The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982/06/16 - Agenda PacketCl'C_1 Afq,l, aTy OF Rama -IO cL,rnn- lol:G>, CIITYCO UNUIL a AGENDA 1977 Lion's Park Community Center 9161 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California June 16, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. CALL TO ORDER. A. Pledge of Allegiance to Flag. • B. Roll Call: Dahl n , Buquet x , Schlosser x Frost k , Mikels ?. C. Approval of Minutes: May 5, May 10, May 11, and June 2, 1982. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Presentation to City Council by Sandie Oerly, Regional Commissioner of American Youth Soccer Organization, Region 65 A *C *E. b. Reques" tire - Citrus Lit-tle League Board of Directors to .dedicate senior big league field in memory of Cal Roy, a former board - member. c. Presentation of Proclamations to Richard Dahl and Phillip Schlosser by the Chamber of Commerce. d. Thursday, June 24, 7:00 p.m. - ADVISORY COMMISSION - Lion's Park Community Center. e. Wednesday, June 30, 7:15 p.m. dinner - CITRUS BELT DIVISION GENERAL ASSEMBLY - Red Lion Inn. • City Council Agenda -2- June 16, 1982 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -6 -16, in the amount of $281,387.16. b. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Safeway Stores, Inc. 3 Liquor Barn No. 2065, 6787 Carnelian Street for off - sale general. c. Forward Claim against the city by Eveleen Jones to the 6 city attorney for handling. d. Authorization to Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, financial consultant, to seek proposals for the sale of bonds for Assessment District 82 -1. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -108 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND TO FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. 8 e. Approval of agreements with Chevron Land and Develop- 12 ment Company to construct drainage facilities and obtain easement rights in conjunction with Assess- ment District 82 -1. f. Acceptance of Parcel Map 7494 - Daon Corp. - located on the north side of Arrow Route between Red Oak and White Oak Streets. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7494 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 7494). 9. Extension of subdivision improvement agreements for 24 tracts 9435 and 9638 - Crismar Development Corp. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 9435 AND TRACT 9638. • • City Council Agenda -3- h. Acceptance of road improvements for Parcel Map 6125 southeast corner of Lemon and Archibald - R. Young. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 6125, AUTHORI- ZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO RELEASE LETTER OF CREDIT THIRTY -FIVE DAYS AFTER FILING OF SAID NOTICE. i. Release of existing performance bond and acceptance of reduced performance bond and agreement for Parcel Map 6544 - located at the northeast corner of Haven and 6th Street. Release Performance Bond $255,000 Accept Performance Bond 30,000 j. Set public hearing date of July 7, 1982 for Planned Development 82 -03 (TT 10826) - Lesney. k. Request city council authorization to transfer funds from the General Fund Active Account to the General Fund Reserve Account. 1. Request authorization to renew annual contracts for: Citywide Landscape and Irrigation Contract with SCLM Co., Inc., La Verne, California with a 2 percent increase. Citywide Street Tree Service Contract with Homer's Tree Surgery, Upland, California with a 10 percent increase, 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENTS. Item has been continued from the May 19 meeting. Request continuance on the item to July 21, 1982. B. CONTINUATION OF THE VACATION Or UNNECESSARY STREETS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. Request item be continued to July 7, 1982 when the tract maps are submitted for final approval. June 16, 1982 33 40 City Council Agenda -4- June 16, 1982 • C. REVENUE SHARING. (second public hearing) Recommendation: It is recommended that council appropriate the $453,150 from revenue sharing to meet the costs of providing police services. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. A. A RESOLUTION REGARDING RATES FOR STREET LIGHTING. item continued from June 2, 1982 meeting . Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG4, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, AMEND, AND ADOPT REGULATIONS GOVERN- ING AND REGULATING STREET LIGHTING. B. ESTABLISHING A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Staff report by • Jack Lam. C. COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. D. OMNITRANS REQUEST FOR WEEKEND SERVICE REDUCTIONS FOR FIXED ROUTE SERVICE. Staff report by Jim Robinson. Omnitrans has requested the city council consider the reduction of hours of operation for Saturday service in Route 60/63. The recommendation includes a reduction of early morning and late evening service when ridership is at its lowest. Service Hours Route 60/63 - Montclair Plaza/ Chaffey College Route: Present: 5:30 a.m. - 8:25 p.m. Proposed: 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 6. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS. 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS. Planning Commission Appointments 8. ADJOURNMENT. 57 59 91 AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER ORGANIZATION `m a nonprofit corporation dedicated to youth soccer INA June 10, 1982 Rancho Cucamonga City Council 9320 BaseLine Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Council Members I would appreciate the opportunity of addressing the Council inorder to formally donate the 2 sets of permanent goals which the American Youth Soccer Organization, Region 65 A•C•E, placed at the Alta Loma (Beryl) Park. At the time we put up the goals, we were told that the Council would formulate a resolution giving AYSO priority consideration for useage of subject fields during our playing season, we hope this is • still the Councils intent and that it can be formalized. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sandie Oerly Regional Commissioner AY ;0, Region 65, A "C *E • [042 lei it Yiltle' Zeayrie P.O. BOX 149 CUCA'tONGA, CA. 91730 • To: Chuck Buquet Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Cucamnga ::con: Dave Bonham President, Citrus Little League 0 J1me 8, 1982 Sir, reoantly Cal Roy Sr. passed away after a long illness. Cal Pvy had been a Boar? mmt>er, Manager and Coach for many years with Citrus Little League. He de- dicated himself to working with the children of our ca mmity. It is also my understanding that Cal was ir,truuental in organizing the Tee Ball program that so many kids enjoy. •The Citrus Little Ieaque Board of Directors has authorized me to patition the City Council to agree with dedicating our senior -Big League field in m ry of Cal Roy. We propose to dedicate the field as Cal Poy Moorial Field, on July 10, 1982, during our League's closing der ceremonies. Cal Fny was a friend and will he missed. His love for Yids and the game of baseball should be recognized. Thank you for your time and consid- ration in this natter. If you have any questions, please feel free to cal, ra at my hone 987 -2389, or work 624 -8011 ext. 295, or the little league field 987 - 901 I. If you wish to address the Board of Directors concerning this matter. we will be meeting Tuesday, June 15. Z lLw' iV'� Dave Bonham P:- sident, C' sus L. L. cc: Lon Mikeis ,-n5 Prxt Phillip Schlosser ANCMO • 60.161 CITY CU G nON GI MAPPAf,T RECONCILIATION 6/16/62 PAC l �1 F, WARR A YEN • N 6 0 C P A M E M g VTRE DISCOUNT MEET NCf Fix 1111E l ., EGGS 2 15 i5 lV [E PUfl li ExF Mti1PEMENT S ;12)/8.2 9r�11. 55 10043 C515 ATCli ISN ICPfe. 6 S4ETE 5127132 50Q CO 14 1501 CSULP ICLNC.T L:V 5121/32 2)2: Io" 2L )E E1 SCi LI YG:.ICIPAL FIN 51?118 65.50 10046 78.5 PC S 4.STTN 5i Ztl /82 5)0.00 I?Oa) MtiC S111f BC CF EGUdL ILd i1G 6102/82 9,26 IOCA0 E445 SIAIE CLNTFIIILEKS CFFIC !1021 F2 20.00 10.55 S25C WELLS FAPGG IPUSIEF 61C2122 1.653.20 In',50 2Cld CAt IFiPNeA CEATAL StAV3 6192/82 1r4L5.32 13!51 12C, RA-.e cF YLRICA 503/SZ 9 468.26 '615)33 .)e9 11Y C 3 i'• OHIFGIIH., 51-4NecN1 t /42182 I0L.4i- ,. 15401 5456 7CS.h VGIC JACKSCh PAT FCRMS ALIGNMENT 610: /tl2 5.00- i 555 0 VOID Fl RMS AIICNHFNT 6/16102 6/16/.52 1 545 MLIL FCMMS ALIGNPf6T Ell" .2 .. 15560 15561 VCID CJC4 FCRN$ ALIGNMENT A -1 L164M1 4/36/82 6llt /82 14C.00 IS562 CCC6 A -1 ELBE IRRIGATION SAL 6/161" t91.94 15563 C:II ACACIA (b.S to UCTI ^1: 6116/82 1,327.20 ' 15564 C ?IO AI C SUNS Abi1.MUTIVE 6116/92 12,59 15565 525 ASS0 IATfC fNGIN CRS 6/!6182 242.18 IC•S 8 C 0 CCNCRf TE CUTTING 6/16/82 262.80 11556E 556) 115 PASCLINE H..01rAPE 6116182 84.78 (5468 15,.04 inc lits 6FE0tE 710 VAS ..1 -T16P CC. ECK 6/16/8? 6116/82 30.40 12.91 ISh1C A 14`.J JISI -LI' CCHPANY 6/16/82 331.31 ' 5471 le[C tC;!I Pl6LISHLNJ CO 6/16/82 523.60 �I 15472 Ibf5 NUIIOINC NF-.S INC 6 /I6 /62 28,50 15473 ISCC C C ENCINEERING 6/16182 71558.05 154)4 2CC5 CALIF BLIL C{M1G OFFICIAL 6/16 /62 15.00 15475 2 ?!5 CITY MENIAL G /lf /82 49.00 r 17.41E 2 ? +5 CCCA CC1A PRFIIN4 CC 06.13 15477 <' ^J COMM $FP Ei7FePa IS E9 E/16/82 6/1./32 136.60 tt419 CU 5::. Et RNA S,E.RI 6 1l6 192 I8Lr 036.46 - 1`.419 2416 241e N 9 CCYEYx INC 6/16/82 - 15480 2515 CUCAMONGA CO GIST 6116/82 406.46 142 2555 CUC A MtING6 Pp INTIM1G PRINTING 6/16/32 6,817.69 _ 1`482 1 26!4 0JC LEASING CORP !/16/82 55.00 15483 2tq-, SP.,Ni FISNIN IASA KIlf 6116/62 350.00 ,. 1.434 2655 CEPARIMFINT LF FCHFSiRY NT 6 /16 /Pt 35.00 1'.49$ 2C tie GP FCKMA6. IRA 6/1!/82 23. 1 IN HARPY a6 234.39 1552) 3))0 FSS(CK MACh76OrY CC 4/14/82 ,. 15486 4122 Flp CI AM TI(LF INS 6/16182 37.90 IS 489 4125 [NEC CI IY OF FCRI CCII S 6 /I6 /92 5.00 5 SSO 46CC GLNFRAI IEIEPHCNE CC 6/16/82 90.37 15451 4119 G1REI, PICK 6 /It /82 200.00 15192 4)75 Ga AEI, JFnNY 6 6/16/82 175.00 f 15447 4756 GUILEY TPUCKING 6116192 39.63 15494 4755 N:CKNFV. SAI:f1Y 6/16/62 124.68 15495 46CO HAANEP EQUIPMENT CC 6116182 54.57 15446 SPIN HAN`CN ASSCCIATFS INC E116182 133.12 194')7 4830 HAYES AELVING GARY 6116/82 IOS.CO 15492 4SCJ HCLlEY. LLIAH l 6/L6/8Z 200.00 151 ti9 5901 HaLIf Y, VM - PE liv CASH 6/16/82 76.26 IS +00 4915 tOLLIJAY PCCN CC INC t /16152 783.31 15501 site 1168 6116/82 1.166.61 ^j5503 PF I'} •.275 I bTL6C I TYP YCMTt ASSGC 6116182 45).47 - 54CO INIL TIME PECGNOEP G /LL162 16.23 I5504 Sf 05 6115 J H C.NC.RFIE 6 /IL /82 1.662.50 15'.Jb 66.4 KlffN LINE CCRPCPA71CN C /16 /tl2 65.03 LS'0) 6619 KRUSF. JOAN ! /I6 161 45.000 -40 IAIAOJC L \'${RUCTION CC h /1 61d2 17x018 :6T l 315'09 5510 675J LCCNFdPI. EILEEN 4/16162 26.00 15511 0IS, If CXKOCC EEG C SUNVEYIN III 6/u 525.00 ,. 15512 7186 MARKS, PICK 4 116 /E2 26.d5 15513 7'13 MILNE, SHAPfi 6116/62 64.90 15514 7405 MULTI COPY SYSTEMS INC 4/16/62 20.10 15515 141C "U'. FIN OFFICIRS ASSGC 6/16/92 155!0 It itl Ll.1 I.Ai:S 6116182 243.50 I _ I� I� I.. f 8667 CITY *NCNO CIICANONCA P RARR A VIA R V E A 0 C P N I M E 15511 370 PATMN SALEyy CCRP P 15516 750 PITSEV 619 1;514 IT55 UNA CISIRI*dTIVJ CO 'C IS5 T.2D Po IOf c lCC PRESS 155 ]1 ]E25 PH ESS FLILETIN P 15521 EC45 RANCCNC DISFCSAL 15513 EC35 RAV10 CA1A 1 \C L552� *112 PESLLNCE LISR THE 15.11 E121 MFYNLL [S J4V1Cf r 15:21 Fl CC FCCCnSLAEC JA ^!S n 15528 fill SAS 9Ct.0 CC SUR VEYCR 15529 E31D SAh EERNAFOINO CCJhTY r 15530 6!14 SCAL 15511 ,339 SEVEN 0!Y AUTO PARTS 15532 E_42 SCIENCE DYNAMICS CCRP 15533 E•SC SIMPLE; PFCTOGRAPUICS (` 15534 E3fl 54.1 O[EGC PCISRY 90CL4 15535 VC10 VFNaCP NG. 8390 15'1!. F"C SGULPENF CILIf EOISCh 15!37 E115 S,'UTbERN CAt IF CAS CC r 1553E F"R SSO CI (AM1 OSCAPE Y,I 15539 E525 STAITCNEN5 CONP /5540 E5!5 SULLIVAN Nl PE. R 145.1 fAt5 IFRPL RENT AIS INC r 15543 Ff S2 Il•CPASI PICT tI5n71NC CC C IE 15544 S710 .1ST. JAYfS 10545 5250 Nf 51 ENC UNITED M!Y r 15546 5595 YLIc 01S PCSAL SERVICE 15547 VCIC 11641. ICTALS r r r f.9 r r r I r r p p WARRANT RECONCµILIA. DATE R�r�RCL�I FINAL TOTALS 6/16/62 DISCOUNT I^ I I� I I� I I i' I I I � II r I -- P161 2 NET i n 5 633.5] i 7.756.36 n Is 99 a 55 9).90 259.95 41.34 45.00 27.60 _ 200.10 14 53 3.00 663.00 1. 1 T0.00 195.04 [.193.91 tl. ]1i. 58 I .4 131.86 223.50 114.46 454.02 145.00 11.60 90.42 ' 66.00 2811387.16 15 I I^ I I� I I� I I i' I I I � II r I -- :.I �I .r 'lAi • Ps ioearo Numh- end Surl C.ry n..d ten Cnde Cwery 3121 - 11.1c ..w, .__r...,Y_10 — `.:11y ,. nrJOfl 071992 n1x�(a',n <n.ernrn „l.r ..e. Tae nn„rr,al.m rte n ..eR i�L91��1121asA151ti Attached 7 Ptto•ded mat-re, , U Echo., pnpen. I-1E Notice of Apoolt, InteftEDnF;MAFD 6/of - .aerre.d o-. of y:0�•'Pe,d of Sao 13rp. Genre on 6,/7/92 bmal No 61029 (OPY. Z� . .11..1.. y [• APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC LEVERAGE IICEI,i 1, "FELS) Of IICENSHS) FILE .0.A'N To D<panmem of AmaMFO B.. «a.< eamrd AECpIPr No 6_1C28/SR:9 . 1901 MN $d! BGIOIdS $wremena. COW. 91818 DT IF G9 GEOGRAPHCA .en... .rr.,. ..... ,...— ~TAe CODE u� under.....J hIN6Y eppfe• Iw Dnle r<mp Permn ]. NAMEISI OF APPOCAN115) ' Apphee ana« see l.a.j: MIT -Opra: IecGa ice EReoiIF SAP]1AZ STORES, IRE. (P -121 ]. TYPE(S) Of TRANSACTIONS) FEE" E" t(C, TYPE _ - -- PE DOG to Person Ssf. S S➢YRY II •(' ".. 'Premises W Pimises Ts ERR .100.00 __ Ll.f8ei ear0 42065 3. laeuon of Bv,.neu- .Number vM S)rm —670 i-CdinelluT-dt. Cry and Lp Cade Cao,ry S:74.00 CucaaoAbaa 91730 ais d'ui rout d. H Pram u• L[<nlnd. ). Arn Ill -Ill Im,de III SA". iyFe "I L.m,e TE /•l Gry bent= l•! Yp _ LE...,l;I AddN,N pl d.9erem Ir"m 31- Number end Sire., 11.1 IN- P.O. 00:< 0999 Tnninll Annex_a =.< G 90051 PBSDSL_ 9. Hate y "v.... I —iI of a leleny? 10. 111- yov ever +totaled any of the p o,isont OF At Akoholi[ hver"q< Control An w 11.11 of the Department Iwr no tainmq to IN. An? ..qtl : ENn FL Sea 1 -_ —II F•plo.n o "TES" "m..er M teen• 9 er 10 0.. on anxhmenl .Aklr ,hull be deemed pan of lhn oppl'rm(ien. I, A nirtv n r vyr. e , (al Thal e0, m eager mplvyed o ,ale --d pN till For all ,he gvalr([v nt of he e, end • per o he t,ol^_ed vey a( rAe par oI LEAs Alcohol.[ Lev .ag _Can rat An (b: ",M<...Iln m. mn -Pay __ t STATE LO.. A;.,.l DS polo I] STATE Of CALIFORNIA C—, Cry of • "•` -A•µ r _„ ........... .. r.. ...,,... m. ,..m.. _.. .. ..,. .... r+ �'P;kESe SAi'.'rd�Y L,WP.f�t.:TCJ u AvpnuNr• . SIGN HERE by: Alden J. FiL'on ., • _ Vic•• rros Jam__'_ APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR SI STAY Or CAUfOANIA Covnry of - Dale r 1. F- �.n.o�• ^'j1)_i9nu_ IA Nn_• alt•[•_ nlll�Y_rr -.. rtl,l of ll« IB tq—leNnmhr_I- - -1 vI oOlty -.Ild . Trurtgc is '.an \olpt :[i •_ -_- ._.._mF' -4Y.d yy ' CIICFW.110 . ..� TLm.ny GUOa•C OF PAHCx0 ' _ tOHINISLAr 1_I_ ^.N • Ps ioearo Numh- end Surl C.ry n..d ten Cnde Cwery 3121 - 11.1c ..w, .__r...,Y_10 — `.:11y ,. nrJOfl 071992 n1x�(a',n <n.ernrn „l.r ..e. Tae nn„rr,al.m rte n ..eR i�L91��1121asA151ti Attached 7 Ptto•ded mat-re, , U Echo., pnpen. I-1E Notice of Apoolt, InteftEDnF;MAFD 6/of - .aerre.d o-. of y:0�•'Pe,d of Sao 13rp. Genre on 6,/7/92 bmal No 61029 • �c� �� . �. �� 1.��11 il' r r �, � {�,, �� 1?�� _��1 ��J�11��i��i L.�� L l {4 � ' "..