailed notices was only 300 feet. The
applicant mailed out the notifications on May 4, 2018 (18 days before the date of the
neighborhood meeting). Staff agreed that the letters were sent to only those within 300 feet
of the project site. Staff became aware of this error on May 10, 2018, based on a phone call
from a resident, and directed the applicant to notify the property owners who were not included
in the original notification. Additional letters were mailed on May 11, 2018 (12 calendar days
before the neighborhood meeting date).
After the neighborhood meeting, the applicant made additional changes to the project to
address the neighbors’ concerns. The height of the accessory unit was reduced by 1 foot to a
height of 15 feet. Changes were also made to the design of the covered patio and
bedroom/bathroom area at the rear of the residence. These changes reduced the height of
the overall house by 6 inches.
Page 151
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 3 of 23
D. Design and Technical Review Committees: As required by Section 17.16.140.E.4 of the
Development Code, the project was presented to the Design Review Committee (Attachment
3) on June 19, 2018 to review the project’s architecture and site planning. Approximately 15
residents from the community attended the meeting. During the “Public Communications”
period of the meeting (which occurs at the beginning of the agendized items and before those
items, such as the subject project, are reviewed) some of them stated the same concerns with
the project that they had stated at the Neighborhood Meeting.
Their primary concerns were the size and scale of the proposed house and the ADU. The
residents stated that previous City Council actions had overturned Planning Commission
decisions approving residences in the neighborhood on the basis that they did not meet the
Hillside Development Standards. The residents restated their concern about the public
notification distance for the Neighborhood Meeting. A resident also commented to the Design
Review Committee regarding issues relating to the project’s compliance with the covenants,
conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that govern the 38 lots, including the project site, within
Tract 10035 (Attachment 9). That resident stated that the CC&Rs do not allow for approval of
structures that block the views of adjacent property owners. The Committee received the
public comments but did not provide any direct Analysiss as they could not do during the
Public Communications period.
Following public testimony, staff presented the proposal to the Design Review Committee.
The Design Review Committee also heard from the applicant. During deliberation the
Committee requested additional information from the applicant based on the concerns of the
Committee and the public comment received from the neighbors in attendance. Specifically,
the Design Review Committee member Rich Macias, who is also one of the Planning
Commissioners, requested the applicant provide additional cross sections through the project
site and requested that the applicant install story poles on the site so that the neighbors and
staff could verify the height of the dwelling. The Design Review Committee completed their
review of the project and accepted it as proposed. They recommended that the project be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Design Review
Committee requested that these issues be addressed in the Planning Commission staff report
so that the Planning Commission would have the full record of the project and requirements
of the Design Review Committee. Additionally, the Design Review Committee requested that
the details and background of the noticing for the neighborhood meeting and the CC&Rs,
introduced during the Public Communications period of the meeting, be included in the Staff
Report for the Planning Commission public hearing.
The applicant installed the requested story poles at the project site on July 7, 2018. The poles
were installed at various locations on-site. The poles included tape strung along the top of
the poles to indicate the location of the proposed house’s rooflines. The heights of the story
poles were verified as accurate by the civil engineer for the project, Bonadiman & Associates,
Inc. The City’s Engineering Department reviewed the methodology and equipment used for
verifying the pole heights and deemed the process acceptable.
As required by Section 17.16.140.E.5 of the Development Code, the project was also
presented to the Technical Review Committee on June 19, 2018 to review the project’s
compliance with technical code requirements. The Technical Review Committee accepted the
design of the project as proposed without revisions and recommended that the project be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Page 152
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 4 of 23
E. Correspondence Received Prior to Planning Commission: Staff received three letters from
concerned residents prior to the Planning Commission. The three letters were received on
June 20, 2018 (letter dated June 19, 2018), October 3, 2018 and October 7, 2018. All three
letters reiterated similar concerns that had been put forth during the Neighborhood Meeting
and the Design Review Committee meeting.
F. Planning Commission Public Hearing: On October 10, 2018, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing for the project (Attachment 1). Staff included the three letters of
correspondence from the residents in the Staff Report for review and consideration by the
Planning Commission (Attachments 7 and 8). In addition to the Staff Report and the letters of
correspondence, the Planning Commission also received comments from two members of the
public indicating opposition to the project on the day of the public hearing. Following their
deliberations, the Commission approved the project in a 4-1 vote (4 in favor, 1 against) and
adopted Resolution No. 18-69 that included special and standard conditions of approval
(Attachment 2).
G. Appeal Letter: On October 18, 2018, a letter was submitted to the City within the required 10-
day period appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the project (Attachment 6). The
letter was signed by 11 residents (“the appellants”) from the neighborhood.
ANALYSIS:
A. General – Analysis to Appeal Issues: Several concerns were raised by residents in opposition
to the project. The following topics of concern were identified in the letter of appeal are
summarized as follows with Staff’s Analysis in italics:
1. Loss of Views: The appellants state that the project will negatively impact views as seen
from neighboring, existing residences, and is inconsistent with the design standards and
guidelines described in Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development
Code.
Staff Analysis: The project is subject to the development standards of the Hillside Overlay
District (hereafter referred to as “the Overlay”). The standards that apply in the Overlay
are established and described in Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines - of the Development Code. The Hillside Design Standards (Ordinance) is not
a view preservation ordinance. It does not prohibit residents from impairing the views of
others by restricting development or limiting development to a certain height. While it
seeks to orient homes to allow view opportunities, it acknowledges that “such views may
be limited” (Section 17.22,020.B.2). Instead, The Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines are divided into two types of requirements, “standards” and “guidelines”. The
Standards are requirements that projects must comply with. There is limited flexibility to
modify them. In contrast, guidelines are requirements that a project should follow, but
permit a greater flexibility in the method to reach them.
Section 17.122.020.B also contains multiple guidelines that are related to view
preservation. These view preservation guidelines recommend that houses have, for
example, variable setbacks and orientations, and be oriented in a way that preserves the
natural contours of the land and preserves viewing opportunities. Some of the guidelines
Page 153
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 5 of 23
such as variable setbacks, variable building orientation, and clustering can only be applied
to projects that are residential subdivisions as those projects have multiple structures that,
collectively, could have different, i.e. variable setbacks; different (variable) building plot
plans; and plotting buildings in a specific area on a project site while leaving the remainder
undeveloped. It is not possible to do this with one house such as the proposed
project. Also, the project site is within a previously approved subdivision where the
existing property line dictate how much variability in setbacks, orientation, or location on
the property is possible. However, the project complies with other guidelines of this
Section due to, for example the architecture of the house and site grading.
The Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines includes several architectural design
standards (Section 17.122.020.D) that limit the loss of views. One of the architectural
standards (Section 17.122.020.D.1.e) applies a maximum height limit for structures in the
Overlay that is lower than the height limit that applies to single-family residential
development outside of the Overlay (30 feet vs. 35 feet as measured from finished grade).
A reduced height of 5 feet minimizes potential visual impacts to surrounding properties.
Due to the contemporary architecture of the proposed house and the ADU, the roofs of
both are flat (horizontal) which minimizes the overall height of the structures. The flat roof
minimizes the massing and profile of the house above the second floor. Conventionally
designed houses, including those on the adjacent properties, have pitched roofs. A
pitched roof typically adds about 5 feet to a structure’s height. The roof is also terraced,
with the front of the house having a lower roof line. This terracing allows for the second
floor of the building to match the natural topography of the project site and adjacent
properties. These design solutions implemented by the applicant help minimize the
potential impact to the view to the south from the adjacent lots.
The stricter height limit and terracing also ensures that the proposed house is lower in
height relative to existing houses on the adjacent lots to the east and north. The highest
point of the roof of the proposed house is roughly 11 feet lower than the highest point of
the roof of the house on the lot to the east. The house to the north of the site is situated
on a higher grade. The highest point of its roof is roughly 18 feet above the highest point
of the roof of the proposed house. The deck of the second-floor balcony of that house to
the north is roughly 5 feet above the highest point of the roof of the proposed house. The
attached Elevations and Sections shows the heights of the house compared to existing
residences (Attachment 9). Because the proposed house is at a lower grade and cannot
exceed a height of 30 feet, it will not exceed the heights of the existing houses in the
neighborhood. This was verified by the view poles that Design Review Committee member
Rich Macias requested be installed on the project site. Therefore, the houses to the north
and east of the property will be taller than the proposed house, and residents’ views in the
direction generally to the south will not be substantially affected.
Another architectural standard (Section 17.122.020.D.1.c) requires that parts of a dwelling
unit such as a garage be detached. Residents in opposition to the project contend that if
the garage was separate, the height of the house would be lower and minimize the view
loss. The standard, however, only uses the garage as an example of what can be
detached. Any section of the house can be separate in lieu of the suggested garage. In
this particular case, the ADU is detached from the rest of the house, reducing the overall
mass and scale of the primary residence.
Page 154
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 6 of 23
The design of the garage, despite being attached, meets the intent of the Hillside Design
Standards and Guidelines. The garage is partially subterranean, and above the ground
only at the front of the house to allow for vehicle access. The partially subterranean garage
allows the overall height of the house to be significantly reduced when compared to the
alternative of a detached above-ground structure. Construction of a subterranean garage
allows the finished grade level to be lowered from the current grade of the site. The current
grade of the site is roughly 10 feet higher than the lowered grade with the subterranean
garage. Without the garage, the 30 feet maximum height limit would be measured starting
from the current grade. With the subterranean design of the garage, the measurement of
the 30 feet maximum height limit begins at the lowered grade level. The height of the
house above existing grade levels is thereby reduced by 10 feet in turn. Without the
attached subterranean garage, the height difference of 11 feet and 18 feet for the houses
to the east and north, respectively, would be reduced to 1 foot and 8 feet, respectively.
This reduction in the height difference would potentially create view loss for those adjacent
houses.
The Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines architectural standards (Section
17.122.020.D.1) also requires buildings to be terraced to follow slope, have grade
separation that step up to the natural slope, and to orient the roof slope in the same
direction as the natural slope. The house is situated on two finished surface levels, with a
separation of roughly 11 feet between them. The house is terraced from north to south,
with a design concept that follows the natural contour of the land. The flat roof design is
also terraced and from north to south. These standards were designed to minimize the
overbuilding of hillside lots or crowding and to preserve the natural features of the land
and minimize the blocking of views. The house’s mass conforms to the natural slope,
reducing in height as the grade decreases. As the proposed house will be at a lower
height, that allows for the existing neighboring houses that are at a higher grade levels to
maintain the view space proposed house’s roofline.
While the architectural standards in Section 17.122.020.D indirectly help to protect the
views of the existing houses, through the reduction of height, detachment of structures
and terracing requirements as explained above, the Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines do not prohibit all view obstructions for individual houses in hillside
neighborhoods in the way an easement might. The Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines establishes some view preservation requirements in Section 17.122.020.B.
One such standard requires the views of “any significant public vista or view corridor as
seen from a secondary collector or major arterial to be maintained.” The proposed house
does not block any significant public vista or view corridors as defined on page LU-90 of
the General Plan and identified in Figure LU-6 (Community Design Framework) on LU-75
of the General Plan. Public vista and view corridors include prominent major streets (e.g.
Haven Avenue, Archibald Avenue, etc.) and scenic resources (e.g. stands of eucalyptus
windrows, vineyard) that enhances views. Camino Predera and the nearby Red Hill
Country Club Drive are local streets and are not classified as “Secondary”, “Collector”, or
“Major Arterial” streets. These street types are identified in Figure CM-2 (Circulation Plan)
on page CM-9 of the General Plan. Therefore, this standard is inapplicable to the Project.
The plotting of the house follows the topography to the maximum extent possible. It is
similar to the other houses in the neighborhood and oriented in the same manner, terraced
from north to south, to preserve the natural characteristics of the hillside areas. The project
also incorporates larger setbacks than required by the development standards applicable
Page 155
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 7 of 23
to the Low (L) Residential District that helps to protect the views of adjacent residents. For
example, the primary residence has a rear yard building setback of 41 feet, 11 inches from
the property line. This setback exceeds the required minimum rear yard building setback
of 20 feet. The increased setback shifts the plotting of the house towards the front of the
lot, which is at a lower part of the property. Because of the lower grade profile, the house
is lower in height relative to the highest points of the existing houses to the north and east
of the project site. If the house was plotted at the minimum rear yard building setback
back, it would be located closer to the rear of the lot and at a higher elevation. A higher
elevation would have resulted in a house with a greater maximum height relative to the
surrounding properties and create a greater impact on views. Therefore, the proposed
house meets the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines by minimizing view loss impact
using the required design standards.
2. Site Development: The appellants state that the project does not conform to the
requirements of the Development Code and the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.
Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct a 6,175 square foot, three-story,
single-family residence on the project site. The project complies with all the requirements
of the Low (L) Residential District. The table below shows the lot coverage, setback and
height of the project site compared to the requirements described in table 17.36.010-1 in
the Development Code.
Low (L) Residential District Requirement Project
Lot Coverage (maximum) 40% 34%
Height (maximum) 35 feet 30 feet
Setbacks (minimum)
Front 37 feet 53 feet
Rear 20 feet 41 feet
West 10 feet 10 feet
East 5 feet 6.8 feet
All setbacks are measured to the wall face of the house. Development Code Section
17.34.040 - Setback Requirements and Exceptions, states that eaves may project into
required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages are supported
only at, or behind, the building setback line. The proposed residence has eaves that
project 1’-6” into both side setback areas and a chimney that extends 2 feet into the west
side setback area. Chimneys may project into required yards a maximum distance of 2
feet, provided such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property line. The chimney is
set back 8 feet from the property line. As proposed, the project conforms to all
development standards in the Development Code as required for new houses.
As stated in the “Section A.1 - Loss of View” above, the project also complies with the
provisions of the Hillside Design Standard and Guidelines, which seeks to facilitate
appropriate development of hillside areas. The project site is an upslope lot with an
elevation change from approximately 1365 feet (above sea level; ASL) at the rear/north
property line to approximately 1330 feet (ASL) at the front/south property line,
approximately 35 feet change from the north to the south property lines. Due to the change
in grade, Staff required the house to be terraced to follow the natural contours of the
Page 156
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 8 of 23
project site. The house has split floors/finished pads and grade separations to permit the
structure to “step up” with the natural slope. Design elements such as front-facing roof
gables were not permitted at the front of the residence to ensure that the roof would be
oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines section does not contain a specific requirement for either lot coverage or
setback requirements. Therefore, the project is subject to and meets the lot coverage and
setback requirements of the Low (L) Residential District. The design of the proposed
house met all of these standards and guidelines as its visual massing is reduced and the
floor plan of the house is terraced as intended by the Hillside Design Standard and
Guidelines.
3. Compatibility: The appellants state that the project will not be compatible with the existing
residences, and the hillside residential character of the neighborhood, near the project
site, due to the mass and scale of the proposed house and the ADU onsite.
Staff Analysis: The contemporary architecture of the proposed house allows for its floor
area to be larger without a corresponding increase in the visible mass of the structures.
The size of the proposed house (6,175 square feet) is larger than previously proposed
houses built since 2000 along Camino Predera. Including the ADU, the combined floor
area of the project is 6,849 square feet. Because the garage is located underground,
1,231 square feet of the structure would be obscured from view on three sides by the
surrounding grade. As a result, the visible mass of the house above ground is 4,944
square feet. For comparison, that is less than the floor area of the house at 8054 Camino
Predera (5,369 square feet) and 703 square feet more than the average floor area (4,241
square feet) of all the houses along Camino Predera that have been built since 2003.
The scale and massing of the proposed house is similar to surrounding houses. The
attached Elevations and Sections shows the heights of the proposed house compared to
the existing houses (Attachment 8). The finished pad elevation of the first floor is 1,352
feet (ASL), and the garage pad elevation is 1,341 feet (ASL). The ADU has a finished floor
elevation of 1,352 feet (ASL). The finished floor elevations of the houses to the west and
east are 1,343 feet (ASL) and 1,359 feet (ASL), respectively. The average between the
two floor elevations of those houses is 1,351 feet (ASL). The finished floor of the proposed
house is approximately 1 foot higher than the average. The highest point of the proposed
house, measured at the top of the roof, is 1,373 feet (ASL). The heights of the houses to
the west and east are 1,363 feet (ASL) and 1,385 feet (ASL), respectively. The height of
the proposed house is approximately 10 feet higher than the highest point of the house to
the west and approximately 12 feet lower than the highest point of house to the east.