`..1 T_`�,� l A It-I r , All, fill I-, J. I I i C:+'T F. it, zz p mmi T I Rel I m mm'nl 1 .. .. r L —� .3 �I I� -� I • R I 4 II • � ✓1 I � - ? E I��I i ��i I ' E ♦' i' _ �- j f•'� zz pzi - N b• 1 iTVe ltbfsb' nnrna,xf xyne •'� Fu1f4 WRe OaY�•LKWFY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6882 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY WIWMLL me FILL • INgTRS)CTIONS 1. Claims for death, Injury to person or to ""=I property most be Ned not later than 190 days after the oecvrcenea (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 2. Claims for damages to real property meat be filed not later than 1 year after the occurance. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2) 2. Read entire claim before filing. 4. See page 2 for diagram upon which to locale place of accident. 5. This claim form must be signed on page 2 at bottom. ". Attach separate sheets. if necessa y, m give fun details. SIGN EACH SHEET. 7. Claim most be filed with City Clerk. (Gov. Code Sm 915s) 1 TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C1 Give address to which you desire notices or communicate How did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give lull parts C �Jri,6 IC r, C-6 r') V :ktk`.0 ins tof be sent regarding this claim: \'ic�- C5 YY C. c _ •hen did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Give full particulars, date, time of day: {) - I- \ \ 1 1,_- ) 1 qc I- )C, 5 :"--,) ptm RESERVE FOR FIL7G STAMP CLAIM No.. CITY OFa RAN CH 0 CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION AM 19iSAI211121 4Ai6 a (if natural person) c_Z ? C7 Y� Where did DAMAGE or INJURY occur? Describe fully, and locate on diagram on reverse side of this sheet, where appropriate, give street names and address and measure ends from landmarks: \�il:��'\ What particular ACT or OMISSION do you claim caused the injury or damage? Give names of arty empmyees causing we iwuy o, damage. if knmvn: ( —1 7 'CCl Cl: i ;��c c F � cr" �\ G (1 '�C1`� 1 ^ \c;t_0.li' '^VA (1 t_(l7C i What DA.`.1 AGE or INJURIES do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed: •, t�l lit 1 7 ,' rn= /1 - , ��, ) What AMOUNT Jo you claim on account of each dent of injury or damage as of date of presentation of this claim• giving basis of computation: pig? ra 1r1' A.t v.,, ESTIMATED A\iOU'3'r as far as known you claim on account of each itemtof prospective injury or damage, giving baaa.? SEE P {GE 2 (OVEIp / THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE sInsuranceypaymlents received, if any, and names of Insurance �Cwo�m D..alny[ / 111 EVpenditures made od account of aeckident or mlu y-;Date — He ) ��ii (Amount) h'l i "_s ?Ci= t`124_CC�V C)� i a=��s � \J t �1: ` Cy�E't� CZ.t C ✓;' , F`�JCO -J ( \ i .', _\ 1d'�i? j1 � r'�\ Name and address of Witnesses, Doctors and Hospitals: READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims place on following diagram names of streets, including North, Fast, South, and West; indicate place at accident by "R" and by showing house numbers of distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City vehicle when you first saw It. and by "H" location of yourself ar •0er ra:.ir!: -.v`.cn yca :!rst -aw ^ . ••e. ^.ic!a: !.ca•!m: of City •.:4ic!e et O n:e of aerdent by "A -V' anO laeatic^ of yourself or your Vehicle at the time of the accident by "B -1" and the point of impact by '•7C. NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto ,a proper diagram signed by claimant. FOR OTHER ACCIDENTS SIDEWALK CUR CUR PARKWAY SIDEWALK 7 i FOR AUTOh66LE ACCIDENTS ' f 7i� Claimant or person filing on his behalf giving I Typed Name: to Claimant: �_.: ii NOTE: `irbsentation of a false claim is a felony (Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 71). CLAIMS MUST BE FILFD h'TTII CITY CLEFS (COV. CODE SEC. 9I5a). Dale 0 • 0 DATE: TO: FROM: I SUBJECT: CITY OF RA14CHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Jura 16, 1982 City Council and City Manager Lloyd B. Hubbs, ',ity Engineer 3d �pp C,CCAA10,� `C� 9 Y, � F F„ �2 1977 AUTHORI°_ATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR BOND SALE FOR ASSESSME'T DISTRICT 82 -1 lne attio)ed Resolution authorizes Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, Financial Consultants to the Assessment District, to seek bids for bond sale. Enclosed for your information is the bid proposal wh;ch will be submitted to the urdenvriting firms of Miller and Schroeder and Stone and Youngberg. These firms will submi: oid July 15 at 11:00 A.M. in the City Manager's Conference ,Room It. is expected that the interest rate will be the statutory 12 percent with a 10 t, 15 ,,ercent discount. RELJMMENOATiON: is recommended that Council adopt the Resolution authorizing bidding of the bond sale for Assessment District 82 -1. Respectfully submi ted, V � L8 .bc Attachments 0 nw orrlccs o. BROWN to NAZAREK IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92715 5[ s 4[cu4[ w June 4, 1982 Beverly Authelet, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -1 Dear Beverly: cos. cua nsez�m mace[ 1 assao90 e 91vaA a� I]I.1559S.e9 Enclosed herein please find RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF BONDS to be adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council now scheduled for the 16th of June, Ia82. A copy of the INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS STATEMENT, as prepared by Fie. 4Tan, Rolapp & Associates, should be on file with the transcript of these proceeoings prior to adoption of this Resolution. • If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, F. MACKENZIE BROWN FMB:bd encl. cc: Lloyd Hubbs Fieldman, Rolapp R Associates 1'a 1 ;mr2' 4a CRY 1 1:;013 COCA}.:Il....' I • RESOLUTION N0. -; - /1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS TO FINANCE IEnROVE1IENTS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISFRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has initiated proceedings pursuant to the terms and con- ditions of the "Municipal Imorovement Act of 1913 ", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction of certain public works of improvement, together with appurtenances and acquisition, where necessary, in a special assessment district; said special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 -1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District "); and WHEREAS, it has been further determined that serial bonds shall be issued to finance the costs and expenses of said imorovements and proceedings, and said bonds shall be issued pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915 ", being Division • 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, at this time, this legislative body is desirous of authorizing the sale of bonds to finance the works of improvement as proposed for this Assessment District. • N041, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES is herebv authorized to solicit a proposal for the sale of bonds for the Assessment District. The interest rate on said bonds shall not exceed the current legal maximum rate of twelve percent (12'.) per annum. Said bonds shall be issued pursuant to the terms and conditions as set forth in the Resolution of Intention as previously adopted for these proceedings. SECTION 3: That this Resolution is adopted Pursuant to the provi ^,ions of Section 10602 of the Streets and High'.vays Code of the State of California, and it is further directed that all recm^mendations relatir,n to the sale of bonds be piasented to this body no later than the time set for the Public Hearing on the "Report" and related matters for this Assessment District. I� Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 4: That there will be provided, at no expense to . the bidder, the unqualified legal opinion of F. MACKENZIE BRi..1N, Attorney at Law, attesting to the validity of the proceedings and the enforceabili- ty of the bonds. SECTION 5: That pursuant to the provisions of Section 10600.5, it is hereby determined that the bonds shall bear interest from their date, and the date of the bonds shall be September 2, 1982. SECTION 6: That the Information for Bidders Statement relating to the sale of the assessment bonds for the Assessment District is hereby approved, and for further particulars, reference is made to sai? Information for Bidders Statement on file with the transcript of these proceedings. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Jon D. Mikels, Mayor • • 0 • OTmV nV D A ATrvn OT TO A Tdn\TO A STAFF REPORT DATE: June 16, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 82 -1 AGREEMENTS - CHEVRON LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Attached for Council execution are two agreements with Chevron Land and Develop- ment Company concerning improvements and cost sharing on improvements on the speedway property in conjunction with Assessment District 82 -1. The first agreement covers work on the outlet of drains to the east parking lot. As a condition of outlet the District will construct suitable interim improvement and pay Chevron $ 4,200.00 for the future completion of a junction structure. The second agreement involves the outlet of storm drain 7e from Cleveland Avenue. This agreement involves the joint construction of an outlet channel bisecting the west speedway parking area and outletting into the Turner Basins. This agreement calls for the District to excavate the channel and Chevron to provide funds for the construction of the ultimate box culvert crossing Haven Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the proposed agreements and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on their behalf. Respectfully submitted, LB be Attachments �h CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM L DATE: May 14, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager - 19_7 FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 82 -1 - CHEVRON AGREEMENT Attached for your preliminary review are agreements with the Chevron Develop- ment Company covering drainage improvements on the speedway property. These improvements are required as a part of the Industrial Assessment District. These agreements will be presented for execution at the June 2, 1982 Council meetiig. If you have any questions please call. LSH:bc cc: Jim Simms - Willdan Walt Hamilton - Willdan Mackenzie Brown • • • AGREEMENT THIS ACRECfENT is tot -tad into as of the __ day of . 1982, by and between CHEVRON LMT AND VEVELOM1EW CONPANT, a Corporation, hereinafter called "Company ". an: CITY OF RANCHO CL'CRIONCA. a Public Body, hereinafter called "Agency". RECITALS WHEREAS, Company is the owner in fee of property I ... led Southerly of 4th Street between Rochester Avenue and Turner Avenue in the City of Ontario; and . WHEREAS. Agency has formed Assessment District No. 82 -1 Northerly of Company's property; and —_ LTEREAS, No to the improvement of afar. drain facilities within.the asaessmeot district, certain modifications to the existing East Channel owned by Company will have to occur; and • WHEREAS, Pereanent Smpcovements to said drainage facilities will be maces.... upon development of Company's property; and itHEREAS, Agency dealt.. is foplement the wink.. improvements necessary rY facilitate its store drain improvements; and WHEREAS, Company is willing to cooperate at this time with Agency by permitting modifications to the East Channel; and LTEREtS, Perri tad modifications will be compatible with the existing channel and, to the extent f... able, will be part of the future permanent improvement spot., plated far the East Channel; and WHEREAS, Construction of a portion of the transition structure adjacent to Fourth Street will provide a reasonable interface betueen Agency's storm drain facility and C— p.ny's existing and proposed Channel Now. mrtrfnre, far and In conoif,ration of mutual Covenants betdoateve Stated tfer parli.. h..r.to •, ".. as follows: 1. Agency 'halt design lhC parr n..e nt lransition structure rtyui,rJ at [lie let inns of their .torn drain facility ' Line 19A, ],,,.tied on n. ;aryls property .auth of Fourth • Street np,ravirately 1,m r,ct cast of Pilt.bulg Avanwe, n L 2. AFancy shall obtain approval from the City of Ontario covering the entire permanent transition structure including recognition that the portion to be constructed is part of the permanent structure later to be completed by Company when the downstream connection Is made. J. The entire permanent transition can not be completed before the downstream facility Is inaralled without extensive interim grading; therefore. Agency shall construct a portion of the transition structure as well as the minimum interim weak required to properly interface the existing watercourse as shown on attached Exhibits A and B. 4. Agency shall pay Company the total am of 54,200.00 to cover the cost of subsequent completion of the transition structure, payment shall be [rewarded to Company within 50 days after the sole of Assessment District bonds. S. Company hereby grants to Agency, its authorised independent contractor, a temporary right -to -eater over a portion of their property confined to within 75 feet of the center line of construction for the purpose of constructing the aforementioned items. Said gram shall reninate within• twelve months or at filing of the Notice of Completion. 6. Agency shall obtain all necessary permits for the construction and, together with the City of Ontario, will procure and be responsible for the design, construction, overa'1 management and inspection of the work at no cost to Company. The Agent^ will integrate the design, plans and Construction of said work Into its overall plans and construction for the Assessment District. Further, .Agency agrees to assume all liability arising from the procureuunt, deign and construction of said work. Agency shall distend, indemnify and save harmless Company from and aga.nat any and all loss, damage, injury, liability. and claim, thereof for Injury to, or death of a parson, inm nding an emp levee of AgentY, of for less of or damage to property, resin Ung from Arency's ur its eon v nc <nrs' tor subcontractors' negliteot or defective design or ronsvuecion of said work in pe rfo nonce of this Agreement, Including, hot not LLmtcd to, Arency's and its • • cont ra[tors' any ..e o_..n tt a. ,o.s wa of egaipment p, cidod by Cunganv a. othnrs. ). This Agreement and the Gems and conditions tant.ined hotel. ate al1 subject to a successful confirmation of the Agency's Asseascenc, a.ard o. the construction contract and sale of bonds for the Assessment District. S. The conditions of this agreexnt shall be binding oa any secceasor at assign of botn parties, 9. The parties hereto have sec forth the mole of their agreement and Tarrant that there are no oral or Written comnnnicavions other than the teas contained herein. SF WITNESS HHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day first above Kitten. is "PROVO AS TO FORM: r1 U CITY OF RANCHO COCAHONOA CHEVRON LAhU A.9D DEVELOP`(ENT COMPA,O', . corpoca pi lt_ � I,' Pnre 1 of I 0 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of , 1982, by and between CHEVRON LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, ( "Company ") and CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG;., a Public Body ( "Agency "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Company is the owner in fee of certain real property located SoutherIv of Fourth Street between Rochester Avenue and Turner Avenue in the City of Ontario; and WHEREAS, Agency has formed Assessment District No. 82 -1 Northerly of Company's property; and WHEREAS, Due to Agency's improvement of storm drain facilities within the Assessment District, certain modifications to the existing Fourth Street Channel owned by Company will be required; and WHEREAS, permanent improvements to Said drainage facilities will be necessary upon development of Company's property; and WHEREAS, Agency desires to implement the minimum improvements necessary to facilitate its storm drain improvement; and WHEREAS, Company is wilting to cooperate with Agenry at this time by financially contributing towards those drainage improvements which will be considered permanent and necessary upon development; and WHEREAS, Interim grading to the Company's existing Fourth Street Channel coupled with a permanent structure under Haven Avenue will facilitate Agency's storm drain improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DO HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Cc -.pany shall furnish Agency complete construction plans for the proposed improvements of the Fourth Street Channel from its terminus at Turner Basin No. 9 to Cleveland Avenue ( "Fourth Street Improvements'). Said Fourth Street Improvements shall include the following: • I? • (A) The permanent drainage structure under Haven Avenue including any utility relocations required by the construction of said structure; (B) Grading an earth channel between Turner Avenue and Cleveland Avenue: (C) All other interim improvements required to insure compatibility of the Agency's Assessment District storm drain with the permanent facilities covered by this Agreement including all interim lateral junctions and transitions. 2. Agency will procure and be responsible for the construction, overall management and inspection of said Fourth Street Improvements subject to approval by the City of Ontario. The Agency will integrate the plans and construction of said Fourth Street Improvements into its overall plans and construction for the Assessment District. further, Agency agrees to assume all liability arising from the procurement and construction of said Fourth Street Improvements. Agency shall define, indemnify and save harmless Company from and against any and all loss, damage, injury, liability, and claims thereof for injury to, or death of a per$ -,. including an employee of Agency, or for loss of or damage to property, resulting from Agency's or its contractors' or subcontractors' negligent construction of the Fourth Street Improvements in performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, Agency's and its contractors' or subcontractors' use of equipment provided by Company or others. O. Company shall contribute an amount equal to the Agency's cost for constructing item I(A) as defined in this Agreement. Said cost shalt be established by the bid amount for the item received and accepted by the Agency as part of its overall contract for the Assessment District construction. Company's maximum obligation under this Agreement shall be an amount not to exceed One Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($140,000.00) for item 1(A) plus gt for contingencies. Any portion of the contingency amount not used shall be returned to Company within 30 days after the filing of the Notice of Completion. Company, • at Its election, shall forward or guarantee its contribution to the Agency within 10 days after Agency acceptance of the Contractor's bid. It 7 ,f 3 A. Agency will obtain all necessary permits for said Fourth • Street Improvements required from either the City of Ontario or San Bernardino County Flood Control District. S. Company hereby grants to Agency, its authorized independent contractor, a temporary right to enter over a portion of Company's property confined to within 75 feet of the center line of construction for the purpose of constructing the Fourth Street Channel from Turner Avenue to Cleveland Avenue. Said grant will terminate within twelve months or at filing of the Notice of Completion for the work. 6. The conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on any successor or assign of both parties. 7. This Agreement and the terms and conditions contained herein are subject to a successful confirmation of the Agency's assessment, award of the construction contract and sale of bonds for the Assessment District. 8. The parties hereto have set forth the whole of their Agree- ment herein and warrant that there are no oral or written communications other than the.terms contained herein. IN WITNESS 'WHEREOF, the parties have rxecuted this Agreement as of the day first above written. DATED: ,1982 DATED: 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHEVRON LAHD)AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By: yt Phi T%p . SL chlosser, Mayor / ATTEST: _... .. By: - Lauren N. . 'Aasaerman, Ciiy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: By: City Attorney -- Page 3 of 3 L J • E KI nTmv ns n A unvn nlin A 1,AnTYn n 3J, STAFF REPORT�`v DATE: June 16, 1982 oli p Fai U „ T0: City Council and City Manager v'' 191; FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Kral], Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Acceptance of Parcel Map 7494 - Daon Corporation - located an the north side of Arrow Route between Red Oak and White Oak Streets The subject map submitted by Daon Corporation for final Council approval was approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1982. This subdivision consists of 14.36 acres of land and is being divided into 4 lots for future - ntertainment facilities and recreational use. All off -site improvements have been constructed with the exception of sidewalk, street trees and street lights. These improvements will he constructed at the time of building permit issuance. It is recom,ended that Council adopt the attached Resolution approving Parcel Map 7494 and direct the City Engineer to forward the same for recording. Respectfully submit Ved , LBH:BK:bc Attachments h • RESOLUTION NO. �'= d ' j r i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7494 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7494) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7494, submitted by Daon Corporation and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the north side of Arrow Route, between Red Oak and White Oak Streets, being a division of Parcel No. 8 of Parcel Map 6725 as recorded in Book 67, Pages 4 -7 of Official Records, San Bernardino County, California was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map Number 7494 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said tentative parcel map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, that said Parcel Map Number 7494 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren dr. Wasserinan, City Clerk is �j' Jon D. Mikels, Mayor 0 • 0 ---------- .0 Ali l"•° _ ____ -_ �_ �"'___ ________y w�_, _____•'s •• _ _ ,J� _-A Q6,2 ics PROJECT in SITE CI'FN'01: RANG 10 CUCANIONG,� title; Farcet Map vy V; ENGINENING DIVISION 7494 VICINITY NIAP,� N page j .E i 17 I I I dl •4 I ^ oe 1 4TZE- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7494 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ICING A sue DIVISI.. OE'.*CEI RO. 8 OI PARCEL MAI FO 6749. AS PER 0 A I RE CO R OED IN 8130. I? OF PARCEL YA IS, IAG ES . TRROUGR T. I RC LU SIVE. In TRC OFFICE OF TM COORTT RECO.00R OF THE COUNTY Of sAM .EM...DINO COUNTY, STATE OI CAlIIO.FR, ONTARIOCC LI, 1P.IL.ISI2 •CL NOSEIOA Y•... c.Nh Y.o •Lep � L.. <I at •e s o <..].ro. y.. z i 11111 � r I its RINY GN. In. SI. N.N (.IN!•ww. •INI Nn. L YYr . EI. /KINI PON �6:�o.I., YI"ve YIY Ise 8111 iiiul�•w"Rr.nY Andf c," In1Yn I.In1 c.. I.. a —. ,C 'A�L_ Irvin IIIm4r Iyr M 4.r.1 m Inl+�tnN11 N)Y m M.. In Y IIIr frr ry n. a.� %%nI �h.l • • //� Y•... c.Nh Y.o •Lep � L.. <I at •e s o <..].ro. y.. z i 11111 � r I its T n J <oi i 0 • Nn. L YYr . [annoy (wll uYr 0YYN1 G EI /l •1111111 Y Y . In1Yn I.In1 Irvin IIIm4r Iyr M 4.r.1 m Inl+�tnN11 N)Y m M.. In Y IIIr frr Linn { IIRI 11r /r. f•I YYYI 8111 1 [a Irl 'I Ynn 1 9'm� .n.n In en1111yI 11 Yn-1 ' Itir In[ Y.l a.. lrnrl 1. Ynrn `1I `rlwl.n. 1• ^• { 1�ymr ^ Irn n01 lu me .Iq ti V ' T n J <oi i 0 • U 0 LJ V'V� J?. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 16, 1982 >" E', TO: City Council and City Manager v 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Extension of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 9435 and Tract 9638 - Crismar Development Corporation Due to current economic conditions, Crismar Development Corp. is requesting an extension of the Subdivision Agreement for Tracts 9435 and 9638. These agreements are attached for your review. The agreement for Tract 9638 and 9435 expire on September 2, 1982 and November 5, 1982, respectfully. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance 28 -B, Section No. 1.711.3, the developer may request an extension of this agreement with submittal of adequate evidence to justify the extension. Tract 9638, a 25 lot subdivision located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Lemon Avenues was given final Council approval on September 2, 1981. Tract 9435, a 41 lot subdivision located east of Haven Avenue and south of 19th Street was given final Council approval on November 5, 1980. Both tracts have recorded and construction has not begun. An increase in securities or change in conditions has been found to be unnecessary at this time. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution granting a one year extension for the above referenced improvement agreements. Resp/ectfulrK:bc l /y submi e`dd,, L�V �LBH Attachments a "I' • RESOLUTION N0. Sa - ))7-'; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 9435 AND TRACT 9638 WHEREAS, applications have been filed for time extensions of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the above - described projects, pursuant to Section 1.711.3 of Ordinance 28 -B, the Sub- division Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved said Subdivision Agreements. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a lack of financing; B. That these economic conditions have caused delay in the start of construction; C. That granting of said time extensions will not • be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council hereby grants Subdivision Improvement Agreement time extensions for the above- described - projects as follows: Tract Map Expiration Date Extended to 9435 Oct. 5, 1982 Oct. 5, 1983 9638 Sept. 2, 1982 Sept. 2, 1963 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon D. flikels, Mayor • ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk t Crisman • DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2120 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 200 PO. Box 2121 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90406 12181 8297865 April 15, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Engineering Department Subject: Extension of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 9435 Gentlemen; The current economic dilemma confronting the housing industry has compelled Crismar Development Corporation to delay construction of Tract 9435. In view of this situ- ation we respectfully request an eighteen month extension of the Subdivision Improve- ment Agreement for Tract 9435. To facilitate this request, please find enclosed our check in the amount of $251.00. Thank you for your attention in this matter. '7�,ry truly yours, Rich,rd A. Petert,An Land Nrocessing Director RAP /bd • v r,. Crismar DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2120 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 20) P.O. BOY 2131 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 (2) 3) 829.2865 April 15, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Engineering Department Subject: Extension of Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 9638 Gentlemen; The current economic dilemma confronting the housing industry has compelled Crismar Development Corporation to delay construction of Tract 9638. In view of this situ- ation we respectfully request an eighteen month extension of the Subdivision Improve- ment Agreement for Tract 9638. To facilitate this request, please find enclosed our check in the amount of $251.00. Thank you for your attention in this matter. truly yours, Land RrocessinZi Director Enclos RAP /hd r, • C1 Pi • 9 TRACT llI N0. 9638 I � ! �r y �� •H. I I -' 7 j t '1' ili TRACT .9435 I` -'l� -� 9�f L ``,tt 1'1tiOt, r t1I I1`i '' CIT} 0P RA \CI 10 CUCAMONGA � extension of -+ Agreements e for 'cracts E \GINHIiRI \G UI \'ISIO\ �T �r,�a ra ana VICINITY MAP CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT TRACT N0.9633 NNO44 ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Hap Act of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said City, herein- after referred to a% the City, and C4EVR09 CONSTRUCTTON C0 /C?ISMAR 3EVEL02'1EI rnRPORATION , hereinafter referred to as the Subdivider. MITNESSETH: THAT. WHEREAS, said subdivider entered into A subdivision improvement agreement with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of Tract Flo. 9638 ; and WHEREAS, said subdivider desires an extension of time to complete the terms of the said subdivision improvement agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said subdivider as follows: 1. The completion date of the terns of the said subdivision improvement agreerent is hereby extended for a period of 12 months from the date of expiration of the said agreement. 2. Increase in improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The required bond and the additional principal amounts thereof are set forth an Page _2— of this agreement. 4. All other terms and conditions of the said subdivision improvement agreement shall remain the same. As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to comply with same, the Subdivider has submitted the below described improvement security, and has affixed his signature hereto: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND Description: Additional Principal Amu unt: None Surety: Address: MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT BONO Description: Additional Principal Amount None Surety: Address: Additional Cash Deposit: CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTING BOND None MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City. Principal Amount: « ......................