Relative to the project site, the house to the north has a finished floor of approximately
1,372 feet (ASL). The height of the highest point of the house, as measured from the top
of the roof, is 1,392 feet (ASL). The finished floor and finished height of the proposed
house is 20 feet and 19 feet, respectively, below the corresponding features of the house
to the north. The form and massing of the proposed house follows the topography of the
surrounding area from north to south and from west and east. Therefore, the height of the
house is generally compatible in Staff’s professional opinion with other houses and is in
conformance with Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code.
The partially subterranean garage also minimizes the footprint of the house, while allowing
for additional living space for residents. The subterranean garage allows for the site to
Page 157
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 9 of 23
have 4,944 square feet of living space, while limiting the total lot coverage of the site to
roughly 34% (3,437 square feet footprint). With an above ground garage, the main
residence's footprint would increase as the lot coverage is calculated using the square
footage of all above ground covered structures. The site could potentially have up to 40%
lot coverage as permitted in the Low (L) Residential District. This second scenario of an
above ground garage would entail a reduction in living square footage, as the above
ground garage would increase the total site footprint from 3,437 square feet to 4,668
square feet (4% above the allowed lot coverage). The reduction to living space square
footage would be accompanied by an expansion of the building’s above ground mass and
footprint. In Staff’s professional opinion, the expansion of the building’s mass and footprint
would make it less compatible with the existing residences in the neighborhood. Therefore,
the size and arrangement of the components of the proposed house would keep it
comparable in size with existing houses in the neighborhood while allowing for additional
living space for the residents, resulting in a structure whose mass and scale is generally
compatible with the neighborhood.
The applicant has developed a proposal that complies with the Development Code. The
proposal meets the technical and design standards and guidelines described in the
Development Code. The house complies with all objective standards, such as size,
height, and setbacks. In addition, Staff determined, and the Planning Commission found,
that the overall design is generally compatible with the residential character of the
neighborhood. However, the project's architectural style and aesthetic features
and compatibility with the neighborhood is a subjective measure that the City Council must
consider as part of the appeal.
The Planning Commission recently approved Hillside Design Review DRC2015-00604 for
a house on the south side of Camino Predera (Lot 4 of Tract 10035) on February 14, 2018.
The approved proposal was for a 3-story, 3,778 square foot house with a contemporary
architectural theme. The proposed house on Lot 12 was subject to the same design review
process as the proposed house on Lot 35 that is the subject of this appeal. This process
included a Neighborhood Meeting (held on August 17, 2017) with approximately 20
residents in attendance, and a review by Design and Technical Review Committees (held
on November 14, 2017) that both recommended approval to the Planning
Commission. The approval of that project by the Planning Commission was not appealed
to the City Council.
4. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The appellants state that the project
also violates the CC&Rs established over the neighborhood (Attachment 10). The CC&Rs
were recorded for Tract Map 10035 in August 1988, which consists of the 38 lots along
Camino Predera. As noted previously, the subject property is Lot 35. The CC&Rs
established restrictions for development of the tract, which includes a provision prohibiting
the owners of a property within the tract from constructing any improvements that would
unreasonably obstruct the view from any other lot in the project. The CC&Rs also prohibit
the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
Staff Analysis: CC&Rs are private restrictions and requirements placed on each lot of a
subdivision to protect and govern the rights of private property owners. Projects must
comply with the City’s regulations but may also be subject to additional restrictions in the
CC&Rs. While the City often reviews CC&Rs before they are recorded to ensure they
comply with the conditions imposed on a subdivision map per Development Code Section
Page 158
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 10 of 23
16.18.060, the City does not enforce CC&Rs. In this case, the City has no legal standing
to enforce the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs do not name the City as a party to the agreement, nor
does it authorize the City to enforce requirements and restrictions placed upon property
owners. Instead, the City exercises its land use controls to govern the development and
use of land.
Section 2.04 and 5.02 in the CC&Rs specifically outline procedures for resolving view
obstruction disputes between property owners. In the event of a dispute between owners,
the dispute shall be submitted to an Architectural and Landscape Committee consisting of
members elected by the property owners. The Architectural and Landscape Committee
would render a binding decision on the dispute. Property owners in dispute with the
proposed improvements must resolve their dispute via the procedures established in the
CC&Rs. The City cannot legally enforce these particular CC&Rs.
Additionally, the CC&Rs expressly recognize the potential for future improvements on
individual lots and the potential for these improvements to obstruct existing views in the
neighborhood. The CC&Rs state “that the line of sight from Lots in the Project at the time
such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public by Declarant may be subject to
subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings by Declarant or other
Owners."
5. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): The appellants state that the project proposes an
accessory dwelling unit that is out of compliance with Development Code Section
17.100.020 – Accessory Dwelling Units. The appellants also states that the accessory
dwelling unit is not allowed per the CC&Rs (August 1988). At the October 10th public
hearing, one speaker stated that the City is not required to permit ADUs because
Government Code Section 65858.2(a)(1) includes the word “may” in describing the City’s
authority over ADUs: “A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of
accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use.”
Staff Analysis: As previously stated in the Planning Commission Staff Report, ADUs are
legally permitted in the State of California. The State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 on
September 27, 2016. The Bill went into effect on January 1, 2017. The Planning
Commission reviewed and approved the proposed project on October 10, 2018.
Therefore, the project falls under the requirements of the Bill.
Senate Bill 1069 prohibits local governments from adopting an ordinance that precludes
ADU’s and AB2299 requires local governments to ministerially approve ADU’s if the unit
complies with certain parking requirements and is less than 1200 square feet in size.
Under SB1069 and AB2299, the City cannot restrict the applicant from proposing and
constructing an ADU that falls within these requirements as long as it complies with the
other City requirements. The proposed ADU is 674 square feet and meets all other
requirements.
Although AB2299 regulates the square footage of the ADU, the Bill does not limit the City’s
ability to regulate the scale of the building. Accessory structures such as ADUs are limited
to a height of 16 feet in the rear yard (within 30 feet of the property line) per Development
Code Section 17.42.040-1. The proposed ADU is partially embedded into the slope at rear
of the property. The height of ADU is 15 feet as measured from finished grade (1,366 feet
ASL). The ADU’s finish floor level is at 1,351 feet ASL, which is about 10 feet below the
Page 159
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 11 of 23
existing grade on the project site. Due to the ADU being embedded into the slope, the
height of the roof is at about the same elevation as the rear property line. And, it is about
5 feet lower than the deck surface on the property to the north.
Assembly Bill 2299 also takes precedence over the CC&Rs’ prohibition of accessory
dwelling unit. Furthermore, as discussed in “Section A.4 - Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs)” above, the City has no legal standing to enforce the restrictions.
Property owners in dispute with the proposed improvements must resolve their dispute via
the procedures established in the CC&Rs.
Regarding the comment from the public received at the Planning Commission public
hearing on October 10, 2018, the language in Government Code Section 65858.2(a)(1)
does not grant cities discretion to determine whether or not to allow ADUs within their
jurisdiction. Instead, it allows cities to adopt ADU regulations that differ from the minimum
requirements of state law. If the City does not adopt an ADU ordinance, then the statute’s
minimal ADU regulations apply by default and the City would lose some control over new
ADUs. The California Department of Housing and Urban Development has clearly stated
that local governments cannot preclude ADUs.
Additionally, on September 5, 2018 staff prepared and presented to City Council for
consideration an ordinance to further regulate ADU’s in conformance with SB1069 and
AB2299. The ordinance confirmed that ADU’s would be subject to the City’s current design
standards, setbacks, height requirements and lot coverage requirements in lieu of allowing
the unrestricted guidelines of AB 2299. The City Council unanimously voted to approve
the ordinance. The ordinance became effective on October 19, 2018.
B. Analysis to Comment Letter Submitted by Rakan and Maria Alamat: Several concerns were
raised by appellants Mr. and Ms. Alamat in opposition to the project in a separate letter
submitted to the City on October 3, 2018 (first letter of Attachment 8). The following topics of
concern are summarized as follows with Staff’s Analysis in italics:
1. Previous Actions by Planning Commission and City Council: Mr. Alamat’s letter generally
states that in 2004 the City Council reversed the Planning Commission’s approval of
another, unrelated single-family residence that was proposed on Lot 12 of Tract 10035.
The Commission approved that project and the approval was appealed to the City Council
who “upheld the appeal and denied the project proposal” because of the distinctive
residential character of the community, that it did not enhance nor continue the existing
residential character, that the proposed design did not address the hillside setting and the
applicable development standards, and it did not present design features and scale that
are in keeping with the character of the area.
Staff Analysis: The subject project, Hillside Design Review DRC2003-00961, was
approved by the Planning Commission on May 26, 2004. The City Council reviewed an
appeal of the approval on July 7, 2004 and directed staff to draft a resolution of approval
to approve the appeal, thereby denying the project. At the following meeting on July 21,
2004, the City Council re-reviewed the appeal request. The City Council voted 4-1 to
continue the appeal under consideration for one month to allow for the applicant, planning
staff and residents to work out the issues. Following the meeting, the applicant worked
with staff and the neighbors to revise the project design. The modified plans were
Page 160
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 12 of 23
resubmitted to the City Council for review on August 18, 2004. The City Council voted 5-
0 to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. The house, at 8045 Camino
Predera, was constructed and finaled for occupancy in 2007.
2. Hillside Ordinance: Mr. Alamat’s letter states that the project does not conform to Hillside
“Ordinance” Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development. Specifically:
a. "The project does not comply with Development Code Section 17.122.020.B.1.a, 'Any
significant public vista or view corridor as seen from a secondary collector or major
arterial shall be maintained.' The view will be blocked."
Staff Analysis: Development Code Section 17.122.020.B.1.a – This Development
Code standard applies to public vistas or view corridors as seen from secondary
collectors or major arterials. As stated above, neither Camino Predera nor Red Hill
Country Club Drive are secondary collectors or major arterials. Therefore, this
provision of the Hillside Ordinance is inapplicable to the Project.
b. "The project does not comply with Development Code Section 17.122.020.B.2.b,
'Projects should incorporate clustering, variable setbacks, multiple orientations, and
other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and
offer views to residents.' This project offers unobstructed views to the developer, but
obstructs views of adjacent neighbors behind the proposed project."
Staff Analysis: Development Code Section 17.122.020.B.2.b – The purpose of this
guideline is to incorporate certain design techniques that help preserve open spaces,
protect natural features, and offer views to residents. It is not a requirement to provide
views to all residents in the neighborhood. Techniques like clustering applies to the
development of a residential subdivision, or similar, and is not an option for this project
as it is one single-family residence. Furthermore, the plotting of the proposed house
is consistent with that of the houses within the surrounding neighborhood.
c. "The project does not comply with Development Code Section 17.122.020.D.1.c,
'Detach parts of a dwelling such as a garage.' The project includes two-story dwelling
unit to be built on top of the garage."
Staff Analysis: Development Code Section 17.122.020.D.1.c – This architectural
standard requires that parts of a dwelling unit such as a garage be detached. As
previously discussed, the design of the garage, despite being attached, meets the
intent of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. The garage is partially
subterranean, and above the ground only at the front of the house to allow for vehicle
access. The partially subterranean garage allows the overall height of the house to be
significantly reduced when compared to the alternative of a detached above-ground
structure. The proposed ADU meets the intent of Section 17.122.020.D.1.c in lieu of
the garage, as it is a detached structure.
d. "The project does not comply with Development Code Section 17.122.020.D.2.a, 'The
design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot’s size and configuration in
order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking
of views. For example, within a development, the majority of the units should not be
designed with minimum setback to minimum setback.' Staff acknowledges this fact in
Page 161
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 13 of 23
their June 19, 2018 Report. This proposed project is going to be the largest dwelling
on Camino Predera and it will block views."
Staff Analysis: Development Code Section 17.122.020.D.2.a – The project’s design
conforms to the Development Code and the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines,
the latter of which is established through the Hillside Ordinance. The house’s height is
limited to 30 feet and terraced to follow the natural topography in the neighborhood.
The home’s mass conforms to the natural slope, reducing in height as the grade
decreases from north to south and east to west. The home has a flat roof and a
subterranean garage. Both features reduce the mass and scale of the building. Lastly,
the project meets all setback requirements and, in some cases, provides for increased
setbacks. These design features were incorporated to minimize the overbuilding of
hillside lots or crowding and to preserve the natural features of the land.
In summary, the proposed house complies with the design and technical requirements
described in the Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development of the Development Code
that were identified by Mr. Alamat.
3. Development Code: Mr. Alamat’s letter states that the project does not conform to the
City’s Development Code. Specifically:
a. “The design and layout of the proposed development doesn’t comply with applicable
elements of the City’s General Plan.”
Staff Analysis: The General Plan’s Goal LU-8 and Policies LU-8.1 through LU-8.10
contain hillside development guidelines and are relevant to this project. The intent of
these Goals and Policies is to protect visually attractive hillsides through the regulation
of new developments. The Goals and Policies establish that development should be
sensitive to the natural form of the hillside. Development should limit the extent of
onsite grading and provide for innovative design and arrangement of building site to
retain significant habitat and features. Building designs, such as massing, height and
architecture, should be designed in a way to blend into the surrounding hillside
conditions.
Lastly, the Policies recognize that the Development Code and Hillside Ordinance
contain a comprehensive set of hillside development regulations. These regulations
provide specific requirements that projects must adhere to and facilitate these goals
and policies. As discussed in Section A – General above, the project’s design
conforms to the Development Code and the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines,
the latter of which is established through the Hillside Ordinance. The house’s height is
limited to 30 feet and terraced to follow the natural topography in the neighborhood.
The home’s mass conforms to the natural slope, reducing in height as the grade
decreases from north to south and east to west. The home has a flat roof and a
subterranean garage. Both features reduce the mass and scale of the building. These
design features were intended to minimize the overbuilding of hillside lots or crowding
and to preserve the natural features of the land, as intended by the General Plan.
Page 162
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 14 of 23
b. “The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere
with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments. The
views and enjoyment of the neighboring dwellings will be affected.”
Staff Analysis: The project’s design conforms to the Development Code and the
Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines, the latter of which is established through
the Hillside Ordinance. The house’s height is limited to 30 feet and terraced to follow
the natural topography in the neighborhood. The home’s mass conforms to the natural
slope, reducing in height as the grade decreases from north to south and east to west.
The home has a flat roof and a subterranean garage. Both features reduce the mass
and scale of the building. Lastly, the project meets all setback requirements.
These design features were incorporated to minimize the overbuilding of hillside lots
or crowding and to preserve the natural features of the land. Furthermore, the plotting
of the proposed house is consistent with that of the houses within the surrounding
neighborhood. Therefore, the design and layout will not adversely impact use and
enjoyment of neighboring, existing or future developments.
c. “The architectural design of the proposed development is incompatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not maintain the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Section and General Plan of
the City. The proposed project does not protect or maintain the already established
residential neighborhood.”
Staff Analysis: The General Plan includes a section dedicated to overall Community
Design goals. The Community Design (LU-69 through LU-73) section establish
General Design Principles the encourage high quality design of new homes in the City.
The Principles encourage innovative design that strive to serve a community’s
residents. The proposed residence has a contemporary design theme, which includes
a variety of secondary materials and finishes.
The architectural design of the residence also incorporates variations in the roof height
to interrupt the wall plane at the side and rear elevations, creating visual interest. As
previously mentioned, the building has a flat roof and a subterranean garage. Both
unique design features help minimize view impacts. Thus, in Staff’s professional
opinion the overall design of the building is high-quality and generally compatible with
the surrounding houses in the neighborhood and along Camino Predera because of
the use of features such as high quality materials, variations in roof height, and wall
plane interruptions. While architectural style compatibility is often subjective, there is
a lack of a uniform architectural style in the neighborhood and, in Staff’s professional
opinion, concludes this style would be compatible because there is no uniform style in
the neighborhood.
d. “The design of the proposed development will not provide a desirable environment for
its occupant and the visiting public as well as its neighbors.”
Staff Analysis: The proposed project, a single-family residence, is on a vacant
residential lot that is surrounded by residential development where there is existing
infrastructure, e.g streets and utilities. It is subject to land use controls to ensure that
infill development is compatible with neighboring uses. The proposed project is not a
Page 163
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 15 of 23
non-residential structure or use that would negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood. The project site is designated for residential development in the
General Plan and Zoning Map. The project is subject to, and complies with, Section
17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code as discussed in
“Section A – General” above. Therefore, the project is unlikely to provide an
undesirable environment for its neighbors.
4. General Plan – Guiding Principles: Mr. Alamat’s letter states that the project is not
consistent with several Guiding Principles in the General Plan.