«...................... ............................... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPER: CALIFnaNiA, a municipal corporation Chevron con tructi an Co. wn U. `h lets, Fbiyor By; 'Marto Mory, President ATTEST: 404E: Oeveioper's signaturo must to notarized. Lauren H. '4assen:en, pty Vert 7� • .,- CITY OF R.cNUO Ct CAR0 0.\ COSSTSCCTTO% ,V:O 30::a E?CROACICIE$T FEMIT FEE SCREDULE (A[[]cA [v "in apee[or': CuOP ") p,\TE: 6/23/81 PEIOIIT t:0. CO)Fi'UTED OT J. Stofa, Jr. File Reference Tract 9638 Cicy pr>cinE Se,s 714 ::OTC: Dees opt include eurrenc fce fer vrlcing pernit nc p]vmenc rcpUce- nenc depvs its. COSSTRUCTTON COST ESTI:1\TE • OILSNTITT t[RTt I U:ITT Cosr 5 .'!Mn:T " r r [.. T. 5 P. F.. C. and �� n" C.F. L.F. R.(5300 385 ,( L. F. 4. ,N 4 "C. Ik 1 4" P.C.C. C. Slr., aI k I 1. F. > >. 6" Ih ive :lmrngcn I s. F. C.,, p,rtcer 1 2760 S.F 1 3.40 StaeE t a rxtien 1 9927 C.Y. 1 1. bu 1 14.9 laanr ccd EV9an'sent 1 O.Y. Preen r. ;c fon of svh:rade S.F. o A ' I F. A (rav rON A.C. fn, er 1300 10 uns) I TON 30 GO 56.000 A.C. 1900 ee 1100 CO MS) TO`I 1 \ ,otoc i0O to 900 to"0 1 TO:: Lie • r 5111 t.—c I TON I N,h A.O. farenrhl V" Tnic: :\.C, fN Ilzv 1 i 'T - V, to fraC• AO,.a, S r C.O. to Ornde 1 E.a. 9451st 1, r i.lrc m Orxtic F.A. Srrcor sf-r F.'. L�s cr..: •- CA. I i keauvaloTe�a. averen SF. 4" p. C. C. 51d ^rfaIk Nam >,O I SF I 1 Idt•: ""gt Structure I FA. 1500.00 I w 1 Relocate P.P. 3 I c9: >T7ull i,a� +—j UgC2r $IE_V:alk ra10 1 J4 .UV an 1 1 1 COSSTPL'CTTOR COST — 153.101 CO::TVoFNC'f COSTS 15,°96 TOTAL CONSTF.CCTIOS COSTS 169,000 FAITHrUl. PG.RFOA ANA WYD (100::) "Moo L\UW %::.I ". \39TI. \L EOSO (50 %:) 84,507 UCIY!'.FRI::C I\SPFCTIO\ FEE 71395 (I'EF. SCIIITIUI.[) AOACIvN 6TIO:: i01:D (USIi) 2,450 7T J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION AGREEMENT TRACT NO. 9435 KNOW ALL .MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, a municipal corporation, by and between the said City, herein- after referred to as the City, and Chevron Land and Development Co "rismar Development Corp. hereinafter referred to as the Subdivider. WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, said subdivider entered into a subdivision improvement agreement with the City as a requisite to approval of the Final Map of Tract No. 9435 ; and (' WHEREAS, said subdivider desires an extension of time to complete the terms of the said subdivision improvement agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by the City and by said subdivider as r follows: 1. The completion date of the terms of the said subdivision improvement agreement is hereby extended for a period of 12 months from the date of expiration of the said agreement. 2. Increase in improvement securities to reflect current improvement costs shall be furnished by the developer with this agreement and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The required bond and the additional principal amounts thereof are set forth an Page _ of this agreement. 4. All other terms and conditions of the said subdivision improvement agreement shall remain the same. • As evidence of understanding the provisions contained herein, and of intent to comply with same, the Subdivider has submitted the below described improvement security, and has affixed his signature hereto: FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND '---�� Description: Additional Principal A mount Surety: Covenant Mutual Insurance Co. No additional amount required Address: MATERIAL AND LABOR PAYMENT BOND Description: Additional Principal Amount: Surety: Covenant Mutual Insurance Co. No additional amount required Address: Additional Cash Deposit: CASH DEPOSIT MONUMENTING BOND MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND To be posted prior to acceptance of the tract by the City. Principal Amount: ••••••• ••••••••••,•••• + ............... ••CiC��v'r'on l'dVeJpefdti'nndt.r...a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA O EV1LYPE gevelodownt Corp. CALIFORNIA, a rmnrcipel _ Corinna LI an By; _jLK_1Aja2pry Jon p v,i kels, Ma yon President ATTEST. NOTE: Developer's signature must be notarized. Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk • TOTAL CONSTR4CTI'.:J COST 106.307.50 1!ISri:r.T in:1 rrr9 CIX:ST "CCT10:, [:TPECT[ON - ol r..... _,,.rl +� r,.e[ "•rt „rte . r O ACREEI:E::2 PACE 5 . CIT OF RA CC) NO ES9LA COCSTRL'QI0:1 . \::D R0::0 ESTLLITE EOCdO. \CII!'ECT PEP.'ItT FEE SCiIEOL'CE 64u ach to '9 nsr�a or'x c�nr "2 DATE: 10/1/90 PEK41T :JO. CONVOTED DT 1 1. 4artin File Reference Tract 9425 City Drawing No.s Tract 9415 NOTE; Deta n ncloJC current fee for vtitin6 permit ar pavement rep2a<e- mmc ,[e posies. CONnTRL'CI'ION COST ESII:LITE • TOTAL CONSTR4CTI'.:J COST 106.307.50 1!ISri:r.T in:1 rrr9 CIX:ST "CCT10:, [:TPECT[ON - ol r..... _,,.rl +� r,.e[ "•rt „rte . . TOTAL CSP..Ci t0., FEES . . . . . . . . S _ !L CO'^ACTIO9 TCST PUS . .S III. :o] r.0tS •'J: C:CCS (IOi: ,. ..r; 4rnst nm(iun C”, Ln;lrtat t) 5 F"tL:d Pr r:a roan n• to nd TOTAL a, +a L+sur to ,d � rte. • • e; { ki--U ..t 31. 07TV ALA D A XtPUA ri TPA AXATTr A STAFF REPORT' DATE: June 16, 1982 FIB TO: City Council and City Manager QI, 197 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Dave Blevins, Pub14., Works Inspector SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 6125, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEMON AND ARCHIBALD - R. YOUNG At this time the road improvements near the southeast toner of Lemon and Archibald ,Avenues have been completed and found to be in acceptable condition. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the City Council accept the improvements into the City's maintenance system and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. Also, since the improvement agreement is secured by a letter of credit, we recommend that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release said letter of credit thirty -five days after filing a notice of completion. Respectfully submitsed, LBH B:bc Attachments 3-1 • RESOLUTION NO. G ; -III A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMIONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 6125 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO RELEASE LETTER OF CREDIT THIRTY -FIVE DAYS AFTER FILING SAID NOTICE WHEREAS, the construction of street improvements for Parcel Nap No. 6125 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk is authorized to release a letter of credit thirty -five days after filing said notice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1982. • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren TI lJasserman, City C erk • Jon D. Mikels, Mayor Vii% 9 • '• 1Tml n1 n 1T,n,Tn 1111 ,.1 111 STAFF REPORT° "C9� DATE: June 16, 1962 f, T0: City Council and City Manager U' 197 FROM: Lloyd B. Hobbs, City Engineer BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer SUBJECT: Release of Existing Performance Bond and acceptance of reduced Performance Bond and Agreement for Parcel Map 6544 Street improvements at the above location have been substantially completed and are acceptable at this time except for minor clean -up and some corrective pavement overlay. The developer has on file with the City a Performance Bond in the amount of $255,000. The developer is requesting that Council release the existing bond and accept a reduced bond,in the amount of $30,OOO,and new agreement as surety for the remaining improvements. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council authorize the release of the existing bond and accept the new bond and agreement and execute same. Respectfully su bmitte � LBHa I�.bc Attachments 74- rtlr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .,r.,.e rhu9F D. sent.." b kJ;n. ., f - Arthur 11. Bridge Jr. D. NUM. • oG.f_V = Jame. C. Frn.t Jliehael A. ralambo C� 2 June 2, 1982 Hunter 8 Voss 19500 Fairchild Drive Suite 100 P.O. Box 18977 Irvine, California 92713 Attn: Bruce C. Cook SUBJECT: Reduced Performance Bond for Parcel Map 6544 Dear Mr. Cook: • Pursuant to your letter of May 20, 1982, Staff will be recommending at the June 16, 1982 Council meeting that the existing bond be released and a reduced bond accepted and accompanying agreement be executed (see attached staff report). It is mandatory that two executed copies of the enclosed agreement and an original copy of the new performance bond, effective June 16, 1982, be submitted to this office prior to June 11 in order to proceed. The existing bond will be released simultaneously with the acceptance of the new reduced bond. If you or the bonding company should have any questions please contact me at 989 -1851. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Monte Prescher Public Works Engineer Eric. MP:bc POST IIFFICP BOX 80i • lt,%NCIIOCC('A .NIOXGA.CaI.IPOlt \1.191750 • (711)989.1851 10 Piccn Mae card Courier No. in 6666]]]1�jj3Q((1�� Marg -= 12 - 96 r CITY OF EANCHO CCCAs',C GA IMPP.OI'EMELT A,.REEMENT FOR PARCEL MAP NO. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That this agreement is made and entered into, in conformance with the provisions of the :! unicipal Code and Regulations of the City Of Rancho Cucamonga, State of Cali- fornia, a municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, by and between said City and �%ia aer reterrea to as the Ue velope :. WITNESSETH: THAT, b'HEREAS, pursuant to said Code, Developer has requested approval by the City of Parcel Map Number 6544 in accordance with the oravisions of the report of the City Engineer thereon, and any amendments thereto; located at the Northeast Corner of Haver Avenue and' Sixth Street ; an WHEREAS. the City has established certain requirements to be met by said Developer prior to granting the final approval of the parcel map; and WHEREAS, the execution of this agreement and posting of improvement security as hereinafter cited, and approved by tie City Attorney, are deemed to be equivalent to prior completion of said requirements for the purpose of securing said approval. t - THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and be the Div and the Developer as follows: 1. The Developer hereby agrees to construct at Developer's expanse all improvements described on Page 3 hereof within nine months from the date hereof, as per Section 2.12 of Ordinance No 29. 2. The term of this agreement shall be nine months cor- mencr.^.n on the date of execution hereof by the City. This agreement shall be in default on the day following the last day of the tern stipulatcd, unless said term has been extended as hereinafter pro- vided. 3. The Developer may request additional time in which to complete the provisions of this agreement, in writing not less than four weeks prior to the default date, and including a statement of circumstances of necessity for additional time. In considdra Uon of Ouch request, the City reserves the right to review the provisions h ^r -of, including construction standards, cost estimate., and suf- ficiency of the improvement security, and to require adju- tments thereto when warranted by substantial changes therein. 4. If the Developer fails or neglects to comply with the provision; of r.Bic i unm,ot, the City shall hove :he right at any timo tl c a u e said Provisions to be completed by any lawful moans, and thoreuponto recover from 'aid Developer and /or his Suety the full cost and expense incurred in so doing. 5. Encroachment permits shall be obtained by the De Velcoer frvn ^ off icr of the Ci•y C ,1ru,er prior to start of any work within the p :h law ri rht-cf -wny, and the onvoloper shall conduct such worm; in fall ,:a r.re with the ronulat:onc vontu nod therein. Non-compliance may r•c i :. Lo stunning n[ the wor, by the City, an,] ausessacnt of the prcalum: pin v+2.cJ. • DATE: DATE: WITNESS: DATE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA a municipal corporation BY: MAYOR DAT": • -5,>' CITY CLERE 6. Public right -o: -way improvement vcrk required shalt be • constructer in conformance with approved improvement plans, standard S cecifications, and Standard Drawings and any special amendments theret, construction shall include env transitions and /or other incidental work deemed necessary for drainage or public safety. 7. Work done within existing streets shall be diligently pursued 'o completion; the City shall have the right to complete any and all ,.irk in the event of unjustified dalay in completion, and to recover all cost and expense incurred from the Developer and /or his contractor by any lawful means. 8. The Developer shall be responsible for replacement, relocation, or removal of any component of any irrigation water system I. conflict with the required work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the owner of the water system. 9. The Developer shall be responsible for removal of all loose fork and other debris from the public right -of -way resulting from wcrk done on the adjacent property or within said right- o,` -: +ay. 10. The Developer shall plant and maintain parkway trees as directed by the Community Development Director. I1. The improvement security to be furnished by the Developer to guarantee completion of the terms of this agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney, The principal amount of sail improvement security shall be not less the amount shot +n belo:+: IMPROVEp1ENT SECURITY SUBMITTED: Faithful Performance Bond t in Wo Material and Labor Bond 5127,500 • IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed and acknowledced with all formalities required by law on the dates set forth opposite their signatures: DEVELOPER DATE: DATE: WITNESS: DATE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA a municipal corporation BY: MAYOR DAT": • -5,>' CITY CLERE ITY OF ,1VIC110 CUCNID::GA GLn3TRLCT10:I MD BOND ES71�%TE ENCROACINENT PELYIT FEE SCUEDLLE (AaacA ce "Inspector's Copy ") ATE: PERMIT N0. _ City, CC.reU _'D BY xYrx %'YrXly; Y.';G rile 0.eier<nce PM a 6566 City Dr.vie8 No, NOTE: Dom not include current fee for maid., ptvit or pavement replace - mcnc depcsics. - - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTINATE IT" OLANTIre INTT UtIIT COST <4CM;T n L.t. L.S. S 10' CON-M!, tES r. C. - B" C. Fc S L.F. 0E51C0 FEES (IG: ur Total Constru<clon Cast Escleace) P.C.C. Curb only 6" C.F. 3 L.F. rAr. _ 9 071, A.O. Bern (5200 min) Material and U5.1 Bond • L.F. 4" P.C. 5i deva" 11 200 1 s.F. 751 Gs\ Y.ar.v. -.e nt!n; Oepaat • 6" Or!ve A; ;roach 0 s. F. 8" P.GC. Cress Cu ¢er S.F. Strecv Er uvaz!on 10.000 C. 1! 3.001 30 C^ '] inoorce4 Emokmene C.Y. of Preea rnt!on e( Bebtrade PG; 17n i S.F. 1 ,cl 1. .a lee In 11, I In A.C. 1300 .no) I coo T0N nnl A.C. f900 to 1]00 coast 1300 ro iO4 I A.C. fundnr 500 1. o00 ons) TCV I A.C. 500 c nsl -01 1 ucA A.C. ,-nth) S.F. 1" Thick A.C. Lerlav S.F. Y.P. 1. Crodr 5 1 EA. 1 1 An' Ad,.,, 6o-,r C.O. to Grade 1 E.A. 1 100.001 to, Ad'usc V.,, Valves to Grade 8 EA. M.Ml 401 51,11, FiEC 1 EA. 1 c0 nn 50-ret Sicna 4 EA. 200.:01 80 Screw Gen I EA. a 4I,- c 1 tc to 2Prl?czols and ?.It, IG [A. 35.JCI 3:3 d• or0 Idl I F to "I s 11 in r6.00l - 6" PVC B00 !.i. 4 E'iC Earricaaes 2 EA. 300.001 600 a orrec lve Overlay n m1sC. C d -U 1 m5 1❑ IU 1 0 any corrections Lo a ov PF.TAMENG GALLS ELOgE-;ALLS L.F. IJJ.eS CAP F. 6 IPRIr,. \T [0:1 I L.S. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST DJWX TYSPECTT09 FEES flS4 L\:i Tl - rn;- t ,�NINi CONSIF C:IUN I:f PECTIM - nr fnnsr rurrtnn fn .r Fa f,-arn 1.. 5. L.t. L.S. tlt. 10' CON-M!, tES S IV. 0E51C0 FEES (IG: ur Total Constru<clon Cast Escleace) . S 5TH �E "\ErT LN. III a1G'!T- OF' -G'AY r+w; rat r,•r r ;r -,anre Bona . rAr. . $ Material and U5.1 Bond • $ 127.5.0 T. TO-,',L A15PECTIO:I FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S II. 0%- A TZESC T FEES .S tlt. 10' CON-M!, tES S IV. 0E51C0 FEES (IG: ur Total Constru<clon Cast Escleace) . S r+w; rat r,•r r ;r -,anre Bona . sxXUxcx 530 ,000 TOT.,,L . $ Material and U5.1 Bond • $ 127.5.0 M+taten +ace Bon; . $ • Gs\ Y.ar.v. -.e nt!n; Oepaat • $ lui ;• tL &.a : 3k Cl2Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 16, 1982 Y TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Dave Leonard, Maintenance Supervisor SUBJECT: ANNUAL RENEWAL OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS FOR "CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION" AND "CITYWIDE STREET TREE SERVICE" The 19:1 -82 fiscal year agreement for maintenance of the City's parkways and trees provided a renewal clause for the 1982 -83 fiscal year, provided the contract is not exceeded by 10 %. SCLM, Co., Inc., Contractor for the "City +side Landscape and Irrigation Contract is requesting a 2% increase. Last years contract has grown from 372,080 square feet to 595,435, an increase of 60;. Based on the increased responsibility and the amount of vandalism that plagues the parkway contract, it is felt this is a reasonable request. Homer's Tree Surgery, the City's tree contractor, is requesting a 10% increase. By comparing Homer's proposed increase with the second lowest bid for the 1981 -82 fiscal year, West Coast Arborist, Homer is still substantially lower. The majority of the tree work performed in this contract falls into two groups. A price comparison for the two contractors is as follows: Group I - Ornamental Trees (Cost to Trim) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize renewal of the "Citywide Landscape and Irrigation Contract" with SCLM Co, Inc., La Verne, California with a 2" increase and the "Citywide Street Tree Service Contract" witn Homer's Tree Surgery, Upland, California with a 10" increase for an aaditional twelve months commencing July 1, 1982 and terminating June 30, 1983. Respectfully submitted, LBW-.DL c Diameter of Treed0 -12 12 -24 24+ 1931 -8�2 Bid West Coast Arborist $40.00 $75.00 $95.00 1982 -83 Proposal Homer's Tree Surgery $27.50 $52.80 $77.00 Difference 12.50 --T-2T-.TO— �'n 8.00 Grou Windrow Eucalyptus (Cost to Trim) Diameter of Tree 0 -12 12 -24 24+ 1981 -8' Bid West Coast Arborist $60.00 $125.00 $200.00 1982 -83 Proposal Homer's Tree Surgery $49.50 $104.50 $121.00 Difference 10.50 20.50 79.00 �'n . AM) HOMER'S TREE SURGERY P 0 2,,, 54G On,ono, CcLl nn�o 91761 4161 985 1065 6 -91992 City of Rancho Cucamo,'Iga P.O.Box 907 Rancho Cucamonga,Calif.91790 L J SUGIECT: Tree Trimming Contract Dear Dave: Ne would very much like to conintue the tree trimming contract for an additional 12 months, With 10% incense. Jum 0•:' CITY c. anew c,•rar.aac•. cN:'2 J �I Homer's TreepSurger„r Homer Sivils 1982 -83 CONTRACT PROPOSAL • 1. ITEMIZED BID FORM Indicate charges for work to specific group and in accordance with the ap- propriate trunk diameter at breast height or height. See Section 4 of Contract Proposal. 2. GROUP CHARGES Group I Trunk Diameter 0 -12 12 -24 24 "over TOTAL Cost to Raise $ 11.00 $ 22.00 $ 33.00 $ 66.00 Cost to Top $ 22.00 $ 38.50 $ 55.00 S 115.50 Cost to Trim $ 77.50 $ 52.80 $ 77.00 $ 157.30 Cost to Remove $ 27.50 $ 66.00 $ 104.50 $ 198.00 TOTAL GROUP CHARGES $2186.80 3. EMERGHECY CHARGES Emergency charges shall include all personnel, equipment and any other material used in completing work. A. Minimum service charge shall be at the rate of $21.50 per man hr-for 2 hours B. Charges beyond minimum time shall be at the rate of $ 24.20 peranour fil �� • Tree Height Group II 0' -20' 20' -40' 40'over TOTAL Cost to Raise $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 11.00 $ 33.00 Cost to Trim $-72MT-0 $ - - - 3 $ 3850 $ 93.50 Cost to Remove $ 38.50 $ 99.00 $ 132.00 $ 269.50 • Trunk Diameter Group III 0 -12" 12 -24" 24 "over TOTAL Cost to Raise $ 22.00 $ 33.00 $ 33.00 $ 88.00 Cost to Top $ as nn $ 00 nn $ ii n nn $ vcz nn Cost to Trim $ 49.50 $ 104.50 $ 121.00 $ 275.00 Cost to Remove $ 49.50 $ 110.00 $ 176.00 $ 335._50 Cost to Remove $ $ 99.00 _ $ 159.50 $ 302.50 (leaving stump 18" to e-'�i g TOTAL GROUP CHARGES $2186.80 3. EMERGHECY CHARGES Emergency charges shall include all personnel, equipment and any other material used in completing work. A. Minimum service charge shall be at the rate of $21.50 per man hr-for 2 hours B. Charges beyond minimum time shall be at the rate of $ 24.20 peranour fil �� • CITY -WIDE STREET TREE SERVICE AGREEMENT This agreement, made and entered into this day of 1982, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga herein called ity and HOMER'S TREE SUR9ERY (herein called "Contractor "): Section 1: The Contractor, in consideration of the promises of the City, hereby agrees to rurnish all tools, equipment, labor and materials necessary to perform and complete, in a good workmanlike manner, the street tree main- tenance in � rict accordance with specifications entitled "Citywide Street Tree Service' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in accordance with the Contractor are hereby made a part of this contract. Section 2: The City, in consideration of the performance of this contract, agrees to pay the contractor an a monthly basis for work completed as per contract proposal for a period of twelve months beginning July 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983. Section 3: As provided in the specifications, the City shall have the right during the term of this agreement to review with the Contractor the work which has been performed. If, in the opinion of the City Engineer, the street tree service has not been performed in a satisfactory manner the City may, upon three (3) days notice in writing to the Contractor, cancel this contract. In the event of cancellation, monies due the Contractor or retained under the terms of the contract, shall be forfeited to the City, not to exceed the amount necessary to correct deficiencies in the street tree service. • Section 4. The Contractor shall commence work under this agreement on July 1, 1982. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of the date herein above specified. Attest: City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga By: Contractor: By: 11 : _:� ¢• Lic. No. C27 370509 Landscape Contractors 1843 C STREET, . LA VE E, CA LI FORNIA 91750 + (714) 59696 3263 ��m�,;,y, ,,,c, •,. 8 June 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Dave Leonard P.O., Box 807 •:Rancho -Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Dear Mr. Leonard: In response to your letter dated 27 May 1982 reguarding the possible extention of the 1981 -82 Citywide parkway and irrigation maintenance contract, we submit a proposed increase of 2% (Two percent). This would increase the cost for maintenance per square foot from .01280 per month to .0131¢ per month. We enjoy the opportunity to serve the people of Rancho Cucamonga and look forward to another year, If you have any questions please feel free to call. 'Sincerly, Thomas A. Hanson • '° "'7' General Manager, •, "''��,;� "a'T�_ =�' *qtr SCLM CO., INC. TAH /prh'�>� CONTRACT PROPOSAL • For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, project entitled "Citywide Parkway and Irrigation Maintenance ", contractor shall furnish landscape and irrigation maintenance. L] • The undersigned bidder further declares that he has carefully examined the location of the proposed work, that he has examined the special provisions and specifications, and read the accompanying instructions to bidders, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this proposal is accepted, to furnish all materials and do all the work required to complete the said work in accordance with'_the Special Provisions and Specifications, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the lump sum and unit cost amounts set forth in the schedule on the following Proposal. Description Beginning Monthly Monthly Yearly Cost Approx. Unit Unit Cost (Monthly Cost X 12) Quantity Cost Contract Amount Continuous Parkway 597,160 Sq.Ft. .0131 $7763.08 $93,156.96 Maintenance as Per Contract Specifications Total: Ninty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six $ 93,156.96 (Words) Dollars and Ninty six Cents Date: Bi By: SUPPLE4ENT EXTRA 14ORK SCHEDULE: • HOURLY LABOR RATE: List all applicable positions and /or classifications) ITEM CLASSIFICATION HOURLY LABOR COST UNIT LABOR COST ITEM DESCRIPTION INCLUDING OVERHEAD INCLUDING OVERHEAD A Irrigation Repair and $11.72 --------"-----"-'---- D Installation $9.50 E B Controller Repair and $12.75 --------------------- _ $9.50 Installation Designer $9.50 C Plant 15 gal tree & Stake -------------- - - - - -- $25.25 D Plant 5 gal Shrub -------------- - - - - -- $8.50 E Plant 1 gal Shrub -------------- - - - - -- $4.50 F Plant 1 Flat Groundcover -------------- - - - - -- $6.00 HOURLY LABOR RATE: List all applicable positions and /or classifications) ITEM CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE NOT INCLUM 3 OVERHEAD _ A General Laborer $6.00 B Irrigation Installer $9.00 C Licensed Chemical Applicator _ $10.00 D Tree Trimmer $9.50 E Equipment Operator $9.50 F Field Supervisor _ $9.50 G Designer $9.50 Date: Bidder: SCLM CO., INC. • �I to 1982 -83 PARKWAY AND IRRIGATION MAINTNENACE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1982, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA hereinafter called "City" and hereinafter called "Contractor ". SECTION 1: The Contractor, in consideration of the promises of the City, hereby agrees to furnish all tools, equipment, labor and materials necessary to perform and complete, in a good and workmanlike manner, the landscape maintenance in strict accordance with Specifications entitled "Citywide Parkway and Irrigation Maintenance" of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in accordance with the Contractor are hereby made a part of this contract. SECTION 2: The Ciry, in consideration of the performance of this contract, agrees to pay the Contractor and the Contractor agrees to accept in full satis- faction the sum of SEVE!: THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY THREE DOLLARS AND EIGHT CENTS (57763.08) per month for the initial beginning quantity of the Contract. Parkway additions durinq the Coursa of the contract shall be billed at the monthly unit cost of 5.0131 per square foot for the balance of the contract. Duration of the contract shall ba 12 months beginning July 1, 1982 and terminating June 30, 1983. SECTION 3: As provided for in Section A6q of the special provisions, the City shall have the right during the term of this agreement to review with the Contractor the work which he has performed. If, in the opinion of the City • Engineer, the landscape maintenance has not been performed in a satisfactory manner, the City may, upon fifteen (15) days notice in writing to the contractor, cancel this contract. In the event of cancellation, monies due the contractor or retained under the terms of the contract, shall be forfeited to the City, not to exceed the amount necessary to correct deficiencies in the landscape maintenance. SECTION 4: The Contractor shall commence work under this agreement on July 1, 1982. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of the date hereinabove specified. ATTEST: 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By City Clerk CONTRACTOR, 8y: 1 ' � r! / • LJ S-FAF vRE, PORT W DATE: June 16, 1982 T0: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENTS J'&,C ; -94 Due to illness, the Executive Director of the Building Industry Association (BIA) has been unable to devote his attention to the above subject. Mr. Willis has now returned and will be examining this matter with the staff. In order to provide the time necessary for all parties concerned to adequately address the issue, staff recommends postponing this matter another 30 days, to July 21, 1982. Res I ectful y bmitted, I JACR"M, AICP Comm ,it Development Director JL:jk ", LT S LJ • AlU�t 1 W/U nmmv nv n A XTnvn 0"n n 19nwi0 A The vacation of streets and alleys as shown on the attached drawing is required prior to the recordation of the tract maps within William Lyon's Victoria Project. The William Lyon Company has requested that the public hearing for the subject vacation be set so that final approval of the tracts would not be delayed. Since the tract maps are not yet ready for final approval, it is necessary to continue the public hearing to coincide with final map approval. Notices for Public Hearing have been posted at the site at the time of original Public Hearing date of February 17, 1982. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council continue the public hearing until July 7, 1982, when the tract maps are submitted for final approval. Respectfully sub LBH69K:bc Attaurnents �'C STAFF REPORT oi, DATE: June 16, 1982 11 -1: p U TO: City Council and City Manager J,i 1977 FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Vacation of Unnecessary Streets and Alleys Within the Victoria Project The vacation of streets and alleys as shown on the attached drawing is required prior to the recordation of the tract maps within William Lyon's Victoria Project. The William Lyon Company has requested that the public hearing for the subject vacation be set so that final approval of the tracts would not be delayed. Since the tract maps are not yet ready for final approval, it is necessary to continue the public hearing to coincide with final map approval. Notices for Public Hearing have been posted at the site at the time of original Public Hearing date of February 17, 1982. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council continue the public hearing until July 7, 1982, when the tract maps are submitted for final approval. Respectfully sub LBH69K:bc Attaurnents �'C IL------ - - ----- F— 71 ni 7L ll�- J� 11q, Ul- TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11934 V-015 r-TO BE VACATED -TRACT BO..,UNCARY 600' R,%D:IJS OL� 1i I AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING • NOTICE OF POSTING _ FOR VACATION OF STREET STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) I declare, under penalty of making a false oath, that I am now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly appointed, qualified and acting Superintendent of Streets in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. That on the 23rd day of March, 1982, I caused to have posted a Notice of Hearing for Vacation of Streets, a copy of which Notice • is attached hereto and made a part hereof; that the Notices were posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart along the line of the street and that not less the.,, three (3) Notices were so posted; and that the posting was completed on the 23rd day of March, 1982. • This Declaration Made This —312�--day of ,1982. Lis g ff L, 'f•; 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE UNNECESSARY STREETS AND ALLEYS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. V -015 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that on the 17th day of February, 1982, at ththour of 7:00 P.M. in the Lion's Park Community Service Building, located at 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, California, any and all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation may appear before the Council and • then and there show cause why the proposed vacation should not be carried out in accordance with the Resolution. Any protest to the proposed vacation must be in writing and filed With the Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not later than the hour hereinabove set for hearing. For all further particulars, reference is hereby made to the Resolution of Intention on file with the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. DATE: `J a. .tree[ Supe tin tendent C, J • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM June 10, 1982 To: City council From: Finance Director Subject: Revenue Sharing The Public Hearing on 6 -16 -82 will be the second regarding Revenue Sharing for Rancho Cucamonga. Prior to this hearing, Council was provided with a brief outline of what Revenue Sharing is and what it does. For Entitlement Period 14 in the amount of $453,150 Staff again recommends that Revenue sharing be used to support the costs of the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriffs Department. As pointed out at the last Council meeting, one of the major sources of supporting Revenue for the Sheriff's Department is being severely reduced, and may be totally eliminated by Legislative action at the State level. This of course is Motor Vehicle in Lieu fees. From an accounting standpoint applying Revenue Sharing to the Sheriffs function is the most cost effective way to acquire maximum benefit from the source. AII�7 J J 0 `J 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCADIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 2, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FRCA: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer 8Y: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Street Lighting Energy Policies L, , SA CV;CA.LIQl• ,r d s 1977 I In January the City began feeling the effects of significant street light rate increases which promise to continue indefinitely under present PLC policies. Because of the seriousness of these increases, action was taken in June of last year to unify California local agencies into the California City - County Street Light Association (CAL -SLA). CAL -SLA's purpose is to launch a united effort to question and contest the utility companies' street light rate struc- ture, system acquisition policies and resistance to certain low- energy street lights. The organization has held five workshops thus far and the result has been the dissemination of a great deal of information to the cities, the beginnings of revised utility policy regarding acquisition, an ongoing dialogue with utilities regarding rate structures and street light useage and the attached resolution to demonstrate cities' concerns over the street light crisis to the legislature, the PUC and the utilities. Rancho Cucamonga Street Lighting The City's street light system consists of about 3500 lights along local and artarial streets and another 100 or so larger lights at intersections. The bi- mon'.1ly bill is currently $64,000, or $384,000 per year. Projected increases in this bill amount to 33" thru January, 1984, with constant increases thereafter of 10 to 15'.' per year. In 1020, the City's entire system was converted to sodium vapor lights which run on less than half the power of the previous mercury lights, however, at that time the rate reduction was Only 15',:, and that required dropping to a lower output bull). There was some saving however and it was felt necessary to save as much as possible in both money and energy. Rates since the conversion have increased by 11 '.. This burden is now so great that cost reduction and funding options must be explored and steps taken to relieve what will soon be a half - million dollar drain on the City hudg•,t. Co•.t Peb n:u cn Options Re -oval of street lights. This would eliminate all energy costs but would entail capital costs for much of the removal and leaves nothing for the future Turn off lights. Thi; option would appear to give various degrees of savings but evwr if all light„ wort! turrod off, the City's bill would be 60, of current rates duo to the "facili:ir.s charge" imposed for leaving the poles in place. Thus we amuld t:e paying a great deal for no current benr:fit. continued... �> Staff Report Re: Street Lighting Energy Policies June 2, 1982 Page 2 3. Lights off at midnight. This would cut energy use by 50", but would still cost 86 "1 of the normal rate, another example of the PUC looking out for our interests. 4. Greater spacing of lights. This has been carefully considered but, remembering that the present spacing offers minimal liaht levels (very dim between lights), the following disadvantages exist: a. If spacing is not doubled, future infill, if ever done, would result in excessive levels. b. Totally dark areas will result between lights, making the remaining light of dubious value. c. The number of new lights to be installed west of Haven will have a minimal impact an the total bill. d. As in Option 1, there would be great public cost in upgrading the lighting in the future. e. New installations can be established into an assessment district immediately, without a City -wide impact, so there should be no further increase in General Fund lights. This "district" will be discussed below. 5. The size of the light could be reduced. The problem of No. 4a and b would result and savings of IM would be very small. 6. Change type of light. The only other light available would require complete change over at great capital cost. 7. Acquire the system. This is being used increasingly around the State and would produce a 70; savings but there would be the cost of buying the system and future maintenance to be considered. Fundinn Options These options are quite limited as to number and desireability. They are as fol lm:rs: 1. General Fund. This is our present method. 2. Gas Tax. This would, of course, impact the capital improvement program which is at an already low funding level. 3. Senefit assessment under the 1972 Lighting and Landscape Act. This option would remove all General Fund burden if applied city -wide and would prevent further impact if applied now to all newly recorded tracts. It could provide Payment for local and arterial lighting. RECC::RENDAT N: It is me ^:!mended than, steps be taken to prcdur both short and lung term effe_ ^.s or, U;n C,:ncrel Funu mirde.n. For the short tern, it is recowinended that Council cons v':r in the very near future the establishment of an assessment district for new devcl,pment, similar to the existing Landscape Maintenance District. This rmuld freeze the lighting bill at current levels except for rate increases. A detailed report on costs and district establishment is now in preparation. For the •,Ii ;htly loner ter::i a city -wide district could be established as detail,:d in the. attached mater•ral. Due, to legal timelines, the earliest this could occur would be sunnier of 19;7. Council direction on proceeding further On 'h"" iptiuo is requested. continued... .� n Staff Report Re: Street Lighting E 2rgy Policies June 2, 1952 Page 3 • Even with direct assessments to relieve the City budget, the minimizing of public expense for lighting should be a major concern. The public has been receiving a very poor benefit -to -cost ratio under current PUC and utility policies. As explained at the beginning of this report and in the attached letter from James Smith, an opportunity now exists to bring rates and other costs down to equitable and proper levels. Your support of the attached resolution will strengthen the state -wide effort in this regard. {�R�espectfully submitted, / LLOeD U96 S CITY ENGINEER L3H:PAR:bc Attachments • • • RESOLUTION NO. iicR-IC,, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, AMEND AND ADOPT REGULATIONS GOVERNING AND REGULATING STREET LIGHTING WHEREAS, the rates for street lighting charged by utilities governed by the California Public Utilities Commission do not reflect the actual energy used by the street lights; and WHEREAS, local agencies are discouraged from acquiring the components of the utility -owned street light system because procedures for acquisition of the comp• ;,ents are vague and unnecessarily cumbersome; and WHEREAS, joint- tenancy of utility poles have been discouraged or conditioned in such a manner as to be unfeasible; and WHEREAS, utilities' rate structure adjusted and approved by the Commission from time to time included provisions for the amortization of utilities' installation and replacement costs of street lighting facilities; and • WHEREAS, utilities' method of evaluating its street lighting facilities (Reproduction Cost New Less Depreciation) does not reflect the actual saleable worth of these facilities; and WHEREAS, utilities require local public agencies to purchase street lighting facilities which were previously installed by property owners and developers and then dedicated at no costs to the utilities; and WHEREAS, utilities do not allow energy- conserving means of efficient lumiration except for high pressure sodium vapor street lights in their system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Public Utilities Commission is requested to consider, amend and adopt regulations governing and regulating street lighting which would provide that: 1. Rates charged for street lighting reflect the actual energy used by the lights; and 2. Procedures for acquiring components of the utilities' street lighting system be stated in a clear and precise manner; and 3. Utilities be required, if requested by a local Public • Agency to allow ,joint use of their utility pole system, without charge, to install strnet light fixtures owned and maintained by the local public agency; and .Resolution No. Page 2 4. The method utilized by utilities for valuating street . liehting facilities to be purchased by public entities be based on actual cost of the facilities when installed less depreciation and any other amounts recovered through utility rate charges, not to exceed salvage value; and S. Utilities be required, if requested by a local public agency, to transfer to the agency, without charge, any street lighting facility which utilities acquired from property owners and developers at no cost to the utility; and 6. Utilities be directed to utilize any and all forms of energy- efficient, economical street lighting including but not limited to both high and low pressure sodium vapor street lights, when requested to do so by a public entity. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1982. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 7, Jon D. Mikels, Mayor Fj • L • • &,k ; 6-6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAF14 REPORT DATE: June 16, 1982 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Council has requested information regarding the above subject for discussion. Attached please find a copy of a prior report regarding the design review process and mechanisms for carrying it out. A survey of other communities is a part o' the report. Please note that all cities perform some type of design review but the process varies in its complexity and formality depending upon the individual jurisdiction's objectives. As Council will recall,the Commission and Council initiated the current review process (a commis tee of two Commissioners and one staff member) in an attempt to have some formal process, but structured so that it would not involve a lengthy review period, expediency of the process being a major concern at the time. Furthermore, the Commission was concerned about the possible fragmentation of design and planning policy. Establishing a full - fledged board would create the "ultimate" structured process with advertised public meetings, full agenda as well as staff reports. The process would add at least three weeks to the process just as a result of the notification periods and time necessary for preparation of staff reports. Furthermore, additional staff time would have to be committed to the preparation, typing, and mailing of reports and related notices. At a time when Planning staff is being cut back because of budget constraints, this would have a significant affect on on workload, especially if Council establishes another evening meeting. All of the above, of course, are trade -offs against other objectives which the Council may have in adding greater structure to the process. Such objectives are discussed in the attached report. If the objectives for our current process has changed, then certainly the process itself may be modified. The staff has worked with all the various processes from previous jurisdictions. How the design review process is structured depends upon what the objectives are and what trade -offs the Council desires. Establishing a Design Review Board City Council Agenda June 16, 1982 Page 2 In general, if a full - fledged board is desirable, staff suggests a board of five members with two members from ti.e Planning Commission (to assure consistency with Commission policics) and a proportion of the five members from a design profession to add greater design strength. The attached report also delves into board makeup and appointment criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Determine whether Council desires any modification to the current Design Review process; advise as to specific objectives in modifying itq and provide direction as to such modifications. Res ct 11 /� SIu bmi tted, / JACK' LAM, AMP Director of Community Development JL /jr Attachments: Report of Architectural Review Process Resolution 79 -61 /v 0 • C • AN ARCHITECnJRAL REVIEW PROCESS RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTRODUCTION This paper discusses the process of architectural design review and how it is im- fomented. It addresses the conceptual and legal foundations of design revielr, the procedures necessary to establish a review