Staff Analysis: Although the Guiding Principles (pages I-6 through I-10) of the General
Plan establish overarching themes for development of the City. A “guiding principal is a
dream about the future that is shared by the community.” The principles are vision
statements that are general in nature that were set by the community for the development
of the City. The General Plan is the foundation for many of the City’s regulatory
documents, including the Development Code and design guidelines. All proposed
development is evaluated and guided by the General Plan. This is accomplished through
standards and guidelines in the Development Code that were derived from the Goals and
Policies in the General Plan. These standards and guidelines are the specific
requirements that projects must adhere to. Projects that conform to the Development
Code standards are therefore consistent with the Guiding Principles in the General Plan.
Staff has discussed in “Section A – General” above how this project complies with the
Development Code and, therefore, the General Plan.
5. General Plan – Goals and Policies: Mr. Alamat’s letter states that the project is not
consistent with several Goals and Policies in the General Plan.
a. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Goal LU-1 – “Ensure established
residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and local and community-
serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of residents.”
Staff Analysis: The proposed project, a single-family residence on a vacant residential
lot by residential development. No demolition or removal of existing structures is
proposed nor required. The proposed project is not a non-residential structure or use
that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project is subject to, and
complies with, Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code
as discussed in “Section A – General” above. Therefore, the project is consistent with
Goal LU-1.
b. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Goal LU-2 – “Facilitate
sustainable and attractive infill development that complements surrounding
neighborhoods and is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles.”
Staff’s Analysis: This goal is more applicable to high density development such as
mixed use project where the intention is for enhanced accessibility for pedestrians,
bicycles, and transit. The proposed project, a single-family residence on a vacant
residential lot within a low density single-family residential development.
Page 164
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 16 of 23
c. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-2.4 – “Promote
complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re-use that contribute positively
to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas.”
Staff Analysis: The proposed project, a single-family residence, is on a vacant
residential lot that is surrounded by residential development where there is existing
infrastructure, e.g streets and utilities. It is subject to land use controls to ensure that
infill development is compatible with neighboring uses. The proposed project is not a
non-residential structure or use that would negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood. The project site is designated for residential development in the
General Plan and Zoning Map. The project is subject to, and complies with, Section
17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code as discussed in
“Section A – General” above. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy LU-2.4.
d. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-8.6 – “Require that
hillside development minimize alteration of natural landforms, and encourage
clustering where feasible to retain maximum open space.”
Staff Analysis: The project was designed according to the standards and guidelines
of Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code. The
project maintains existing slopes to the extent that is feasible; does not obstruct or
unnecessarily interfere with, for example, existing wildlife corridors, drainage
patterns, and ridgelines. Clustering applies to the development of a residential
subdivision, or similar, and is not an option for this project as it is one single-family
residence. Furthermore, the plotting of the proposed house is consistent with that of
the houses within the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the project is consistent
with Policy LU-8.6.
e. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-8.7 – “Blend hillside
development with natural surroundings through architecture and the use of
appropriate construction materials, colors, and natural vegetation.”
Staff Analysis: The project is subject to, and complies with, Section 17.122.020 –
Hillside Development – of the Development Code. The proposed project
incorporates architecture and plotting that accommodates the natural terrain. The
ADU is a detached structure contributes to achieving this outcome. The proposed
house has massing, height, and a roof design that preserves the character of the
hillside as discussed in “Section A – General” above. Therefore, the project is
consistent with Policy LU-8.7.
f. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-8.10 – “Hillside
development shall be controlled by customized regulations.”
Staff Analysis: The customized regulations that apply to the project are described in
Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development Code. As
discussed in “Section A – General” above, this project complies with that section of
the Development Code. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy LU-8.10.
Page 165
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 17 of 23
g. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-9.1 – “Preserve and
enhance the special qualities of existing districts and neighborhoods through focused
attention on land use, community design, and economic development.”
Staff Analysis: The project is subject to design and technical standards/guidelines
that are described in Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the
Development Code. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to ensure that
the project does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed
in “Section A – General” above, this project complies with that section of the
Development Code. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy LU-9.1.
h. Mr. Alamat stated the project was not consistent with Policy LU-13.1 – “On north-
south roadways, open space corridors, and other locations where there are views of
scenic resources, trees, and structures, encourage framing and orientation of such
views at key locations, and endeavor to keep obstruction of views to a minimum.”
Staff Analysis: The proposed house does not block any significant public vista or
view corridors as defined in the General Plan. Public vista and view corridors include
prominent major streets and scenic resources that enhances views. Camino Predera
is a local street and is not classified as “Secondary”, “Collector”, or “Major Arterial”
street. The project is subject to design and technical standards/guidelines that are
described in Section 17.122.020 – Hillside Development – of the Development
Code. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to ensure that the project
does not negatively impact scenic resources. As discussed in “Section A – General”
above, this project complies with that section of the Development Code. Therefore,
the project is consistent with Policy LU-13.1.
6. Miscellaneous Documents – Compass Strategies and Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs): Mr. Alamat’s letter states that the project is not consistent with
these documents.
Staff Analysis: The “Compass Blueprint” is a document that was cited in the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the 2010 General Plan Update. The
Compass Blueprint was prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), a regional planning organization consisting of six (6) counties including San
Bernardino County. This document applies to the area subject to SCAG and is for the
purpose of transportation planning and future bus rapid transit (BRT) on a regional
level. The document was not designed to regulate specific, local-level projects such as
the proposed project. It was cited in the 2010 General Plan Update DEIR in order to
demonstrate its consistency with the Compass Blueprint. Additionally, the City obtained
a grant from SCAG to prepare a focused-level study for the portion of Foothill Boulevard
within the City. This study is consistent with the focus of SCAG’s regional-level
study. Therefore, this document does not directly apply to the project.
Regarding the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), CC&Rs are private
restrictions and requirements placed on each lot of a subdivision to protect and govern the
rights of private property owners. Projects must comply with the City’s regulations but may
also be subject to additional restrictions in the CC&Rs. While the City often reviews
CC&Rs before they are recorded to ensure they comply with the conditions imposed on a
subdivision map per Development Code Section 16.18.060, the City does not enforce
Page 166
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 18 of 23
CC&Rs. In this case, the City has no legal standing to enforce the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs
do not name the City as a party to the agreement, nor does it authorize the City to enforce
requirements and restrictions placed upon property owners. Instead, the City exercises
its land use controls to govern the development and use of land.
Section 2.04 and 5.02 in the CC&Rs specifically outline procedures for resolving view
obstruction disputes between property owners. In the event of a dispute between owners,
the dispute shall be submitted to an Architectural and Landscape Committee consisting of
members elected by the property owners. The Architectural and Landscape Committee
would render a binding decision on the dispute. Property owners in dispute with the
proposed improvements must resolve their dispute via the procedures established in the
CC&Rs. The City cannot legally enforce these particular CC&Rs.
Additionally, the CC&Rs expressly recognize the potential for future improvements on
individual lots and the potential for these improvements to obstruct existing views in the
neighborhood. The CC&Rs state “that the line of sight from Lots in the Project at the time
such Lots were originally offered for sale to the public by Declarant may be subject to
subsequent obstruction as a result of future construction or plantings by Declarant or other
Owners."
7. Design Review Committee (Report): Mr. Alamat’s letter states that staff there are
numerous incorrect facts stated in the Design Review Reports. Mr. Alamat’s states that
staff failed to reference view loss as a major/minor concern.
Staff Analysis: The proposed project complies with all the requirements of the Low (L)
Residential District. The table below shows the lot coverage, setback and height of the
project site compared to the requirements described in table 17.36.010-1 in the
Development Code.
Low (L) Residential District Requirement Project
Lot Coverage (maximum) 40% 34%
Height (maximum) 35 feet 30 feet
Setbacks (minimum)
Front 37 feet 53 feet
Rear 20 feet 41 feet
West 10 feet 10 feet
East 5 feet 6.8 feet
The project also complies with the provisions of the Hillside Design Standard and
Guidelines, which seeks to facilitate appropriate development of hillside areas. The project
site is an upslope lot with an elevation change from approximately 1365 feet (above sea
level; ASL) at the rear/north property line to approximately 1330 feet (ASL) at the
front/south property line, approximately 35 feet change from the north to the south property
lines. Due to the change in grade, staff required the house to be terraced to follow the
natural contours of the project site. The house has split finished pads and grade
separations to permit the structure to “step up” with the natural slope. Design elements
such as front-facing roof gables were not permitted at the front of the residence to ensure
that the roof would be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The Hillside
Design Standard and Guidelines section does not contain a specific requirement for either
Page 167
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 19 of 23
lot coverage or setback requirements. Therefore, the project is subject to and meets the
lot coverage and setback requirements of the Low (L) Residential District. The design of
the proposed home met all of these standards and guidelines as its visual massing is
reduced and the floor plan of the house is terraced as intended by the Hillside Design
Standard and Guidelines.
8. Design Review Committee (Findings): The letter notes that the Design Review
Committee’s findings were not satisfied for this Project and he provides the following re-
phrased statements from the Development Code:
a. "The design and layout of the proposed development doesn’t comply with applicable
elements of the City’s General Plan."
b. "The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere
with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments. The views
and enjoyment of the neighboring dwellings will be affected."
c. "The architectural design of the proposed development is incompatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not maintain the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Section and General Plan of
the City. The proposed project does not protect or maintain the already established
residential neighborhood."
d. "The design of the proposed development will not provide a desirable environment for
its occupant and the visiting public as well as its neighbors."
Staff Analysis: Per Section 17.20.040.C. of the Development Code, the "Design
Review Committee will consider design elements, such as, but not limited to,
compatibility of the project to surrounding properties, relationship of the design and
layout of the project to the site, architectural design, and use of materials, grading,
landscaping, screening and buffering techniques of adjacent properties, signs, and
open space. This committee will determine if the project adequately meets city design
guidelines and standards, and will transmit an appropriate recommendation to the
Planning Commission. The recommendation of the design review committee will be
based on the project conforming to the following criteria:
a. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable
elements of the city’s general plan, design guidelines of the appropriate district, and
any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic
districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned
developments.
Finding: The General Plan land use designation and Zoning Map designation for
the project site is Low Residential and Low (L) Residential District, respectively.
The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Low Residential land use
designation. The proposed single-family dwelling residence complies with the
Development Code such as setbacks, lot coverage, and architecture. It also
complies with the standards/guidelines that apply to hillside development as
specified in Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines of the Development Code
Page 168
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 20 of 23
b. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere
with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or future developments and will
not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
Finding: The proposed single-family residence is of similar scale and size to that of
the houses in the surrounding neighborhood and complies with the Hillside Design
Standards and Guidelines of the Development Code. Construction of the proposed
residence will comply with all related California Building Code standards to reduce
impacts.
c. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious,
orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this section and the City’s
General Plan.
Finding: The architecture is compatible with the eclectic architectural themes of the
existing houses throughout the Red Hill neighborhood. The contemporary
architecture minimizes the building's massing, scale, and height thereby allowing it
to conform with the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines of the Development
Code. This will minimize any impacts to views as seen from adjacent properties.
d. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for
its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use
of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain
a reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
Finding: The architecture was selected by the applicant's clients. Its contemporary
architecture reflects one of the currently popular design aesthetics and incorporates
high quality and aesthetically pleasing materials.
C. Consistency with General Goals and Policies: The project is consistent with the Goals and
Policies of the General Plan. The proposed home was subject to the same development
procedures as other recently proposed homes along Camino Predera. Staff reviewed the
project as proposed by the applicant and provided multiple rounds of feedback prior to
deeming them complete. Staff required the applicant to modify the plans to conform to the
requirements in the Development Code and the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.
After the project was deemed complete, the applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting (May 22,
2018), and submitted the project to Design and Technical Review Committees (June 19, 2018)
and to the Planning Commission (October 10, 2018) for review.
The process for the proposed project is consistent with the intent of General Plan Goal LU-1
and LU-2, and General Plan Policies LU-1.1 and LU-2.4. The intent of these goals and policies
is to provide a pathway for reviewing new development. The review process ensures that new
developments do not diminish the quality of life in existing neighborhood, while encouraging
development of residential lots that maximize efficient use of land where infrastructure is
provided. The development procedure for the project incorporated multiple rounds of both
internal and public review. The result of the process is an architecturally high-quality
residential development, on existing vacant land serviced by existing infrastructure.
Page 169
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 21 of 23
The General Plan’s Goal LU-8 and Policies LU-8.1 through LU-8.10 contain hillside
development guidelines and are relevant to this project. The intent of these Goals and Policies
is to protect visually attractive hillsides through the regulation of new developments. The Goals
and Policies establish that development should be sensitive to the natural form of the hillside.
Development should limit the extent of onsite grading and provide for innovative design and
arrangement of building site to retain significant habitat and features. Building designs, such
as massing, height and architecture, should be designed in a way to blend into the surrounding
hillside conditions.
The Policies recognize that the Development Code and Hillside Ordinance contain a
comprehensive set of hillside development regulations. These regulations provide specific
requirements that projects must adhere to and facilitate these goals and policies. As discussed
in Section A – General above, the project’s design conforms to the Development Code and
the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines, the latter of which is established through the
Hillside Ordinance. The house’s height is limited to 30 feet and terraced to follow the natural
topography in the neighborhood. The home’s mass conforms to the natural slope, reducing in
height as the grade decreases from north to south and east to west. The home has a flat roof
and a subterranean garage. Both features reduce the mass and scale of the building. These
design features were intended to minimize the overbuilding of hillside lots or crowding and to
preserve the natural features of the land, as intended by the Goals and Policies of the General
Plan.
The General Plan includes a section dedicated to overall Community Design goals. The
Community Design (LU-69 through LU-73) section establish General Design Principles the
encourage high quality design of new developments in the City. The Principles encourage
innovative design that strive to serve a community’s residents. The Principles also encourage
high-quality, architectural styles that promote “novel variations” from standardized model
buildings. The proposed residence has a contemporary design theme, which includes a
variety of secondary materials and finishes.
The architectural design of the residence also incorporates variations in the roof height to
interrupt the wall plane at the side and rear elevations, creating visual interest. As previously
mentioned, the building has a flat roof and a subterranean garage. Both unique design
features help minimize view impacts. The overall design of the building is high-quality and
visually distinctive from existing homes in the neighborhood. However, the design of the
residence is also generally compatible with the surrounding houses in the neighborhood and
along Camino Predera because of, in Staff’s professional opinion, the lack of a uniform
architectural style in the neighborhood. The architecture is consistent with the following four
General Design Principles on page LU-69 and -70 of the General Plan:
• Innovative design, regardless of its style, is more important to the achievement of “quality”
than the use of any predetermined theme. Innovative design promotes the use of novel
variations to solve common and unique problems in urban development. (An exception is
where both theme and innovation are essential in districts with a strong historical
character).
• Rancho Cucamonga does not depend on standardized design solutions; “off the shelf”
model buildings which may be accepted elsewhere are not necessarily the acceptable
measure of quality design in the community.
Page 170
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 22 of 23
• Architectural styles should complement and augment surrounding development. They
should convey a sense of thoughtfulness and not expediency.
• Be wary of the same architectural style repeated too often or over too large an area. It can
become boring and, as a result, no longer communicate quality.
D. Alternative Recommendation: The proposal meets the technical and design standards and
guidelines described in the Development Code, and it complies with all objective standards,
such as size, height, and setbacks. However, the project's architectural style and aesthetic
features and compatibility with the neighborhood is a subjective measure that the City Council
must consider as part of the appeal. The City Council may conclude that the proposed single-
family residence is not compatible with the other houses along Camino Predera and the Red
Hill neighborhood, in general, for the following reasons:
a. The contemporary architecture of the house is too unique and different from the
architecture of the neighboring houses and houses throughout Red Hill. The area includes
Craftsman bungalows constructed in the early 20th century, houses built following World
War 2 that follow the Ranch style theme, and recently built houses with Spanish/Tuscan
inspired themes;
b. The floor area of the project is too large at 6,849 square feet overall relative to the floor
area of the house at 8054 Camino Predera (5,369 square feet) and the average floor area
(4,241 square feet) of all the houses along Camino Predera that have been built since
2003;
c. The proposed house has three stories, as seen from the street, while the other houses
are either one-story or two-story structures;
d. The garage of the proposed house is large enough for 3 cars when the Development Code
only requires a 2-car garage and many of the other houses in Red Hill have 2-car garages.
If the City Council concludes that the project is not compatible, then the City Council may want
to require the applicant to work with Staff on revising the proposal to achieve greater
compatibility. The house could be subject to another review by the Design Review and
Planning Commission for their recommendation.