process, and the bene- fits which such a process can have for a community. An analysis of a design review survey, taken by the City of Rancho Cucamonga of selected cities throughout San Bernardino, Orange and other Counties, is also included to provide information about how various proximate agencies implement design review. BACKGROUND Definition Design review is the means by which a community can assure itself of development which is reasonably in harmony with the character and quality of environment which it finds desirable to foster. The method is to guide what is built in the community in ways not now • covered by building codes and zoning ordinances, and to do so within the frameurork of the community's government.) Tntent end Purpose Tlm review process recognizes the interdependence of land values and aesthe- tic:;. The purpose of design review is to prevent inappropriate or poor quality des ,,,,a that has a detrimental affect upon the desirability of the community, and generally impairs the stability of property values of the local economy and adversely affects the health, safety and general welfare of a community and its inhahitants. notlef its Those communities which have decided upon Design Review have n ch Lved direct benefits in the form of pleasant environment:; for livin„ and working, preservation and mainrenance of land and property values and thin:, increased tax nwemws to the cic frnn improv.:d property conditions, and retardation or prevention of development of slum or blighted areas. They It.rve ulL;a found indirect result:: in the beneficial influence of pleae.ult uuvironmont, on beh.ivinrnl pntcern:; and increased doll,ir volume of cnr:men:ial ictivitv.l • Additional benefits which aerroo from a design review process include; hirnony betw,en arrhit,•cture and tandscupine; gofer traffic flows; control of : ;iGns, no iae, odor, and lighting; and coordination of historic preserva- tion activities. V Architectural Rev i�w Page 2 Legal Basis • Design review is au implementation tool of the General Plan, as are the Zoning Ordinances, and is a legal exercise by a community of the police power. Under the police power granted by the State, local governments have the right and responsibility to protect and plan for the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. Each community must decide for itself whether a certain quality of environment is a desirable goal and if a design review process within the framework of government is the means by which to achieve that goal. Numerous court cases have established ample precedent for creating a community design review process. The legal basis, as determined by the courts, is the development of clear design criteria and the "reasonableness" of these stan- dards as an exercise of the police power. Scooe The review process scope can be all types of development or just specific types, such as industry or commercial. Specific types can be designated by the zoning classification. It may cover only special zones (sometimes referred to as districts) or apply to an entire jurisdiction. The decision concerning the development scope and geographic scope is made during the adootion of design policies and standards as a part of the comprehensive planning process. • Criteria The range of items covered by design review criteria is virtually unlimited provided they are applied equally to all property within the defined scope of the process. For maximum results policies should address not only functional and human behavioral considerations but the total visual appearance or image of a community and its districts. Some examples of develop- ment standards adopted by communities include: building setbacks heights, overhangs, easements, materials (exterior and roofs), plant materials (location of trees and plants and type and size), irrigation, street trey planter detailing, lighting (design, height, intensity, coverage), signing (size, location, height, design), street furniture (type, location, design including benches, tolophone booths, drinking fountains, nowspapor racks, fire hydrants, [Cash cans, street Lights, etc.) (sicc, lncation, paving material), traffic island dividers (location, width, mat trial, paving, lignin},), circulation and parking (location, size, number), wells and fences (location, height, material), grading and drainage, utility connections, and so on.2 • � e J • Arch LOCLural Review C Pogo 3 PROCESS Enablinc Legislation An architectural review process is the review of proposed developments or modi- fications to existing structures by qualified persons to assure conformance with co munity design policy. Whether the review process concerns all or sore development or jurisdictional area, the legality of such a process is established by adopting enabling legislation in the form of an ordinance. To permit design review, this ordinance must address: the purpose; geogra- phic and development scope; review body; and procedures and fees. Administrative Procedure The requirements for a sound, workable and legal design review process are administrative procedures concerning; 1. Establishment of Design Review by Ordinance. 2. Description of area where Design Review shall apply. 3. Description of goal and criteria. 4. Description of required submittals schematic and con- struction documents). 5. Provision for Review in schematic d:sign and construc- tion document stages. 6. Provision for statement of reasons n case of required modification or of rejection. 7. Provision for re- review and time limits. 8. Provision for appeal. 9. Provision for review of completed building and, if it does not comply with approved submittals, provision for remedies. 10. Enforcement: building, permits not to be issued if application before construction of project does not pass Design Review. Occupancy permit not to be issued if completed building does not cemply.l In addition the following must be established: 11. Violations: description of legal consequences for nett- r,nmpl innce. 12. Est ebI ishment of fees to conduct design rev low and pro- vide for administrative costs. Tho actual administrntivo preeo.ss threul;h which proposals are "submitted, rovicwed, modified, prosentvd for approval nod imple:zented Is critical" oLaLee tln• American LtvL ituLU of Planners. They suggest add it ional steps, if not Fpellud out in Uu onahlinll le;;isl.at -ton, which are also critical: k5ee the Review Body Saetion, F`ngn 5 Architectural Review 1 Page 4 The first meeting. The first meeting with the developer is critical. Encourage developer- to meet with the public agency (planning staff) before doing working drawings. Provide the developer with examples, standards and all information necessary. Be helpful and courteous. Time spent at this first meeting will improve results and speed pro- cessing. Also, it the developer is not using professional design ser- vices, encourage their use. Preliminary desion review. After the developer has the basic informa- tion, he or she should submit the development proposal for preliminary design review. The proposal should respond to all the required informa- tion specified in the enabling legislation. It should be presented as specified on the application for design review. If necessary, samples of huilding materials, colors or other items also should be submitted. The staff then should review the proposal and insure that all development or it it is are met. Items not met should be noted, and suggestions for resolution prepared. These suggestions can be invaluable to a community and the developer, especially where the developer is not using profes- sional design services. The second meeting,. At the second meeting witl• the developer, the above start findings and recommendations should be discussed. This, too, is a critical point. Sensitivity to human reactions is vital. Offer sugges- tions, and indicate how they will Improve the development. Put the bene- fits in real terms (save money, prevent accidents, improve the flow of • customers into the store). Don't talk about the psychological response to external stimuli or visual imagery of an intense node. Tr•: to resolve as many issues as possible. If modification is required, ask to have the proposal resubmitted. If there is agreement on most points, then you've gone as far as you can. IT,, review bodv meeting. Prior to the meeting, prepare staff reports and r¢commondat ions of conditions to resolve points of disagreement. Dictributc the developer's proposal, staff report and proposals to the review body prior to the meeting. At the meeting, the staff should review the proposal, and focus on points of disagreement for resolution by the review body. The developer should be able to discuss the proposal and juvtifications. Based on the presentations, the review body should take appropriate action as provided in the enabling legislation. TL,, Follow thrnu ^,h. After the mceting anti decisions, the appropriate public ngencfes should be notified. All of the developer's working dr,r Ingo must comply with the approved design plan prior to issuance of any building permits. The design roview staff should have a final review prior to permit issurmcc. Also, after the permits are issued, the ,toff 0ould visit the site with the building official to insure compl i :un:c. Finally, in conjunction with normal code enforcement acti- Viti.•.,, Staff should insure conL inued compl lance with the community dnsi ;n pol icies,;;uidei inns or standards.` • / �r SURVEY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS A design review survey was taken by telephone to develop a case reference file on communities regarding design review. To provide a standardized survey format, a questionnaire was designed to determine: what cities had design review; who did the reviewing; the process involved; and the advantages and disadvantages of design review for the community. The Appendix contains a listing of survey communities. All incorporated cities within San Bernardino County were surveyed, plus selected cities from Orange and other Counties. Twenty -two, out of a total thirty -one communities, have some form of design review, Among [hose cities practicing design review, eleven have established a formal design review body specifically for that function. An orderly and aesthetically pleasing environment is the common goal of survey cities with a design review process. Yet the methods or means cmployed to achieve that goal or end varied from city to city. Although the intent and purpose is the same, differences exist in every other aspect of the design review process including the scope, the review body, and procedures Thousand Oaks, for example, amended their design • review ordinance in 1973 to include single family residences as a response to the construction of inappropriate or poor quality of design deemed unde- sirable by the rapidly developing community. Differences in the review body is really a question of semantics; their function and staffing is virtually Chu :mmc. The review bodies of the survev communities fell under the fol- lo•will, genaral labels: *Design Review *Architectural Review *Development Review The discretion permitted by the administrative procedures and adopted roviow v}uidelincs constitutes the real methodological difference between till vu n•cv An effective design review process depends on the review bndv which administers it. Design review is a qualitative annlynis process, and the range of interpretation of just what is good deni,;n and b,ld devi;;n can lead to different "ends" among communities. In tart, rin• City of Upland states in their Di -sign Critorta Cuideltnvs, u.lm.t h,,canse a plan wa:; accepted in another city, or at another time, dery not mw-lll it is appropriate for the proposed site in Upland, at is n ;,old design ". Cuidrl ;n.,.; are a community vt,irv,;ent of ovaludtion principles that pro-; 'n,t,;in for n community do:;i;;n pfncaws. Submittals for review are asmnln•d b; cu:c; idarm jnn of the follnaing aspec.t.c for conform;mcv with the pug po-,;c of the nrdinance and guideline criteria: Survey Analysis Page 2 • • *General Site Utilization Considerations *General Architectural Consideration *General Landscape Considerations *Graphics The purpose of administrative guidelines is to provide a legal, rational basis for decision- making by the design review body, and to contain adequate information "so as to provide to any applicant a guideline as to what matters the Design Review Board will consider in its review ".3 Some survey communities placed guideline criteria in their ordinance; while others such as the City of Orange left these out of the ordinance for future "specific standards to be adopted by resolution by the City Council." l Upland has adopted very lengthly guidelines that expand the ordinance's cri- teria. The next step up would be the publishing of illustrative guidelines snch as Santa Barbara has done for their historic downtown area. The ultimate guideline step would be a Community Design Element in the General Plan, like that of the City of Pomona. Unfortunately little action or real implementation has occurred in Pomona to make this element a part of a viable community design process. Precise design standards for architectural style, building materials, colors, and landscaping exist only in those survey communities, such as Claremont, Irvine and Santa Barbara, where the preservation of an historical area, or unique and distinctive architectural style was an important community • goal. CASE S71DIES Following are some case references of design review processes achieving notable success in survey communities. Upland, San Bernardino County. This community adjacent to Rancho Cucamonga has been involved in a design review process for over ten years. In Upland, the Architectural Commission review powers extend to commercial, industrial, and multiple residential zones, and to developments of two or more single family units. Plans are reviewed to insure: conformity with good taste, good design and; in general, contri- butes to the image of Upland as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas and high quality." review is .also admini:;tored as pail of their growth management system. Point: may he earned for landscaping, provision for upon space of bast t+.inty -five percent of total rite area, and design providing cohesiveness to :;urroundin; area. Points aro nwardod for design characteristics along with other rowtideration as a part of a point rating system for growth management. • S,irc cy Analysis Palo . Claremont. Los Angeles County. In Claremont, the Architectural Commis- sion reviews all new development, exterior remodeling, and building reloca- tions, excluding single family districts developed on four or less lots in the case of new development. The most interesting feature of Claremont's design review process is the composition of the Architectural Commission which consists of a majority