E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project
is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 –– New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section
15303 allows for the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The
proposed project is a single-family residence on a single lot within the Low (L) Residential
District. The residence meets all applicable development standards and zoning regulations of
the Development Code. Therefore, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
F. Correspondence: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners
within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Staff received a letter from Rakan and Maria
Page 171
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
HDR DRC2018-00865 – APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2016-00672
NOVEMBER 7, 2018
Page 23 of 23
Alamat on October 31, 2018. The letter is attached for review and consideration by the City
Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project proponent will be responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are
intended to address the increased demand for City services due to the proposed project. The
types of services that these impact fees would support include library services, transportation,
infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services. The
proposed development will increase the value of the project site and the parcels will be assessed
an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The project does not address any specific City Council goals.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the
property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of
the project site. Staff received a letter from Rakan and Maria Alamat on October 31, 2018. The
letter is attached (second letter in Attachment 8) for review and consideration by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 10, 2018
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-69 for Hillside Design Review
DRC2016-00672
Attachment 3 – Design Review Committee dated June 19, 2018
Attachment 4 – Planning Commission Adopted Minutes dated October 10, 2018
Attachment 5 – Planning Commission Full (Transcribed) Minutes dated October 10, 2018
Attachment 6 – Appeal Letter dated October 18, 2018
Attachment 7 – Correspondence in Opposition to the Project from Residents
Attachment 8 – Correspondence in Opposition to the Project from Rakan and Maria Alamat
dated October 3 and October 31, 2018
Attachment 9 – Elevations and Sections
Attachment 10 – Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DRC2018-00865
City Council
November 21, 2018
NORTH
Project site located on Camino Predera
Project Background
•The Planning Commission reviewed the project on October 10,
2018.After receiving public comments,the Planning Commission
approved the project on a 4-1 vote (4 in favor,1 against).
•Eleven residents jointly filed the Appeal on October 18,2018 to
review the Planning Commission decision to approve DRC2016-
00672.
•The City Council reviewed Appeal request on November 7,2018
at a public hearing.The City Council received testimony from 4 of
the appellants in opposition to the project,and from the applicant.
•The City Council voted to continue the project until November 21,
2018,to afford the applicant and appellants an opportunity to
resolve their dispute.
Existing
Residence
Existing
Residence
Proposed
Home
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Existing
Residence
Existing Conditions
Proposed View Rendering
Follow-up Meeting
•The City conducted a meeting with the applicant and
appellants at City Hall on Thursday,November 15,
2018 to determine if there was a compromise that
would be acceptable to the applicant,his clients,and
the appellants;
•The City retained a third-party,independent facilitator,
Susan Harden,to conduct the meeting.The applicant,
his clients,and seven appellants were in attendance.
Three representatives from the City were also in
attendance.
Revised Plans (Notations)
Existing house (north)
Line of sight from
neighboring property
North-South Section
New Roof Line
New Building
Envelope
Sidewalk at
Street
Public Noticing & Correspondence
•As this item is a continuance of the City Council public
hearing on November 7,2018,it was not required to be
publicly advertised;
•Staff received a written correspondence from 1
appellant on November 19,2018.The correspondence
outlined 8 issues with the projects;and
•The following are the comments from that
correspondence and Staff’s analysis of each issue.
Comment Letter and Analysis
1ST COMMENT:The Accessory Dwelling Unit does not meet the
encroachment percentage.30%is allowed,yet the plans show
40%;
ANALYSIS:The lot coverage of the ADU is 824 square feet.This
exceeds the maximum 30%lot coverage limit by 210 square feet.If
approval of the project is upheld,Staff will work with the applicant to
make sure that the structure complies with the rear yard lot coverage
requirements;
Potential Revision ADU Design
Rear Setback
Line (20’)ADU
2nd COMMENT:The driveway has a 20%grade and only a 15%
grade is allowed per the Hillside Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:Section 17.122.020.C.1.d of the Development Code
states that “Driveway grades above 15 percent may be permitted up
to a maximum of 20 percent”;
3rd COMMENT:The plans show 6 foot retaining walls and the
Hillside Ordinance only allows for 4 foot retaining walls
ANALYSIS:Section 17.122.020.G.1.k of the Development Code
states that “Walls that are an integral part of the structure may
exceed eight feet in height”;
Comment Letter and Analysis
Existing
Residence
Existing
Residence
Proposed
Home
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Existing
Residence
Driveway Retaining Wall Elevation (Blue)
Retaining Wall Elevation Near
West Property Line (Green)
Dirt Level on East Side
Dirt Level on East Side
4th COMMENT:The cut and fill does not meet the hillside
ordinance.The plan calls for a cut of 2,400 cubic yard and a fill of
104 cubic yards.
ANALYSIS:The Development Code does not place a limit on the
amount of cut (excavated)or fill (added)onsite;
5th COMMENT:The plans show a cut into the slope of 18 feet,but
only 5 feet is allowed.
ANALYSIS:On October 10,2018 the Planning Commission
reviewed the project and determined that the unusual topography
and the design of the building warrants additional excavation depth;
Comment Letter and Analysis
6th COMMENT:The Civil Plan is incomplete.
ANALYSIS:During the entitlement (or planning)phase of the project
the Engineering Services Dept.does not require a full and complete
precise grading plan as would be required for a grading permit;
7th COMMENT:There is no WQMP (Water Quality Management
Plan).
ANALYSIS:As this project is proposing less than 10,000 square feet
of impervious area over the project site,this project does not require
a preliminary water quality management plan during the entitlement
process;
Comment Letter and Analysis
8th COMMENT:There is a single ply roofing system with incomplete
drainage plans.
The design of the roof and the drainage plans are separate issues.The
City has determined that sufficient information was provided on the
Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan to deem the plan complete.
Comment Letter and Analysis
Environmental Determination
This item is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the City’s CEQA
guidelines under CEQA Section:
15303 –New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the City Council deliberate the
appeal,receive public testimony,and take one of the
following actions:
•Adopt the attached Resolution No.18-120
approving the Appeal of the Planning Commission
Decision DRC2018-00865,and deny the approval
of Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672;
OR
•Adopt the attached Resolution No.18-121
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission
to approve Hillside Design Review DRC2016-
00672,and deny the appeal that was filed.
Proposed View Rendering
South Elevation
North Elevation
Accessory
dwelling unit
Rear Property
Line/Fencing
Neighbor property deck area
South Elevation
North Elevation
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Existing house
(west)
Existing house (east)
Existing house (east)
Existing house (west)
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
South Elevation
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Existing house
(west)Existing house (east)
Existing house (rear)
off Red Hill CC Dr.
East Elevation
West Elevation
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Existing house (east)
Accessory
dwelling unit
Existing house (west)
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Accessory
dwelling unit
Neighbor
property
deck area
Neighbor
property
deck area
North-South Section
East-West Section
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Line of sight from
neighboring property
Existing house (east)
Existing house (west)
Sidewalk at
Street
GarageExisting grade/ground level
Existing house (north)
North-South Section
30’ high maximum
building “envelope”
Line of sight from
neighboring property
Sidewalk at
Street
GarageExisting grade/ground level
Existing house (north)
Revised Plans (Notations)
Existing house (north)
Line of sight from
neighboring property
North-South Section
New Roof Line
New Building
Envelope
Sidewalk at
Street
Existing
Residence
Existing
Residence
Proposed
Home
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Existing
Residence
Additional material for item J1
11.21.2018 City Council Meeting Agenda
Page 1 of 4
The following is Staff’s analysis in response to a comment letter from Mrs. Renee Massey relating
to the above-noted subject that was received by the City on November 19, 2018.
1. COMMENT: The Accessory Dwelling Unit does not meet the encroachment
percentage. 30% is allowed, yet the plans show 40%. This was apparently not realized by
staff till that meeting on 11/13 but was corrected and was addressed at the meeting on
Thursday the 15th in the Raines Room with the Galvan’s, Doug Andresen and the appellants.
Apparently, changes will need to be made to the existing plans to correct the error.
STAFF’S ANALYSIS: The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) was discovered to be out of
compliance with the Development Code. Section 17.42.040-1 of the Development Code
requires that all solid roof structures shall maintain a maximum of 30% lot coverage in the
“required rear yard”. The lot coverage includes the roof overhangs of the structure. The
required rear yard is the area that is within the rear building setback of the lot. The rear
building setback is measured from the rear property line. For lots in the Low (L) Residential
District, the rear building setback is 20 feet and the required rear yard is determined by
drawing an imaginary line that is 20 feet from, and parallel to, the rear property line. The yard
area within this generally rectangular space is the “required rear yard”.
For the subject project site, the total area of the required rear yard is 1,654 square feet.
Therefore, lot coverage in this rear yard area cannot exceed 496 square feet (0.30 x 1,654SF
= 496SF). Per Section 17.100.040.J of the Development Code “accessory dwelling units shall
conform to the lot coverage requirements for the zoning district in which it is located.” The lot
coverage of the ADU is 824 square feet. This includes the floor area of 674 square feet for
the ADU and a roof overhang of 150 square feet. As the ADU is 5 feet from the rear property
line, 706 square feet of the structure is located within the rear yard setback. The proposed
rear yard lot coverage is 43 percent. This exceeds the maximum 30% lot coverage limit by
210 square feet. The plans indicate that only 496 square feet is in the rear yard area. After
further discussions with the applicant, it was determined that he misunderstood this
requirement, which requires that all solid roof structure square footage to meet the 30%
maximum limit. The 496 square feet shown on the plans only indicated livable square footage
inside the ADU and did not include the covered porch structure at the front of the ADU.
DATE: November 19, 2018
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner
BY: Mike Smith, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: DRC2018-00865 - Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of
Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00672
MEMORANDUM
(Planning Department)
Page 2 of 4
If approval of the project is upheld, Staff will work with the applicant to make sure that the
structure complies with the rear yard lot coverage requirements. One potential solution would
be to shift the ADU further out of the required rear yard (further from the north property line).
2. COMMENT: The driveway has a 20% grade and only a 15% grade is allowed per the Hillside
Ordinance.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 17.122.020.C.1.d of the Development Code states that
“driveway grades above 15 percent may be permitted up to a maximum of 20 percent,
provided they are aligned with the natural contours of the land, if determined necessary to
achieve site design, and if all safety considerations have been met to the satisfaction of
building and fire officials.”
The driveway is aligned with the natural contour of the project site and is necessary given the
slope levels at the front of the house. In order to lower the grade of the proposed driveway to
15 percent, additional excavation would be required. Per the Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines, generally minimal excavation is preferred. The Building & Safety and Fire
Departments have also reviewed and approved the driveway plan.
3. COMMENT: The plans show 6 foot retaining walls and the Hillside Ordinance only allows for
4 foot retaining walls.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 17.122.020.G.1.k of the Development Code states that “Walls
that are an integral part of the structure may exceed eight feet in height; however, their visual
impact will be mitigated through contour grading and landscape techniques.”
The proposed 6 foot retaining wall is located along the east property line. The wall is integral
to the design of the subterranean garage. The wall retains dirt levels along the east property
line, allowing for the driveway to extend into the garage. To reduce the height of the wall, the
driveway would have to be elevated. Elevating the driveway potentially requires the
subterranean garage to be elevated, thereby increasing the overall height of the house by 2
feet. The visual impact of the wall is mitigated by its location on the site. The side of the wall
that exceeds the 6-foot height limit faces the interior of the property and is only visible from
the area when standing directly in front of the garage. The other side of the wall, facing the
east property line, is situated against the hillside grade and is not visible. That wall segment
is also unlikely to be visible from the Camino Predera frontage given its location and
perpendicular alignment relative to the street.
4. COMMENT: The cut and fill does not meet the hillside ordinance. The plan calls for a cut of
2,400 cubic yard and a fill of 104 cubic yards.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 17.122.020.A.1.a of the Development Code specifies that “to
the extent possible, the width of a building, measured in the direction of the slope, shall be
minimized in order to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better “fit” the house to the
Page 3 of 4
natural terrain.” This section does not place a limit on the amount of cut (excavated) or fill
(added) onsite.
The amount of soil excavated from the site is necessary to allow for the garage to be placed
below existing grade. If there was a limit to the amount of soil excavated or a requirement for
existing soil levels to be maintained, then the garage would potentially have to be moved
above ground. This would increase the height of the overall house.
5. COMMENT: The plans show a cut into the slope of 18 feet, but only 5 feet is allowed.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 17.122.020.G.1.i of the Development Code states that “Fill or
excavation shall not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the Planning
Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading, or other
unusual circumstances indicate that such grading would be reasonable and necessary.”
On October 10, 2018 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined that the
unusual topography and the design of the building warrants additional excavation depth. The
additional excavation depth allows for the construction of a subterranean garage, which
lowers the overall height of the house. A 5 feet excavation depth limit would potentially
increase the height of the house by 12 feet (18 feet minus 5 feet).
6. COMMENT: The Civil Plan is incomplete.
STAFF ANALYSIS: During the entitlement (or planning) phase of the project the Engineering
Services Department does not require a full and complete precise grading plan as would be
required for a grading permit. Rather, the City is looking for the intent of the project in a
simplified technical drawing which can be reviewed and understood by the general public
during the public review process. The City has determined that sufficient information was
provided on the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan to deem the plan complete and to
move forward through the entitlement process.
7. COMMENT: There is no WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan).
STAFF ANALYSIS: San Bernardino County’s Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans classifies “Priority Projects” as “new development projects that
create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project
site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e. detached single
family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions or townhomes, condominiums,
apartments, etc.), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development
projects on public and private land, which fall under the planning and building authority of the
permitting jurisdiction.”
This project is considered a “New Development” as this lot is currently vacant. However,
according to the Project Information table provided by the applicant, the project is proposing
to create only 7,188 square feet (0.17-acre) of impervious area (see below). As this project is
proposing less than 10,000 square feet of impervious area over the project site, this project is
considered a “Non-Priority/Non-Category Project” and does not require a preliminary water
quality management plan during the entitlement process. During the permitting process the
City will require that a Non-Priority WQMP is filed with the Engineering Services Department
(Environmental Programs) prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Page 4 of 4
8. COMMENT: There is a single ply roofing system with incomplete drainage plans.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The design of the roof and the drainage plans are separate issues. Per
the City’s response to Item 6 above, the City has determined that sufficient information was
provided on the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan to deem the plan complete and to
move forward through the entitlement process. The Building and Safety Services Department
will review the roofing plans during the permitting process to ensure that they meet the current
adopted California Building Code.
CC: John Gillison, City Manager
Jim Markman, City Attorney
Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney
Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Communications & Marketing Officer
Monday, November 19, 2018
Mayor Dennis Michael and City Council Members,
Regarding the Andresen Project that will be addressed this Wednesday, November 21st we, the appellants,
want to thank you for the two week continuance.
To prepare ourselves for the opportunity to meet with the Galvan’s architect, Doug Andresen, we enlisted the
assistance of a design professional in order to have an attainable solution for all. Because Monday the 12th
was a holiday, our design professional met with Dat Tran, the Assistant Planner on Tuesday, November 13th to
look at the plans. One of the possibilities he talked about was to pull the house forward and down the hill
making the driveway shorter, which would reduce the profile and lower the overall height of the project.
This is great news because this was our suggestion to Doug at the May 22nd Neighborhood Meeting, which we
repeated at the June 9th neighbor invite (which Doug Andresen attended) and repeated again at the DRC
meeting. Because of your guidance, a meeting was arranged last Thursday in the Rains Room by staff,
directed by a 3rd party mediator. At that meeting, Mr. Andresen did offer an alternative which was exactly
what we had suggested six months ago. His amended plan involved lowering the profile which reduced the
height of the project by 9 feet.
Unfortunately, because our design professional is a professional, and is very familiar with the City’s
requirements…after that 2 ½ hours with Dat looking at the plans, he had a lot of concerns. He shared them
with us, and we feel compelled to share those concerns with you to do as you wish.
It was discovered that the design does not follow the hillside ordinance or grading requirements:
1) The Accessory Dwelling Unit does not meet the encroachment percentage. 30% is allowed, yet the
plans show 40%. This was apparently not realized by staff till that meeting on 11/13, but was
corrected and was addressed at the meeting on Thursday the 15th in the Raines Room with the
Galvan’s, Doug Andresen and the appellants. Apparently, changes will need to be made to the existing
plans to correct the error.
2) The driveway has a 20% grade and only a 15% grade is allowed per the hillside ordinance.
3) The plans show 6 foot retaining walls and the Hillside Ordinance only allows for 4 foot retaining walls.
4) The cut and fill does not meet the hillside ordinance. The plan calls for a cut of 2,400 cubic yard and a
fill of 104 cubic yards.
5) The plans show a cut into the slope of 18 feet, but only 5 feet is allowed.
6) The Civil Plan is incomplete
7) There is no WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan)
8) There is a single ply roofing system with incomplete drainage plans.
Again, thank you for your time. We were very impressed with the Mediator, Susan Harden and the Deputy
City Manager, Matt Burris who conducted that meeting. Please know we appreciate your wisdom in this
matter.
Sincerely,
Renee Massey for The Massey, Alamat, Rodriguez, Reyes, Snedeker and Ford Families
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn Gillison, City Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:Candyce Burnett, City P lanner
J ana Cook, Community I mprovement Manager
Veronica F incher, A nimal Services D irector
Michael F rasure, B uilding & Safety Services Manager
I van R ojer, F ire Chief
J ason Welday, Director of Engineering/City E ngineer
S UB J E C T:J O I NT P UB L I C HE ARING O F T HE C I T Y O F RANC HO C UC AM O NG A AND
T HE RANC HO C UC AM O NG A F IRE P RO T E C T I O N D IS T RIC T T O
C O NS ID E R F E E AD J US T M E NT S F O R VARI O US C I T Y D E PART M E NT S
AND C IT Y WID E T RANS P O RTAT I O N D E V E L O P M E NT IM PAC T F E E S, AND
F IRS T RE AD ING AND I NT RO D UC I NG AN O RD INANC E AM E ND ING T HE
M UNI C IPAL C O D E C O NC E RNI NG T HE T IM ING O F PAY M E NT O F
D E V E L O P M E NT IM PAC T F E E S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the following actions:
1. T hat the City Council and F ire B oard conduct the public hearing;
2. T hat the City Council adopt the Resolution amending Resolutions 16-199, 17-122, and 18-040 to
revise or adopt user f ees for A nimal S ervices, Community I mprovement, B uilding and S afety, and
Planning D epartments;
3. T hat the F ire B oard adopt the Resolution amending R esolution F D 18-003 concerning F ire D istrict
user fees;
4. T hat the City Council adopt the Resolution amending Resolution No. 17-113 to revise citywide
Transportation D evelopment I mpact F ees; and
5. T hat the City Council conduct first reading and introduce an Ordinance amending the Rancho
Municipal C ode concerning the timing of payment of Transportation D evelopment I mpact F ees.
BACKGROUND:
T he C ity and F ire district can impose fees under the authority granted by C alif ornia Government Code
Section 66000 et. seq, including the requirement to hold at least one public hearing as part of a regularly
scheduled meeting to allow for public comment on its proposed fees. F ees are allowed to be imposed in
order to recover costs associated with the provision of specif ic services benef iting the user, thereby
reducing the use of General F und monies for such purposes.
Page 307
As a matter of routine, the city departments revisit user and developer impact f ees at least once per year
to ensure that small adjustments can be made over time to keep up with operational and construction
costs. I n accordance with that approach, departments have once again reviewed their user and developer
impact fees to determine what adjustments should be made at this time. T his report covers requests for
revisions to fees for the following work groups: Animal S ervices, B uilding and S afety, Community
I mprovement, E ngineering S ervices, F ire D istrict, and Planning. The corresponding cost analysis
worksheets were placed on f ile in the City Clerk’s office on November 1, 2018.
ANALY S IS:
User F ee Updates
T he f ollowing user fee adjustments are detailed in the proposed City resolution (Attachment 1) and F ire
D istrict resolution (A ttachment 2):
ANIM AL S E RV IC E S
T he Animal S ervices Department recommends the following f ee adjustments:
• D og adoption fees would be modified f rom a set f ee to a variable adoption fee structure. I n this new
structure, the D irector/Designee may adjust the adoption f ee for any animal determined to be highly
desirable based upon factors such as breed, popularity, age, physical and behavioral condition of the dog,
length of stay at the A nimal C enter and market f actors such as comparable pricing for the same quality of
animal in the community. Variable adoption fees help the Animal Center recover costs for dogs in our care
and provide an additional incentive f or adopters to select dogs of all ages and breeds.
• R eptile adoption fees will be updated to reflect the cost of care.
• F ees for onsite spay and neuter programs are recommended for adjustments. C ommunity members
choosing to have spay/neuter services perf ormed at the A nimal C enter have the ability to participate in a
variety of different programs depending on the time of year. T his fee update will provide cost recovery
while keeping consistent pricing regardless of the program in which the patron is participating.
• Staf f recommends adding new fees f or public vaccination clinic services and cost recovery of supplies
provided to adopters and community members participating in Trap-Neuter-Release programs.
• T he F ield S ervices Division recommends the addition of a potentially dangerous or vicious animal
licenses f ee to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which states that potentially dangerous and vicious
dogs shall be licensed and vaccinated and shall be charged a fee in addition to the regular licensing f ee.
• T he After Hours P ick up/Handling fee will be adjusted to ref lect the increased cost of staf f time
associated with these types of calls.
• T he name of the Vicious Animal Ordinance C ompliance I nspection f ee will be modif ied to better
represent the purpose of this inspection f ee.
C O M M UNI T Y I M P RO V E M E NT
T he California Government C ode and Title 8 of the Rancho C ucamonga Municipal C ode allow the City to
recover costs associated with the abatement of hazards and enf orcement actions related to matters of
health and saf ety. T he calculation and recovery of these costs for each event can consume a great deal of
time f or Community I mprovement Officers and of f ice staff. Establishing standard fees ensures staf f time
Page 308
is used ef f ectively and property owners are treated fairly.
T he increase in the existing f ees ref lect the increased cost of staf f hours and are a more accurate
calculation of the required time based upon experience. T he only new fee requested is f or the abatement
of abandoned shopping carts f rom the public right-of-way. T he C ity contracts with a private vendor for this
service, paying a small cost per cart. T his cost will now be passed to the business with the additional f ee,
incentivizing business owners to make stronger ef f ort to retain carts on site or obtain independent service
for cart retrieval.
B UI L D I NG AND S AF E T Y S E RV I C E S
Building and S af ety S ervices f ees were approved by R esolution 18-040 on J une 6, 2018, but several f ees
were not depicted and need clarification. T his is an update provides those clarif ications.
F I RE D I S T RI C T
Updates to the Cost Recovery F ees for Special S ervices were made in J une 2018. T he proposed
resolution will make a minor adjustment to the Battalion C hief response fee.
P L ANNI NG D E PART M E NT
T he P lanning Department is recommending eliminating the fee f or a C ertif icate of A ppropriateness
application f or residential properties. T his entitlement is required f or historic structures or properties when
modifications to the structure are proposed to ensure maintenance of the architectural and historic
signif icance of the structure or property. T he additional f ee can be burdensome to residential property
owners and result in lack of maintenance of historic structures. T he City receives, on average, one
C ertif icate of A ppropriateness application per year. R evenue loss is expected to be minimal.
Part of recent code updates f or accessory dwelling units and the public art program, the code requires
covenants to be executed between the C ity and the property owner and recorded on the property. T he City
has the capability to record the documents with the county electronically, with the appropriate recording fee.
Staf f is proposing a pass-through charge for the recording fee charged by the County. T he actual cost of
the recording fee, plus our technology f ee, is proposed.
F or applications that require property owner notification, applicants currently submit with their application a
radius map and mailing labels f or all properties within a designated radius from the proposed project site
(typically 660 f eet). I n some cases, by the time the project is ready for approvals, the property owner
information may be inaccurate and require the applicant to submit the map and labels a second time. We
have worked with G I S to develop a map that staf f can use to determine the required noticing and gather
property owner inf ormation f rom data we get regularly f rom the C ounty. B y maintaining this process in
house, we can run the mailing list on demand, saving time waiting f or updated inf ormation f rom the
applicant. T his can also be done electronically, saving paper printed maps and costs of labels.
T ransportation D evelopment Impact F ee Update
On April 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho C ucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 445
creating and establishing the authority f or imposing and charging city-wide transportation development
impact f ees. Most recently, the C ity C ouncil adopted R esolution No. 17-113 updating city-wide
transportation f ees as authorized by Ordinance No. 445.
T he current Transportation D evelopment I mpact F ees (D I F ) have been reviewed and analyzed by City
staf f and found insuf f icient to meet f uture transportation needs due to increases in construction costs since
Page 309
the last f ee update in D ecember 2017. T he 2017 increase was based on the C alif ornia Department of
Transportation (C alTrans) Price I ndex f or Construction I tems, from 2nd Quarter 2016 to 2nd Quarter 2017
which was calculated at 15.2%. I n order to minimize the impacts of this calculated increase in construction
costs on the development community, staff recommended, and City Council approved a reduced increase
of 13% in 2017.
F or 2018, staff is recommending that the C ity C ouncil approve an ef f ective increase of 2.4%, consisting of
the remaining 2.2% f rom 2017 plus an administration fee to maintain the program. T he attached resolution
also includes the addition of “Accessory D welling Units” under the land use category of “Residential -
Multiple F amily Attached Unit” in order to clarify the correct f ee to be assessed to the building permit for
construction of Accessory D welling Units.
T hese changes are reflected in the proposed R esolution – Transportation D I F (Attachment 3).
Proposed Ordinance
Engineering S ervices is presenting to the C ity C ouncil f or consideration the attached Ordinance
(Attachment 4). T his ordinance would amend Rancho C ucamonga Municipal C ode S ection 3.28.020 to
provide flexibility to new development by allowing for the payment of Transportation D I F s either at the
issuance of building permit (currently required) or prior to receiving an occupancy certif icate from Building
and Safety. I n speaking with members of the development community, staf f has determined that this
change would assist with financing of projects while not hindering the program’s objectives.
E F F E C T I V E D AT E O F F E E S :
Animal S ervices Department and C ommunity I mprovement Division f ees will be effective J anuary 1,
2019. Building and S af ety and P lanning f ees will be effective 60 days f rom the adoption of the resolution,
consistent with state law. T he Transportation Development I mpact F ee update will be ef f ective March 1,
2019.
P UB L IC NO T IC E :
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090, this item was advertised f if teen (15) days in advance as a
public hearing (1/8 page ad) in the I nland Valley D aily B ulletin newspaper.
FISCAL IMPACT:
By consistently examining user fees annually, these updates provide additional revenue to offset the C ity’s
costs.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
R egular fee updates are in keeping with the Council's goal to enhance premier community status by
supporting fiscal stability as the community matures.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
C ity fee resolution
F ire District f ee resolution
C ity D I F resolution
Ordinance D I F timing
Page 310
RESOLUTION NO. 18-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN UPDATED FEE
SCHEDULE APPLICABLE TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES,
BUILDING AND SAFETY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, AND
PLANNING DEPARTMENTS.
A. Recitals.
1. The California Government Code allows the City to establish fees and charges for
municipal services, provided such fees and charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost
to the City in providing the service to which the fee or charge applies.
2. Data indicating the estimated or actual cost to provide each service, for which the fees
and charges set forth herein apply, was made available to the public at least ten (10) days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
3. On November 21, 2018, City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the amendment.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby specifically finds that the fees and charges set forth
do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge
be levied.
SECTION 3: The City hereby Amends Resolutions 06-142, 07-047, 14-223, & 16-199,
effective January 1, 2019, and adopts the following fees for services performed by the Animal
Services Department:
Title Description Fee
Dog Adoptions
Adoption fees may be increased for dogs determined to
be highly desirable. The determination that an animal is
highly desirable will be made by the Animal Center
Director or designee after reviewing factors such as
breed, popularity, age, physical and behavioral condition
of the dog, and length of stay at the Animal Center.
Variable
Pricing
Puppy Adoptions
Adoption fees may be increased for puppies determined
to be highly desirable. The determination that an animal
is highly desirable will be made by the Animal Center
Director or designee after reviewing factors such as
breed, popularity, age, physical and behavioral condition
of the dog, and length of stay at the Animal Center.
Variable
Pricing
Page 311
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18-
FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES
November 21, 2018
Page 2
Small Reptile Adoptions Adoption fee for animals classified as small size reptiles. $20.00
Medium Reptile Adoptions Adoption fee for animals classified as medium size
reptiles. $60.00
Large Reptile Adoptions Adoption fee for animals classified as large size reptiles. $100.00
Rabies Vaccination Rabies vaccination fee for public clinics $10.00
DA2PP Vaccination DA2PP vaccination fee for public clinics $20.00
Bordetella Vaccination Bordetella vaccination fee for public clinics $20.00
FVRCP Vaccination FVRCP vaccination fee for public clinics $20.00
FeLV/FIV Test FeLV/FIV test fee for public clinics $25.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Feline Neuter Feline Neuter surgery $30.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Feline Spay Feline Spay surgery $55.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Spay <35 lbs. Canine Spay <35 lbs. $70.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Spay 35-60 lbs. Canine Spay 35-60 lbs. $85.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Spay 60+ lbs. Canine Spay 60+ lbs. $105.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Neuter <35 lbs. Canine Neuter <35 lbs. $60.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Neuter 35-60 lbs. Canine Neuter 35-60 lbs. $70.00
Spay/Neuter Surgery –
Canine Neuter 60+ lbs. Canine Neuter 60+ lbs. $85.00
Potentially
Dangerous/Vicious
Animal License
Annual dog license issued to any dog determined a
Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Dog. $150.00
After Hours Pick
up/Handling fee
Calls for Field Services response taking place between
6 p.m. and 8 a.m. seven days a week. $70.00
Compliance Inspection
Inspection fee for Potentially Dangerous/Vicious Animal
compliance inspection, habitual control of animal’s
violator, general compliance and failed compliance
inspection.
$50.00
Feral Cat Trap TNR program feral cat trap deposit, deposited if trap not
returned.
$75.00
deposit
Feral Cat Box TNR program feral cat box deposit, deposited if box not
returned.
$85.00
deposit
E-Collar Medical collar used after surgery to prevent animal from
causing harm to incision site. $3.00
Page 312
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18-
FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES
November 21, 2018
Page 3
Cardboard Carrier Provided at time of adoption or return-to-owner for
safe transport of cats, kittens, and other small pets. $2.00
Slip Leash Provided at time of adoption or return-to-owner for
safe transport of dogs. $2.00
SECTION 4: The City hereby Amends Resolution 18-040, effective January 20, 2019,
and adopts the following fees for services performed by the Building and Safety Department:
Fee Table Fee
No. Description Fee
Minor Improvements/
Miscellaneous Items 3. Cell Site Modification (hourly) $131.00 (hourly)
Minor Improvements/
Miscellaneous Items 99. Inspection (hourly) $131.00 (hourly)
Minor Improvements/
Miscellaneous Items 100. Hourly Review by Engineer $131.00 (hourly)
Minor Improvements/
Miscellaneous Items 101. Outsourced Plan Check $131.00 (hourly)
Minor Improvements/
Miscellaneous Items New City Facilitation of Consultant Actual Cost
MEP Miscellaneous 3. MEP Plan Check by Engineer $131.00 (hourly)
Miscellaneous Fire
Sprinkler and
Underground Work
4. Standard Hourly Rate $131.00 (hourly)
Miscellaneous Fire
Sprinkler and
Underground Work
6. Dry Pipe Valve $ 105.00
Miscellaneous Fire
Sprinkler and
Underground Work
15. Standard Hourly Rate $131.00 (hourly)
SECTION 5: The City hereby Amends Resolutions 16-199 and 17-122, effective January
1, 2019, and adopts the following fees for services performed by the Community Improvement
Division:
Page 313
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18-
FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES
November 21, 2018
Page 4
Title Description Fee
Abatement -
cannabis, plants in
excess of 500
Costs for the procurement, service and related
processing of search, inspection and/or abatement
warrants. Actual costs for legal services shall be
added. Additional costs to the City may be added
when in excess of established fee by more than 10%.
$3,100.00
Abatement -
emergency
Emergency abatement of hazardous or nuisance
conditions, such as open & vacant properties,
unsecure pools or stagnant water. Actual contractor
and legal service costs will be added.
$240.00
Abatement -
reinspection fee
when non-compliant
Inspection costs to be assessed on follow-up
inspection after issuance of Notice to Abate and re-
inspection shows correction has not been completed
or attempted and staff will assign a contractor to
abate the hazard or nuisance. Actual contractor and
legal services costs to be added.
$285.00
Abatement -
shopping cart
Abatement of each shopping cart abandoned in the
public right-of-way when a business has not made
reasonable effort to comply with the provisions of
RCMC 8.50 SHOPPING CARTS. Actual contractor costs
will be added.
$12.00
Abatement - vehicle
Removal of inoperative vehicles from private
property, with or without an abatement warrant.
Fees for second and additional vehicles will be 50% of
current administrative fee. Actual contractor and
legal services costs to be added.
$365.00
Administrative
Hearing fee
Administrative Hearing for appeal of Notice to Abate,
Administrative Citation or other administrative
action. Fees to be deposited or Hardship Waiver filed
prior to appeal period expiration. Fees shall be
refunded when the appellant prevails, retained by the
City when the citation or notice is upheld and may be
modified by the hearing officer.
$200.00
Page 314
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 18-
FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND SERVICES
November 21, 2018
Page 5
Title Description Fee
Notice & Order
Costs for the preparation of a Notice & Order. Fees
to be waived when compliance is achieved prior to
the required correction date. Actual costs of
property profile and mailing to all parties shall be
added.
$160
Notice of Pendency
Release
Upon receiving satisfaction of a demand, this fee will
be charged for filing a Release of Abatement Lien or
Withdrawal of Notice of Pendency with the County
Recorder. Actual County fees will be added.
$155.00
Lien Administration
Upon completing all research and determining an
assessment shall be necessary to recover costs, this
fee shall be added to the previously determined
costs.
$70.00
SECTION 6: The City hereby Amends Resolution 18-040, effective January 20, 2019, and
adopts the following fees for services performed by the Planning Department:
Fee
No. Fee Name Fee
Notes Fee Amount
6 Certificate of Appropriateness – Residential No Charge
65 County Recording Fee [1], [2] Actual Cost
66 Property Ownership List [1], [2]
100 Feet or less (Small Applications) No Charge
101 – 660 Feet (Standard) $88.50
Over 660 Feet (Custom) $132.75
[1] Subject to Technology Fee adopted by Council Resolution 18-040
[2] Not subject to the General Plan Maintenance Fee
The fee set forth in this section shall be adjusted annually, commencing on July 1, 2019, and each
year thereafter, without further action of the City Council, based on the Employee Cost Index for
State and Local Government Employees, Total Compensation, during the 12 month period ending
on December 31st of the immediately preceding year, as released by the U.S. Department of
Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and rounded to the nearest whole dollar. If this index is
discontinued, a replacement index, as determined by the City Council, shall be utilized.
SECTION 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Page 315
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING, REVISING, AND UPDATING VARIOUS FEES
WHEREAS, The Government Code allows the Fire Protection District to establish fees and charges for
services, provided such fees and charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost to the Fire Protection
District in providing the service to which the fee or charge applies; and
WHEREAS, Data indicating the estimated or actual cost to provide each service, for which the fees and
charges set forth herein apply, was made available to the public at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, On November 21, 2018 the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Board of Directors
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the proposed fees and service charges, as
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1: The Board hereby amends Special Service Fees identified in Resolution Number FD18-
003, Section 2, Exhibit A and adopts the following Special Service Fee, effective 60 days after Resolution is
adopted:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2018.
Fee Name and Description Fee Amount
Special Services Fees are based on an hourly rate with a minimum charge of 1/2 hour;
assessed per response, per apparatus. Such service includes cost recovery for
emergency apparatus and personnel responding to fire alarm systems where no fire or
smoke conditions exist and manual fire alarm devices produce unnecessary response,
response to fire setter (juvenile or adult) and DUI incidents, response to mitigate
hazardous chemials or material incidents and response to fires caused by intentional
negligence, and special activities where apparatus and crews are assigned to events
that require the services at permitees expense.
Battalion Chief per hour 205$
SPECIAL SERVICE FEES
Page 316
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 1 of 12
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 17-113, REVISING CITYWIDE
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (DIF) FOR
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
A. RECITALS:
1. On April 18, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted
Ordinance No. 445 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging city-wide
transportation development fees.
2. On December 6, 2017, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted
Resolution No. 17-113, establishing city-wide transportation fees as authorized by Ordinance
No. 445.
3. The Engineering Services Department is responsible for reviewing the continued
need for described capital improvements and revising the cost estimates and fees when
appropriate.
4. The San Bernardino County Transportation Governments (SBCTA) requires that
project costs and fees, including Transportation Development Fees (DIF), be updated biennially.
5. Fees established by Resolution No. 17-113 were based on the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Price Index for Construction Items, from 2nd Quarter
2016 to 2nd Quarter 2017 which was calculated at 15.2% but a 13% increase was approved in
the resolution.
6. The fee increase is based on the remaining 2.2% increase from 2nd Quarter 2016
to 2nd Quarter 2017 resulting in an overall effective increase of 2.4%. All summaries and
calculations are hereby incorporated.
7. On November 21, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the fee revision adopted herein. The revised
cost estimates and fee calculations applicable to the fee revision were available for public
inspection and review ten (10) days prior to this public hearing.
8. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
HEREBY RESOLVES;
1. The facts set forth in the Recitals, above, are true and correct.
2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds as follows:
Page 317
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 2 of 12
a. The purpose of the fee revision is to finance transportation improvements
needed to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by new development; and
b. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance only
the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto; and
c. The construction of the described or identified public facilities is consistent
with the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan; and
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described
public facilities, and the mitigation of traffic impacts associated with new development; and
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee shown in
Exhibit “B”, and the type of development for which the fee is charged; and
f. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit “A” are reasonable cost estimates
for constructing these facilities, and the transportation development fees expected to be
generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs.
3. DEFINITIONS:
a. “Development projects” shall mean construction of residential, commercial,
industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements, or the addition of floor space to existing
improvements. A “development project” includes any project involving the issuance of a building
permit for construction or reconstruction.
b. “Exempted development” shall mean a floor space addition to an existing
residential building, and the following types of uses: public schools, colleges, libraries, churches,
parks, county jail, or sports complex.
c. “Equivalent dwelling unit” or “EDU”, is used to convert all types of land uses
into an equivalent unit that enables Nexus fees to be tabulated as dollars per EDU. One residential
single family detached housing is equal to one EDU.
4. PAYMENT OF FEE: The revised Transportation Development Fee shall be paid
per Chapter 3.28 City-Wide System Fee for Transportation Development subsection 3.28.020
Fees Established of the RCMC. The City Engineer, or their designee, shall calculate and
determine the amount of the fee based upon the rate then in effect at the time of payment.
5. FEE SCHEDULE: The amount of the revised Transportation Development Fee
was determined to be $10,854 per EDU. The calculations used to make this determination are
shown in the attached Exhibit “C”.
6. EDU/LAND USE EQUIVALENT SCHEDULE: The calculation of EDU for
each land use is based on the trip generation rates shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th
Edition. The EDU for each identified land use type is as follows:
Page 318
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 3 of 12
Land Use Type EDU
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit/Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 0.6 EDU
Apartment or Condominium - Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Senior Housing Attached Unit (Condo or Apartment) – Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU
Nursing / Congregate Care - Per Bed 0.2 EDU
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU
Office / Business Park - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU
Warehouse - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU
Hotel / Motel - Per Room 0.8 EDU
Day Care - Per Student 0.25 EDU
Self-Storage - Per Unit 0.02 EDU
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0EDU
7. USE OF FEE: The Transportation Development Fee shall be solely used to pay
for the public facilities described in Exhibit “A”, or for reimbursing the City for development’s fair
share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City, or to reimburse other
developers who have constructed public facilities described in Exhibit “A”.
8. ADMINISTRATION FEE: The City shall include an Administration Fee in the
amount of 15% of the total project cost for the management of the Transportation Fee Program.
9. FEE REVIEW: The Engineering Services Department shall review the estimated
cost of the described capital improvements, the continued need for these improvements, and the
reasonable relationship between such need and the traffic impacts for the various types of
development pending or anticipated and for which the fee is charged. The City Engineer shall
report the findings to the City Council at a noticed public hearing and recommend any adjustment
to this fee or other action as may be needed.
10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption, provided
that the fees as herein adopted, described, and amended shall not be collected by the City until
March 1, 2018.
11. JUDICIAL CHALLENGE: Any judicial action proceeding to appeal, review, set
aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days of its adoption.
12. CERTIFICATION: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Page 319
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 4 of 12
EXHIBIT “A”
TRANSPORTATION FEE PROGRAM PROJECTS & PROJECT COSTS
Freeway Interchanges
Project Estimate
F1 Base Line Road at I-15 Freeway - Widen NB & SB On-Ramps $401,442
F2 Foothill Boulevard at I-15 Freeway - Widen NB & SB On-Ramps $1,304,685
F3 Base Line Road at I-15 Freeway - Interchange Improvements $24,204,565
F4 Arrow Route at I-15 Freeway - Interchange $48,527,200
F5 Grove Avenue / 4th Street at I-10 Freeway - Interchange Improvements $5,313,197
Total: $79,751,089
Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings
Project Estimate
R1 Haven Avenue at Metrolink Crossing - Grade Separation $12,798,901
R2 6th Street W/O Lucas Ranch Road - Improve RXR Crossing Gates $1,039,025
R3 6th Street E/O Santa Anita Avenue - Install new RXR Crossing Gates $1,039,025
R4 Hellman Avenue at 8th Street - Upgrade Existing RXR Crossing Gates $1,039,025
Total: $15,915,977
Bridges
Project Estimate
B1 6th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel - Widen Existing Bridge $2,420,456
B2 9th Street at Cucamonga Creek Channel - Widen Existing Bridge $1,147,651
B3 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Ditch - Widen Existing Bridge $1,126,398
B4 Banyan Street at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge $1,282,252
B5 Hellman Avenue at Cucamonga Creek Channel - Widen Existing Bridge $7,323,947
B6 Whittram Avenue at Etiwanda Ditch - Bridge $1,412,130
B7 Wilson Avenue at Day Creek Channel - Bridge $1,453,455
B8 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Creek Channel - Bridge $2,447,613
Total: $18,613,901
Page 320
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 5 of 12
Streets
Project Estimate
S1 6th Street - Santa Anta Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue - Backbone $786,353
S2 Arrow Route - Grove Avenue to Baker Avenue - Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $1,590,417
S3 Arrow Route - 500' E/O I-15 Freeway to 1,300' E/O I-15 Freeway -
Widen South Side $1,320,034
S4 Banyan Street - Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Widen North Side $1,165,361
S5 Banyan Street - East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New
Alignment $9,609,802
S6 Base Line Road - Etiwanda Avenue to I-15 Freeway - Widen North Side
2 to 3 Lanes $1,160,638
S7 Cherry Avenue - Wilson Avenue to I-15 Freeway - Widen West Side $1,406,226
S8 Church Street - Archibald Avenue to Haven Avenue - Widen 2 to 4
Lanes $1,506,587
S9 East Avenue - I-15 to Victoria Street - Various Bottlenecks $963,460
S10 East Avenue - Fire Station to Wilson - New $1,529,020
S11 East Avenue - Wilson Avenue to North Rim Way - New $517,151
S12 Etiwanda Avenue - 6th Street to Arrow Route - Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $4,870,431
S13 Etiwanda Avenue - Miller Avenue to 850' N/O Miller Avenue - Widen
East Side $332,960
S14 Etiwanda Avenue - Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue - Curb and Gutter
East Side Only $1,096,880
S15 Etiwanda Avenue - Existing Northern Terminus to North Rim Way -
New $619,873
S16 Foothill Boulevard - Vineyard Avenue to Hellman Avenue - Widen 4 to
6 Lanes $1,421,575
S17 Foothill Boulevard - Hellman Avenue to 700' E/O Hellman Avenue -
Widen North Side Only $2,278,771
S18 Foothill Boulevard at Archibald Avenue - Widen Intersection $8,554,247
S19 Foothill Boulevard - Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue - Widen 4
to 6 Lanes $2,313,012
S20 Grove Avenue - 8th Street to Tapia Via - Widen 1 to 2 Lanes East Side
Only $1,268,083
S21 Grove Avenue - San Bernardino Road to Foothill Boulevard - Widen 1
to 2 Lanes East Side Only $780,450
S22 Haven Avenue - Base Line Road to I-210 Freeway - Widen West Side
Only $14,567,606
S23 Lower Crest Road - Day Creek Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - New $1,896,221
S24 Miller Avenue - Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Widen 2 to 4 Lanes $2,864,404
Page 321
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 6 of 12
S25 Milliken Avenue - 5th Street to 700' S/O 5th Street - Widen West Side
Only $360,117
S26 Victoria Street - East Property Line of Etiwanda High School to I-15
Freeway - Improve Both Shoulders $347,129
S27 Vintage Drive - Etiwanda Avenue to 1,300' W/O Etiwanda Avenue -
New $1,015,411
S28 Wilson Avenue - Milliken Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard - New $8,057,168
S29 Wilson Avenue - Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue - Backbone Only $667,101
S30 Wilson Avenue - East Avenue to Wardman Bullock Road - New $7,084,263
S31 Youngs Canyon - Cherry Avenue to Wardman Bullock - New $11,098,678
Total: $93,049,431
Traffic Signals
Project Estimate
T1 4th Street at Richmond Place $413,249
T2 4th Street at Utica Avenue $413,249
T3 6th Street at Buffalo Avenue $413,249
T4 6th Street at Cleveland Avenue $413,249
T5 6th Street at Etiwanda Avenue $413,249
T6 6th Street at Hellman Avenue $413,249
T7 6th Street at Pittsburgh Avenue $413,249
T8 6th Street at Rochester Avenue $413,249
T9 6th Street at Santa Anita Avenue $413,249
T10 6th Street at Utica Avenue $413,249
T11 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street $413,249
T12 Archibald Avenue at San Bernardino Road $413,249
T13 Archibald Avenue at Victoria Street $413,249
T14 Archibald Avenue at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T15 Arrow Route at Center Avenue $413,249
T16 Banyan Street at Rochester Avenue $413,249
T17 Banyan Street at Wardman Bullock Road $413,249
T18 Base Line Road at San Carmela Court $413,249
T19 Base Line Road at Shelby Place $413,249
T20 Carnelian Street at Banyan Street $413,249
T21 Carnelian Street at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T22 Cherry Avenue at Youngs Canyon Road $413,249
Page 322
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 7 of 12
T23 Church Street at Elm Avenue (West) $413,249
T24 Church Street at Mayten Avenue $413,249
T25 Church Street at Ramona Avenue $413,249
T26 Church Street at Terra Vista Parkway $413,249
T27 Civic Center Drive at Red Oak Street $413,249
T28 Ridgeline Place at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T29 Day Creek Boulevard at Madrigal Place $413,249
T30 Day Creek Boulevard at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T31 East Avenue at Miller Avenue $413,249
T32 East Avenue at Highland Avenue $413,249
T33 Etiwanda Avenue at Garcia Drive $413,249
T34 Etiwanda Avenue at Whittram Avenue $413,249
T35 Foothill Boulevard at Cornwall Court $413,249
T36 Foothill Boulevard at East Avenue $413,249
T37 Foothill Boulevard at Malachite Avenue $413,249
T38 Haven Avenue at Trademark Street $413,249
T39 Haven Avenue at Valencia Avenue $413,249
T40 Haven Avenue at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T41 Hellman Avenue at 8th Street $413,249
T42 Hermosa Avenue at Church Street $413,249
T43 Milliken Avenue at 5th Street $413,249
T44 Milliken Avenue at Wilson Avenue $413,249
T45 Rochester Avenue at Jersey Boulevard $413,249
T46 Spruce Avenue at Elm Avenue $413,249
T47 Spruce Avenue at Mountain View Drive $413,249
T48 Spruce Avenue at Red Oak Street $413,249
T49 Terra Vista Parkway at Spruce Avenue $413,249
T50 Terra Vista Parkway at Town Center Drive $413,249
T51 Town Center Drive at Elm Avenue $413,249
T52 Wilson Avenue at East Avenue $413,249
T53 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue $413,249
T54 Wilson Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue (West) $413,249
T55 Wilson Avenue at San Sevaine Road $413,249
T56 Wilson Avenue at Wardman Bullock Road $413,249
T57 Wilson Avenue at Canistel Avenue $413,249
T58 4th Street at Golden Lock Road - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
Page 323
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 8 of 12
T59 Archibald Avenue at Banyan Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T60 Arrow Route at Etiwanda Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $59,036
T61 Arrow Route at Red Oak Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T62 Arrow Route at White Oak Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T63 Banyan Street at East Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T64 Base Line Road at Mountain View Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T65 Base Line Road at Spruce Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T66 Base Line Road at Valencia Avenue - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T67 Day Creek Boulevard at Silverberry Street - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T68 Day Creek Boulevard at Sugar Gum Street - Left Turn Phasing
Upgrade $29,518
T69 Day Creek Boulevard at Victoria Park Lane - Left Turn Phasing
Upgrade $29,518
T70 Milliken Avenue at Millennium Court - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T71 Milliken Avenue at Mountain View Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T72 Milliken Avenue at Terra Vista Parkway - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T73 Milliken Avenue at Victoria Park Lane - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
T74 Milliken Avenue at Vintage Drive - Left Turn Phasing Upgrade $29,518
Total: $24,086,494
Signal Interconnect System
Project Estimate
SI1 Signal Interconnect System $9,091,471
Total: $9,091,471
Program Totals
Category Estimate
Freeway Interchanges $79,751,089
Railroad Grade Separations and Crossings $15,915,977
Bridges $18,613,901
Streets $93,049,431
Traffic Signals $24,086,494
Signal Interconnect System $9,091,471
Total: $240,508,361
Page 324
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 9 of 12
DIF Program Cost
Item Estimate
Program Total $240,508,361
Less Fund Balance as of 2005 -$20,000,000
Sub-Total $220,508,361
Administration Fee (15%) $33,076,254
Total: $253,584,615
Page 325
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT “B”
TRANSPORTATION EVELOPMENT FEES
Land Use Type Fee
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit $10,854
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit/ Accessory Dwelling Unit $6,512
Apartment or Condominium - Attached Unit $6,512
Senior Housing Attached Unit (Condo or Apartment) – Per Bedroom $2,171
Nursing / Congregate Care - Per Bed $2,171
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet $16,281
Office / Business Park - Per 1,000 Square Feet $13,025
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet $6,512
Warehouse - Per 1,000 Square Feet $5,427
Hotel / Motel - Per Room $8,683
Day Care - Per Student $2,714
Self-Storage - Per Unit $217
Service Station - Per Pump $54,270
Page 326
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT “C”
TRANSPORTATION FEE PROGRAM CALCULATIONS
Vacant Land as of February 2005
Vacant Residential Property = 950 acres
Single Family Dwelling Units (SFDU) = 5,363 units
Multi-Family Dwelling Units (MFDU) = 5,248 units
Vacant Industrial Property = 719 acres = 31,319,640 square feet
Assuming that the average floor area ratio for General Industrial is 0.5 then the future
square footage of industrial development is 31,319,640 square feet x 0.5 = 15,659,820
square feet.
Vacant Commercial Property = 334 acres = 14,549,040 square feet
Assuming that the average floor area ratio for General Commercial is 0.25, then the future
square footage of commercial development is 14,549,040 square feet x 0.25 = 3,637,260
square feet.
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) per Land Use
Different types of land uses have different traffic trip generation rates. In order for nexus fees to
be tabulated for each type of land use, the “Equivalent Dwelling Units” or EDU for each type of
land use must first be determined. The calculation of a particular land use type’s EDU is based
on the traffic trip generation rate for that land use from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Per City
Resolution No. 91-092, the EDU for various land uses was determined to be as follows:
Land Use Type EDU
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit/ Accessory Dwelling Unit 0.6 EDU
Apartment or Condominium - Attached Unit 0.6 EDU
Senior Housing Attached Unit (Condo or Apartment) – Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU
Nursing / Congregate Care - Per Bed 0.2 EDU
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU
Office / Business Park - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU
Warehouse - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU
Hotel / Motel - Per Room 0.8 EDU
Day Care - Per Student 0.25 EDU
Self-Storage - Per Unit 0.02 EDU
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0 EDU
Page 327
Resolution No. 18-XXX – Page 12 of 12
Total Future Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU)
Land Use Vacant Land as of
February 2005 EDU by Land Use Future Equivalent
Dwelling Units
Single-Family
Dwelling Unit 5,363 Units 1.00 5,363
Multi-Family Dwelling
Unit 5,248 Units 0.60 3,149
Industrial Park (per
1,000 SF)
15,659,820 Square
Feet 0.60 9,396
Commercial (per
1,000 SF)
3,637,260 Square
Feet 1.50 5,455
Total Future EDU 23,363
Calculate Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)
Item Fees
Total Cost of Projects $219,199,343
Total Future EDU (as of February 2005) 23,363
Cost per EDU $9,382
Calculate Transportation Development Fees by Land Use
Item EDU by
Land Use Fees
Residential - Single Family Detached Unit 1.0 EDU $10,854
Residential - Multiple Family Attached Unit/ Accessory Dwelling Unit 0.6 EDU $6,512
Apartment or Condominium - Attached Unit 0.6 EDU $6,512
Senior Housing Attached Unit (Condo or Apartment) – Per Bedroom 0.2 EDU $2,171
Nursing / Congregate Care - Per Bed 0.2 EDU $2,171
Commercial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.5 EDU $16,281
Office / Business Park - Per 1,000 Square Feet 1.2 EDU $13,025
Industrial - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.6 EDU $6,512
Warehouse - Per 1,000 Square Feet 0.5 EDU $5,427
Hotel / Motel - Per Room 0.8 EDU $8,683
Day Care - Per Student 0.25 EDU $2,714
Self-Storage - Per Unit 0.02 EDU $217
Service Station - Per Pump 5.0 EDU $54,270
Page 328
ATTACHMENT 4
Ordinance No. 18-xxx – Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 18-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
CONCERNING THE TIMING OF PAYMENT OF
TRANSPORATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3.28.020 is hereby amended as follows:
“The city-wide transportation development fees are hereby established on the
issuance for development or redevelopment in the city to pay for construction and
improvement of thoroughfares and bridges. The city council shall, in a city council
resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact
area on which the development fee is imposed, list the Nexus Improvement Program
and its components specifying the public improvements to be financed, describe the
estimated cost of the facilities, describe the reasonable relationship between this fee
and the various types of new developments and set forth time of payment. This
development fee shall be paid by each developer no sooner than issuance of building
permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure. No
certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the
development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the
time the fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect. On an annual basis, the city
council shall review this fee to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably
related to the impacts of developments and whether the described public facilities are
still needed.”
SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other
Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances,
which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver
of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
it to be published in the manner required by law.
Page 329
New and Amended Fees for
various City Departments
November 21, 2018
Background:
Fees are reviewed and updated each year. The following
departments are participating in fee revisions this year:
•Animal Services
•Building and Safety
•Community Improvement
•Fire District
•Planning
•Engineering Services
Animal Services
Update several fees and restructure dog adoption
fees
•Create a variable pricing structure for dog adoption fees
based upon market demand to encourage adoptions of all
breeds and ages of dogs
•Update onsite spay and neuter fees
•Add public vaccination clinic service fees
•Update Field Service fees
•Cost recovery for animal supplies
Community Improvement
•Update to fees recover costs for hazard abatement
and enforcement actions
•Adjust fees to more accurately reflect staff time on
activities
•New fee for abatement of abandoned shopping
carts
Planning
•Eliminated a fee for Certificate of Appropriateness;
encouraging planning submittals for historic residential
property renovations
•Add recording fees
•Create fees associated with new service –property owner
notification labels
Building and Safety, Fire District
•Minor adjustments were made to the formatting
and application of fees established in the recent
NBS study performed earlier this year.
•No changes or impact.
Engineering
•Transportation Development Impact Fee (DIF)
annual update to reflect costs for construction
•Increase of 2.4%
•Some language was added to clarify how fees are
assessed for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s )
•First reading of an ordinance regarding timing of
Transportation DIF payments –provides new
flexibility for payment at time of building permit OR
Certificate of Occupancy
•City Attorney was consulted and approved
Outreach
•Fee updates were provided to the Building
Industry Association (BIA)
•BIA had no comments regarding the fee updates
•Noticed of public hearing; advertised in newspaper
•Cost analysis for update fees has been made
available at the City Clerk’s Office and upon
request since November 1
Effective Dates of Fees
•Most fees effective January 1, 2019
•Building and Safety, Planning fees effective 60 days from
adoption of the resolution
•Transportation DIF update effective March 1, 2019
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council and Fire
Protection District Board take the following actions:
1.City Council and Fire Board conduct the public hearing;
2.City Council adopt the Resolution to revise or adopt user fees for
Animal Services, Community Improvement, Building and Safety, and
Planning departments;
3.Fire Board adopt the Resolution concerning Fire District user fees;
4.City Council adopt the Resolution to revise citywide Transportation
Development Impact Fees; and
5.City Council conduct first reading and introduce and Ordinance
amending the Municipal Code concerning the timing of payment of
Transportation DIF’s.
Additional material for item J2
11.21.2018 City Council Meeting Agenda
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:L inda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk S ervices Director
S UB J E C T:P UB L I C HE ARING O N C O NF L IC T O F INT E RE S T C O D E B IE NNIAL
UP D AT E AND AD O P T IO N O F RE S O L UT I O N AP P RO V ING AN AM E ND E D
AP P E ND IX I, D E S IG NAT E D E M P L O Y E E S , O F T HE C O D E. (C I T Y )
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the City C ouncil adopt a R esolution approving an amended A ppendix I of the C onflict
of I nterest Code, to include the addition of "C ultural C enter Manager" and "Communications & Marketing
Officer" to the list of “D esignated E mployees”.
BACKGROUND:
T he P olitical Ref orm Act (G overnment Code Sections 87100 et seq.), requires public agencies to adopt a
C onflict of I nterest C ode that identif ies all officials and employees within the agency who make
governmental decisions or participate in making decisions based on the positions they hold. T he
individuals in the designated positions must disclose their financial interests in investments, interests in real
property, sources of income and business positions that may affect their decision-making on a form called
Statement of E conomic I nterests (F orm 700). Typically, positions that involve voting on matters,
negotiating contracts, or making recommendations on purchases without substantive review must be
included in the code.
T he list of designated employees exclude Council Members, Planning Commissioners, the City Manager,
the C ity Treasurer and the City Attorney because they are already required by state law (Government
C ode S ection 87200) to disclose their f inancial interest.
ANALY S IS:
State law requires every agency to review its code every two years to determine whether it is accurate and
up-to-date. On December 15, 2016, the C ity C ouncil adopted R egulation 18730 (ref erred to as the model
or standard code by the F air Political Practices C ommission) by reference and, as such, the terms of the
code (Exhibit A ) and disclosure categories (Appendix I I ) to the Resolution are up-to-date.
I t is essential and legally required that an agency’s Conf lict of I nterest C ode reflect the current structure of
the agency and properly identif ies all officials and employees who should be f iling a S tatement of
Economic I nterests, F orm 700. T heref ore, it is necessary to amend Appendix I , Designated E mployees,
to include the "C ultural Center Manager" and "Communications & Marketing Of f icer" positions. No other
changes are needed.
Page 330
Public notif ication was achieved by posting of the agenda and public hearing notice, publication of the
hearing notice in the newspaper and notification to the two employees currently in the Cultural Center
Manager" and "Communications & Marketing Of f icer" positions.
Staf f has reviewed the current list of filers with the C ity Attorney and proposes two additions to the list of
filers who must disclose under specific types of categories described in F orm 700.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
None.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
R esolution
Page 331
Resolution No. 18-XXX
RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING, AFFIRMING, AND INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE
STANDARD CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGULATIONS TITLE 2, SECTION 18730 AND AMENDING APPENDIX I, DESIGNATED
POSITIONS, TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Political Reform Act (the “Act”),
Section 81000 of the California Government Code, all local governmental agencies must adopt
Conflict of Interest Codes applicable to every officer, employee, member or consultant of the agency
whose position entails the making or participating in the making of decisions that may foreseeably
have a material financial effect on any financial interest, and which code requires such designated
employees to disclose and disqualify themselves from making, participating in, or attempting to
influence such decisions; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted the terms of California Code of Regulations Title
2, Section 18730, the Conflict of Interest Code terms promulgated by the Fair Political Practices
Commission (“FPPC”) by City of Rancho Cucamonga Resolution No. 14-222; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the Code Reviewing body
under the Act, adopts, affirms and incorporates by reference the standard Conflict of Interest Code
set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly
adopted by the FPPC; and
WHEREAS, the standard Conflict of Interest Code set forth in California Code of Regulations
Title 2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC, along with Appendix
“I”, amending the list of designated officials and including establishment of certain positions, and
Appendix “II” setting forth amended disclosure categories, does constitute the Conflict of Interest
Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
WHEREAS, subsequent changed circumstances within the City have made it advisable and
necessary pursuant to Section 87306 and 87307 of the Act to amend and update the City’s Conflict
of Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of a public meeting on, and consideration by the
City Council of, the proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code was provided to each designated
position and publicly posted for review on the City website; and
WHEREAS, a public meeting was held upon the proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code
at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 21, 2018, at which all present were given an
opportunity to be heard on the proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, as follows:
1. The standard Conflict of Interest Code set forth in California Code of Regulations Title
2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC is hereby
incorporated by reference.
2. The amended list of designated positions subject to the requirements of the Conflict
of Interest Code are set forth in Appendix I and the disclosure categories are set forth
in Appendix II.
Page 332
Resolution No. 18-XXX
3. The standard Conflict of Interest Code set forth in California Code of Regulations Title
2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC and the
Appendices I and II constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby adopt the attached
Conflict of Interest Code (Exhibit A) and it’s amended Appendix I.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga at its regular meeting held on the 21st day of November 2018.
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City
Council held on the 21st day of November 2018.
Executed this 22nd day of November 2018, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
Page 333
Resolution No. 18-XXX
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) requires state and local
government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political
Practices Commission has adopted a Regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 2,
Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be
incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the
standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to
amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of California Code
of Regulations, Title 2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the
Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation
and the attached Appendices, designating positions and establishing disclosure
categories, shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements of economic interests with
the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which will make the statements available
for public inspection and reproduction (Gov. Code Sec. 81008). All statements will be
retained by the City Clerk.
Page 334
Resolution No. 18-XXX
APPENDIX “I”
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Disclosure
Designated Position Categories
Accounting Manager 2, 5, 11, 12
Animal Care and Services Director 2, 3, 4, 5
Animal Center Manager 2, 3, 4, 5
Assistant City Engineer 2, 5, 6, 7
Assistant City Manager 2, 3, 4, 5
Assistant Library Director 2, 5, 15, 16
Assistant Planner 2, 5, 6, 7
Assistant to the City Manager 2, 3, 4, 5
Associate Planner 2, 5, 6, 7
Building and Safety Services Director 2, 5, 6, 7
Building and Safety Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Building Inspection Supervisor 2, 5, 6, 7
City Attorney 1
City Clerk Services Director 2, 3, 4, 5
City Council Member 1
City Manager 1
City Planner 2, 5, 6, 7
City Treasurer 1
CIO/Director of Department of Innovation and Technology 2, 5, 13, 14
Communications Manager 2, 5, 8, 9
Communications & Marketing Officer 2, 5, 8, 9
Community Improvement Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Community Improvement Supervisor 2, 5, 6, 7
Cultural Center Manager 2, 5, 8, 9
Fund Development Coordinator 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16
Community Services Director 2, 5, 8, 9
Community Services Manager 2, 5, 8, 9
Community Services Superintendent 2, 5, 8, 9
Consultant: Special Counsel 10
Cultural Arts Manager 2, 5, 8, 9
Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services 2, 3, 4, 5
Deputy City Manager/Civic & Cultural Services 2, 3, 4, 5
Deputy City Manager/Economic & Community Development Services 2, 3, 4, 5
Deputy Director of Department of Innovation and Technology 2, 3, 4, 5
Engineering Services Director/City Engineer 2, 5, 6, 7
Public Works Services Director 2, 5, 17, 18
Environmental Program Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Facilities Superintendent 2, 5, 17, 18
Finance Director 2, 5, 11, 12
Finance Manager 2, 5, 11, 12
GIS Supervisor 2, 5, 13, 14
Historic Preservation Commissioner 2, 5, 6, 7
Human Resources Director 2, 5, 13, 14
Page 335
Resolution No. 18-XXX
Continued on page 5
APPENDIX “I” CONTINUED
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Disclosure
Designated Position Categories
Human Resources Manager 2, 5, 13, 14
Library Board of Trustees Member 2, 5, 15, 16
Library Director 2, 5, 15, 16
Library Services Manager 2, 5, 15, 16
Management Analyst III 2, 3, 4, 5,
Park and Recreation Commissioner 2, 5, 8, 9
Parks/Landscape Maintenance Superintendent 2, 5, 17, 18
Planning Commissioner 1
Planning Director 2, 5, 6, 7
Planning Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Principal Engineer 2, 5, 6, 7
Principal Librarian 2, 5, 15, 16
Principal Management Analyst 2, 3, 4, 5
Principal Planner 2, 5, 6, 7
Procurement and Contracts Analyst 2, 5, 13, 14
Procurement Manager 2, 5, 13, 14
Risk Management Coordinator 2, 5, 13, 14
Senior Information Services Analyst 2, 5, 13, 14
Senior Civil Engineer 2, 5, 6, 7
Senior Park Planner – Community Services Department 2, 5, 8, 9
Senior Planner 2, 5, 6, 7
Senior Risk Management Analyst 2, 5, 13, 14
Street/Storm Drain Maintenance Superintendent 2, 5, 17, 18
Traffic Engineer 2, 5, 6, 7
Utility Division Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Utility Operations Manager 2, 5, 6, 7
Page 336
Resolution No. 18-XXX
APPENDIX “II”
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
1. Disclosure is required on FPPC Form 700 pursuant to Government Code Section
87200. No additional disclosure is required by this Conflict of Interest Code.
2. Reportable interest in Real Property in the jurisdiction. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule
B).
3. Reportable Income, Loans and Business Positions (income other than gifts and travel
payments). (FPPC Form 700, Schedule C).
4. Reportable Investments. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule A-1 and A2).
5. Reportable Income – Gifts – Travel Payments. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule E).
6. Reportable income, loans and business positions from persons and business entities
having an interest in real property in the jurisdiction or that provide, plan to provide,
or have provided within two years prior to the time a statement is required under this
conflict of interest code, services within the jurisdiction subject to the inspection,
review or approval of the Planning, Building & Safety, and Engineering Departments.
(FPPC Form 700, Schedule C).
7. Reportable investments in any business entities having an interest in real property in
the jurisdiction or that provide, plan to provide, or have provided within two years prior
to the time a statement is required under this conflict of interest code, services within
the jurisdiction subject to the inspection, approval or review of the Planning, Building
& Safety, and Engineering Departments. (FPPC From 700, Schedules A-1 and A-2).
8. Reportable income, loans and business positions from persons and business entities
from which the City purchases, plans to purchase, or has purchased within two years
prior to the time a statement is required under this conflict of interest code, supplies,
materials, or services subject to the direction, supervision or control of the Community
Services Department. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule C).
9. Reportable investments in business entities from which the City purchases, plans to
purchase, or has purchased within two years prior to the time a statement is required
under this conflict of interest code, supplies, materials, or services subject to the
direction, supervision or control of the Community Services Department (FPPC Form
700, Schedules A-1 and A-2).
Page 337
Resolution No. 18-XXX
10. For consultants who service in a staff capacity with the City, the consultant shall
disclose based on the disclosure categories assigned elsewhere in this code for
that staff position.
For consultants who do not serve in a staff capacity, the following disclosure
categories shall be used.
Persons required to disclose in this category shall disclose pursuant to
categories A, B, C and D below unless the Department Director determines in
writing that a particular consultant is hired to perform a range of duties that is
limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure
requirements in categories A, B, C and D. Such written determination shall include
a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a
statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Department Director’s
determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the
same manner and location as this conflict of interest code.
A. Reportable interests in real property in the jurisdiction.
(FPPC Form 700, Schedule B)
B. Reportable income, loans and business positions. (FPPC Form
700, Schedule C)
C. Reportable investments. (FPPC Form 700, Schedules A-1 and A-
2)
D. Reportable Income - gifts and travel payments. (FPPC Form 700,
Schedules D and E)
11. Reportable income, loans and business positions from any financial institution in
which the City deposits funds, plans to deposit funds, or has deposited funds within
two years prior to the time any statement is required under this conflict of interest
code. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule C)
12. Reportable investments in any financial institution in which the City deposits funds,
plans to deposit funds, or has deposited funds within two years prior to the time
any statement is required under this conflict of interest code (FPPC Form 700,
Schedules A-1 and A-2)
13. Reportable income, loans and business positions from persons and business
entities from which the City purchases, plans to purchase, or has purchased within
two years prior to the time a statement is required under this conflict of interest
code, supplies, materials, or services subject to the direction, supervision or control
of the Administrative Services Group of departments. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule
C)
14. Reportable investments in business entities from which the City purchases, plans
to purchase, or has purchased within two years prior to the time a statement is
required under this conflict of interest code, supplies, materials, or services subject
to the direction, supervision or control of the Administrative Services Group of
departments. (FPPC Form 700, Schedules A-1 and A-2)
Page 338
Resolution No. 18-XXX
15. Reportable income, loans and business positions from persons and business
entities from which the Library purchases, plans to purchase, or has purchased
within two years prior to the time a statement is required under this conflict of
interest code, supplies, materials, or services subject to the direction, supervision
or control of the Library. (FPPC Form 700, Schedule C)
16. Reportable investments in business entities from which the Library purchases,
plans to purchase, or has purchases within two years prior to the time a statement
is required under this conflict of interest code, supplies, materials, or services
subject to the direction, supervision or control of the Library. (FPPC Form 700,
Schedules A-1 and A-2)
17. Reportable income, loans and business positions from persons and business
entities having an interest in real property in the jurisdiction or that provide, plan to
provide, or have provided within two years prior to the time a statement is required
under this conflict of interest code, services within the jurisdiction subject to the
inspection, review or approval of the Public Works Services Department. (FPPC
Form 700, Schedule C)
18. Reportable investments in any business entities having an interest in real property
in the jurisdiction or that provide, plan to provide, or have provided within two years
prior to the time a statement is required under this conflict of interest code, services
within the jurisdiction subject to the inspection, approval or review of the Public
Works Services Department. (FPPC Form 700, Schedules A-1 and A-2)
Page 339
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :L ori S assoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services
INIT IAT E D B Y:Robert Neiuber, Human R esources Director
L ucy Alvarez-Nunez, Management A nalyst I
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E AN AM E ND M E NT T O T HE C I T Y
M ANAG E R'S E M P L O Y M E NT AG RE E M E NT.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
I t is recommended that the C ity Council approve the attached amendment to the employment agreement
between the C ity C ouncil of the C ity of R ancho Cucamonga and the C ity Manager, J ohn Gillison.
BACKGROUND:
T he City Council on J uly 6, 2011, approved an employment contract with J ohn Gillison to serve as C ity
Manager with an effective date of S eptember 1, 2011. T hat agreement provides f or perf ormance reviews
with consideration for annual merit salary increases. T he agreement has been amended from time to time
since originally approved.
ANALY S IS:
C ity Council members recently completed their perf ormance evaluation of J ohn Gillison. The perf ormance
evaluation covered the period of March 2017 to November 2018. Based on the overall performance rating
from that evaluation, the City Council now desires to approve a f our and a half percent (4.5%) merit
increase effective the f irst full pay period after Council approval. The merit increase is consistent with the
personnel rules as applied to all other city employees.
Effective the first f ull pay period in J anuary 2019, the C ity Manager has requested to increase the
contribution towards his CalP E R S retirement costs by contributing an additional one percent (1%) of his
salary towards the C alP E R S member contribution. He also agrees to move the 7% of his salary he
currently pays towards the CalP E R S employer contribution to paying 7% of his salary towards the
C alP E R S member contribution. T his means that effective the first f ull pay period in J anuary 2019, the C ity
Manager will pay a total of eight percent (8%) of his salary towards the C A L P E R S member contribution.
T his will eliminate his E mployee P aid Member C ontribution (E P MC) and reduce the amount the C ity
reports to C alP E R S f or his compensation by 8%.
T he C ity C ouncil agrees that the C ity shall contribute an additional annual contribution into the Employee’s
401 plan in the amount of $1,000 per year and an additional $500 per year into the E mployee’s 457 plan.
Page 340
T he City C ouncil also agrees that the C ity shall provide a new separate Employee Wellness benefit
allowing f or an annual physical examination. T he City shall cover an amount up to the cost of a L oma L inda
executive wellness physical examination.
I n addition, the C ity C ouncil agrees to modif y the City Manager’s annual perf ormance evaluation period to
begin on or before November 1st of every year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
T he proposed contract modifications, including the C ity Manager's increased CalP E R S retirement
contribution and the elimination of E P MC, will result in a net annual cost of $11,200.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
E NHA NC I NG P R E MI E R C O MMUNI T Y S TAT US
T he City Manager is responsible for carrying out Council policy and ensuring that the C ity of Rancho
C ucamonga continues to be a world class community.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
D escription
C ontract Amendment #7
Page 341
-1-
Error! Unknown document property name.
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 7 is made and entered into and shall be effective as of November 21,
2018 by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, California, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter called “the City”, the RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT, and JOHN ROBERT GILLISON, hereinafter called “Employee.”
A. Recitals.
(i) Effective September 1, 2011, City employed Employee as
City’s City Manager pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in an
employment agreement (“the Agreement” hereinafter).
(ii) Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement concerning contract
termination was entered into as of March 7, 2012.
(iii) Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement concerning the payment
of Employee’s P.E.R.S. rate was made as of July 1, 2012.
(iv) Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement provided for Employee
to increase his contribution to the costs of retirement effective March 25, 2013.
(v) Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement provided for salary,
deferred compensation and contribution to retirement cost adjustments effective
March 1, 2015.
(vi) Amendment No. 5 provided for increased deferred
compensation and amending the Termination and Severance paragraph of the
agreement effective April 6, 2016.
(vii) Amendment No. 6 provided for a merit salary increase, an
increase to contribution to the employers’ costs of the CalPERS retirement benefit,
and a change to the Employee’s PARS retirement benefit effective September 6,
2017.
(viii) The parties desire to again amend the Agreement to provide
to Employee a merit salary increase, increase his contribution to the costs of
CalPERS retirement and move Employee’s CalPERS contribution from employer
contribution to employee contribution, increase contribution to Employee’s
Deferred Compensation, modify Employee Wellness benefit, and modify
Employee’s performance evaluation period.
B. Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 4 of the Agreement hereby is amended to read as follows:
Page 342
-2-
''4. Salary. Effective the first pay period after Amendment
No. 7 to the Employee Agreement is approved, City shall pay Employee for the
performance of Employee's duties as City Manager under this Agreement, a
monthly salary of $24,456. This is a regular annual merit increase of 4.5% from
step 1793 to step 1802 on the City's salary range for City Manager. Salary and/or
benefit adjustments shall be considered by the City Council annually in conjunction
with Employee's annual performance evaluation pursuant to paragraph 8 of this
Agreement. Employee shall be eligible for regular annual merit increases in the
same amount and manner as provided for other Executive Management employees
in the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations and then effective Executive
Management Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, Employee shall receive
non-merit increases in the same amount and at the same time as that provided to
other Executive Management employees. City shall not, at any time during the term
of this Agreement, reduce Employee's salary or benefits unless such reduction is
imposed across-the-board for all Executive Management employees of the City.”
2. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement hereby is amended to read as follows:
“5. Benefits. Employee shall receive the same benefits, including
leave accruals and cash out provisions, holidays and other benefits on the same
terms and conditions as provided to other Executive Management employees, with
following:
“5b. Commencing the first full pay period after
Amendment No. 7 to the Employee Agreement is approved, City Shall contribute
an additional annual contribution into the Employee’s 401 plan in the amount of
$1000 per year and an additional annual contribution of $500 per year into
Employee’s 457 plan. This growth is in addition to previously approved
contribution amounts.”
“5c. Commencing the first full pay period in January
2019, Employee shall pay eight percentage points of his PERSable compensation
towards the CalPERS member contribution (an increased cost to the Employee of
1% from the current Agreement and a change from the Employee contribution
towards the normal CalPERS employer contribution to Employee contribution
towards CalPERS member contribution). This eliminates the Employee Paid
Member Contribution (EPMC) for the City Manager.
It is understood that all contributions paid by the Employee as described in 5c above
shall be calculated based upon the full base salary of the Employee, plus any
additional PERSable compensation.
The City adopted a resolution providing that all employee CalPERS contributions
shall be deducted on a pre-tax basis to the extent permitted by law or IRS
regulation.”
Page 343
-3-
“5e. Commencing approval of Amendment No. 7 to the
Employee Agreement, Employee shall have a new separate City Manager
Employee Wellness benefit allowing for an annual physical examination. The
City shall cover an amount up to the cost of a Loma Linda executive wellness
physical examination.”
3. Paragraph 8 of the Agreement hereby is added to read as follows:
“8. Performance Evaluation. The City Council shall review and
evaluate Employee’s performance annually beginning on or before November 1, of
each subsequent year.
4. Other than as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement, as heretofore
amended, and each and every term and provision thereof, shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 7 as of the dates set
forth below:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dated: ______________________ By: _______________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk
EMPLOYEE
Dated: _______________________ By: _____________________________
John Robert Gillison
Approved as to form:
Page 344
-4-
_____________________________
James L. Markman
City Attorney
Page 345
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:J ulie A . S owles, L ibrary Director
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F T HE C I T Y C O UNC I L L I B RARY S UB C O M M IT T E E'S
RE C O M M E ND AT I O N RE G ARD ING A NE W AP P O INT M E NT T O T HE
L IB RARY B O ARD O F T RUS T E E S .
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the C ity C ouncil approve the C ity Council L ibrary Subcommittee's recommendation to
appoint K risten Murrieta-Morales to the L ibrary Board of Trustees.
BACKGROUND:
As mandated by the C alif ornia Education Code S ections 18910-18927, municipal public libraries shall
have a Board of Trustees appointed by the municipality’s governing body. As outlined by the By-laws of the
R ancho C ucamonga P ublic L ibrary Board of Trustees, the B oard is mandated to provide oversight to the
L ibrary. Terms of of f ice for the Trustees shall be f or f our years and all Members serve in a volunteer
capacity.
A vacancy was created on the Board on A ugust 2, 2018 with the resignation of L ibrary Trustee, S arah
Tompkins. L ibrary Trustee Tompkins relocated to a new residence outside Rancho C ucamonga. I f
approved, Ms. Murrieta-Morales would be appointed to complete Trustee Tompkins’ J une 30, 2021 term.
ANALY S IS:
T he City Council Library Subcommittee, at their meeting on November 5, 2018, interviewed two applicants for
the vacancy on the Library Board of Trustees. T he Subcommittee recommends the appointment of Kristen
Murrieta-Morales due to her passion for public libraries, literacy and lifelong learning. Ms. Murrieta-Morales is
eager to contribute to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in this capacity and she and her family have been
enthusiastic users of Rancho Cucamonga’s Library Services for almost a decade.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
None.
Page 346
D AT E : November 21, 2018
T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council
F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager
INIT IAT E D B Y:L inda A. Troyan, C ity C lerk Services D irector
S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P O INT B RYAN D O P P T O T HE HI S T O RIC
P RE S E RVAT IO N AND P L ANNING C O M M I S S I O N T O F I L L A VAC ANT S E AT
F O R A T E RM B E G I NNI NG NO V E M B E R 21, 2018 AND E ND I NG D E C E M B E R
31, 2019.
RE COMMENDAT ION:
Staf f recommends the City C ouncil conf irm the appointment of Bryan Dopp as a Historic P reservation and
Planning Commissioner f or the C ity of Rancho Cucamonga to fill a vacant seat for a term beginning
November 21, 2018 and ending December 31, 2019.
BACKGROUND:
T he Historic Preservation and Planning C ommission is a five-member board, whose role is to implement
the G eneral P lan and D evelopment C ode, enhance the beauty and appeal of the community, protect the
natural environment, and preserve historic and cultural resources, under the guidelines of the City C ouncil.
Each Commissioner serves a f our-year term.
On October 11, 2018, C ommissioner Rich Macias submitted a letter of resignation to the City, ef f ective
October 24, 2018. His term expires December 31, 2019. A Notice of Vacancy was posted in accordance
with state law.
ANALY S IS:
Per Municipal C ode S ection 2.20.050, “I f a vacancy shall occur, other than by expiration of the term of
of f ice, it shall be filled by appointment by the mayor with the approval of the city council f or the unexpired
term." T he last time Council interviewed applicants for the Historic Preservation and Planning C ommission
was D ecember 5, 2017, less than a year ago. T herefore, a meeting was held on November 7, 2018, to
interview the three remaining interested applicants f rom that meeting. Mr. B ryan Dopp went through the
application and interview process and had been deemed the successf ul applicant by the C ity C ouncil.
Upon confirmation of his appointment, the Oath of Of f ice will be administered to Mr. D opp.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D:
T he process of interviewing and appointing a replacement for the open vacancy on the Historic
Preservation and Planning C ommission addresses the City Council’s goal of enhancing the City’s position
Page 347
as a Premier Community by filling the vacancy with a resident f rom the C ity that will review and make
decisions on various land use applications and make recommendations to the C ity C ouncil regarding
amendments to the General Plan and Development Code consistent with the values of the City Council
and the community.
Page 348