of non - professionals, whereas the accepted standard is a majority of professionals in design fields. In Claremont, the Architectural Co;mni;sion is composed of seven members: One (1) shall be an architec:, licensed under the Business and Professions Code of the State if California, two (2) shall be members of the design professions; four (4) may be appointed from the community at large.5 Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara County. This is a seaside community with a population of 72,500, and it is known for its picturesque landscape and early California architecture. It is protected and enhanced through strict development plan review. Within an approximately five by twenty block area of the historic downtown area known as E1 Pueblo Viejo, all development proposals except single family residential development are subject to design review. Developers are guided to use red mission tiles for roofs, stucco and adobelike brick, earth tone colors and typical California plant material such as ecualyptus and palms. The • architectural review board reviews all development proposals within the area and throughout the city, except single family residential development. Lrrtuna Boach, Orange County_ The Design Review Board of this seaside ro::ort and artist's colony consists of five citizen appointees. flatters subject to design review include physical improvements and site develop- ments whether or not a building or type of permit is required. Only single - family residences are exempt from the review process which seeks to "encourage a distinct community identity in character with a village A[mo;phcrc" as stated in their ordinance.. San Cl�nent� Oranr, c_Count�_. All develo Amen[ proposals, excluding in- dividual single - family residences, go before an Architectural Review Beard. Dr•sirn matter, subject to reviow Include: sitfng, landscaping, exterior des ifn, P1 ans submitted for ,I pprovnl must al sn suhm it sompl es of ext er for matcria L, And colors. The five -mcmbm s Architectural Review Board is appointed on stnp,gcrud terms, by the Citv Council; two must be uilher builders, designers, or nrchftcr.,g, and throe .tee community rerrasentatives that do not have to di!;play A knowiedge of the visual arts or design. I:++rn n:vin Or ;u n ^e funnt �'. 7hc rev iuw prncesn in this COMM In it socks to .. ..e_ a ru im pl,am•nt a generAl plan goal in; • %n Survey Analysis Page 4 achieve a beautiful pleasant, principally residential community • by fostering and encouraging good design, harmonious colors and materials, good proportional relationships and generous land - scaping.6 Their ordinance created an Environmental Design Review Commission and estab- lished the clearest criteria of any survey community for: 1. Relationship of buildings to site. 2. Relationship of building and site to surrounding area. 3. Landscape and site treatment. 4. Building design. S. Signs. 6. Miscellaneous structures and street frrniture. 7. Maintenance - Planning and design factors. The community doesn't seek to be restrictive with regard to design, "but rather to assist in focusing on design principles which can result in creative solutions ".6 To further emphasize their desire to foster innova- tive design solutions of high quality a process was established whereby outstanding developments or projects could receive public recognition for exceptional design. San Mmas, Los Angeles Coun[v. This hillside community has adopted a "Western" cheme for their major downtown arterial. All development along • this street must incorporate this Western theme into their design concept, and the Development Plan Review Board assures conformance. The Review Board also reviews all projects within the city including alterations to casting structures if the proposed modification cost equals a certain percentage of the building value. On several occasions the Western design theme has been challenged through appeal to the City Council, which has been adamant in backing the conditions of the Development Plan Review Board, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County. Design review by the Planning Commission is geared toward assuring development that maintains the "natural setting of scenic and historic beauty "7 of the community. The community has been involved in a review process for ten years to promote an early California architecture style. As in Santa Barbara, developers are guided to use tile or shake roofs, stucco and adubelike brick, earth tone colors and m.tterinls, typical California plant material, and wrought iron detailing. All development WiLhin the city is subject to review including single- family residences. S:ut .Iran Cani_tr_nno, Or:m;ir Connt` This community is firtnus for the old iss ion tiara .loan C.tpistrann, which reminds tourists and residonts alike of the rich Sp.nii,h lu- riLar,v :md .vmi -rural character of the city. To pre - scr%c chair cultural heritar,e the community established an Architectural • Survoy Analysis Page 5 • Board Review to perpetuate the unity and theme of Spanish and early California architectural styles. Two special design districts were created; a Design Standards District and a Tourist Commercial Dis- trict, in which "earth tone colors, solid wood features, low profile roof lines, adobe block, and stucco walls, and iron ornamentation S are emphasized through design standards. The Tourist Commercial Dis- trict has even more stringent criteria because of its proximity to the Mission and its function as a tourist center. • Alternatives It is apparent from looking at the survey information that architectural review organizations come in all sizes; each having a different composi- tion of members. If one were to ask each city or jurisdiction about the effectiveness of their group compared with those of other jurisdictions each would probably reply that theirs would rate at the top of the scale, We see that each city must create a design review process to meet the needs of that particular community. Those cities that do not have a formal design review process usually have city staff perform the review. All other formal design review processes have as a primary difference the structure and its character. Virtually all architectural /design review boards or commissions have as a governing body the City Planning Commission or the City Council with the membership of such boards or commissions varying from city tc city. Because design review has in the past been a :unction of the Planning Com- mission, manv boa -ds or commissions have as appointees one or more members of a Planning Commission to help insure that the direction of the Board is not in conflict with the policies of the Planning Commission. The last decade has seen an emphasis on increasing the expertise of architec- turaljdosign review bodies to the extent that these boards now take on a professional make up. Most cities now require that appointees to architec- tural /design, review boards be from a design field and must have proven expertise in that field. Some cities even require that all appointees be licensod professionals with the expectation that raising the standards for selection of appointees would give the board a greater credibility and raise the standards of design review. In examining the various ways in which design review is implemented, it appears rh:u. th••ro are advantages and disadvantages to each process leading to the. conclu:ann that there is no perfect process. Since design review has worked well irrr:p ,ardloss of structure in other communities, one must concludo that rho kr•: rLr:,,nr in the secoorw of a review process lies in the appointment of it; n;em'..r rn. How wcil they cooprrate, how well thav carry out policy, how .oll OL"I p,•rform review and how fair thev are i^ 11i• process deters iues tho of fwtiv� nosy of architectural roviaw of a community. Pnnr Major altvrnativos for a for ^.al irchitectur.al raviow process may be idon- t if Ld lit o hould by notod tl,.tt thi r.• are au w v nmhcr of varlarion:i on "acb .tLt ern dt iv•). V Survey Analysis Page 6 ALTEPXATIVF 1'1: The Planning Commission performs all architectural review. • This alternative probably gives the Planning Commission the greatest design policv control since those making planning policy are those who review the design of projects. So long as the Planning Commission has a strong focus upon design, it can effectively implement design review. The negative aspects of this aspect would appear to be the possibility that architectural review could become too "loose" since a commission could be composed of members that may or nay not have expertise nor desire to emphasize design; however, it should be noted that this structure could work well if there is careful appoint- ment to the Planning Commission. Another negative aspect of this alternative would be the increased number of meetings which the full Planning Commission must attend to provide design review, thereby possibly draining its members of enthusiasm. ALTMATIVE, 12: A design review board. This board would be composed of two members from the Planning Commission and three lay persons, two of which must be design professionals. This alternative is more typical of architectural/ design review boards. With two members from the Planning Commission, there can be assurances that the direction of the board is not in conflict with the policies of the Planning Commission but yet allow the group to focus more critically upon the function of design critique. The requirement that at least two of the three lay persons on the board be from a design profession would give the board greater professional experience if the Flaming Commis- sion on the board are not design professionals themselves. The potential disadvantage of this alternative is if the Planning Commission members are • not design motivated, the direction of the board could become disjointed and architectural review could become less effective than it could be. It should be noted Chat under this alternative the Planning Commission still maiac .nins policv direction since it receives direction from the Planning Coen iss ion. _ic'n membership of persons trom the design profession. The advantage is having a group with greater credibility in regard to design critique since the group would be made up of design professionals. The more critical evaluations that would result from such a group would be either termed beneficial or detrimental depending upon the way in which decisions are made. A separate professional board or comission without any membership from the Planning Commission could result in competing Commissions if the two Commissions disagree on planning policies (it should be noted that design policies are so closely aligned to planning policies that it is very difficult to separate the two, thus con - M(:L in policies could result in "two planning commissions "). AI.'1!_P1: VI T C E h1,: Ce_tabl iah a design reviov committ,,o mado a of two Plnnniuz and ono staff mam_h-�r. A smaller group has possibilities for :onto ci. :octive is tcr;ns of quickly retching a coaconsus unlrss Chu :m •n bcr vii ip lncks ox)vrt iao. Thr negative aspect of this smaller .structure i:: thr ditfivulty a in nhtainin:; a quorum nd the potontfnl restrictiveness of crr.aiv,� design cursed by a rostriccod number of virwpoiuts and opinions, Ind t'm• coir;n iLLee Could be acru.eud of dictating design in the city. A Iargcr • 7•J Survey Analysis Page 7 • board would give a greater diversity of views and opinions which might result in a greater variety of styles and designs for the city. However, a negative aspect of a larger board would be increased disagreements with more difficulties in obtaining a concensus of opinion in a short period of time. Review Bodv No matter what structure for design review a community selects, that body charged with the execution of the design review is the jcj to the entire process once the enabling legislation and administrative procedures are adopted by a community. The selection of review body members is critical. Therefore, careful consideration of qualifications even among Planning Com- mission membe -s must be undertaken to select a body capable of effectively implementing community design policy. Members of a Design Review Board should be persons who by experience, training, education or occupation have demonstrated talent and interest in developing the aesthetics of environmental design within the frame- work of practical considerations. The capability of each proposed member should be analyzed as to his or her: 1. An appreciation for and support of or the aesthetics of environmental design • 2. Civic responsibility. I 3. Ability to give objective, effective and constructive, and unprejudiced criticism. 4. Ability to give direction and suggestion to his criticism. 5. Diplomacy in exercising judgment. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Guidelines for Design Review, California Council, the American Institute of Architects, 1969. 2. Mylroie, Gerald. "Community Design Review Procedures," American Institute of Planners, Practicing Planner, April, 1976. 3. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9400.11, of the City of Orange. A. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9103.080, of the City of Upland. 5. Zoning Ordinance, Section 611, of the City of Claremont. 6. Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.04.010, of the City of Coronado. 7. Zoning Ordinance, Section 9- 4.1701, of the City of Thousand Oaks. S. Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.5.6, of the City of San Juan Capistrano. � �i 0 • • Li 0 0 ARCIITTEC'MRAI. REVIEW SURVEY MATRIX ItiADY DEVELOP:11:;;T _. —_.___ SCOPE SCOPE RUM! CUIDE -1-MES - o � C G O fL. U r1 N 9 N N a N G W a '4 K fG > � n E ] „ u ^ C V L W 1 L fE� G L a IE N a oD 7 V U t V L m a > y a s E O G G M rl 6 :_AN' RER_ARDCa1 Citl' ::TY WoLanco �i 4mAa rs c uu ® O O O O ino T Col con C O O O O 0 Foacana { Long Linda I Morc c I it .dla Oncario 1 Pocwna ® O O O O O Redlands Rialco� O O O O O O O O O San Bernardino Upland O O 0 O O • O O O yIccorvi_lla _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIE4 SURVEY MATRIX REVLC[: 1'.01 Y ➢EV1..l.0PNEST SCOPE. GROCR.%PI1rC SCOPF. EUVIEU fli IDF..I.T_:I:S m G u C U y C a G N E _� N C Y u u i Y •'l u '.1 f� )RANGE COUNTY :.n all, im .: nL•u (:rove 'i.int to lon [ica-h :rvirn �0 m • O O • 0 0 O :acuua R_acl� • 0 ® G 0 IY 0 _8 :rvao rt I": cl, III— 6 0 O m -ranee - -- I CI O o • G 0 • _ San Clemente G O • O O • 0 Sunruan Cal istrnnn G 0 O O • 0 0 G :OS ANGELES COUNTY .". Laremoor • O • • • • O • .anclo Palos VcrAes O O o 0 • 0 • • • an Dimas 8 0 O • 0 O • • PXNTA BARPoIRA COUNT Santa Barbar O • • O O O • O O FINIM., ARCIIITECTURAT. REVTEW SURVEY MATRIX PLVELOMICKT FINIM., BODY _I( PLVELOMICKT SCOPE_ _ GEOCRAPIISC SCOPE RINM., GUIDEI.I:;FS_- 9 ti 9 r ti U C S O Y O 0 G O u EE q N w < ❑ O G a a n m L W „ E COti:.TY 'I I _\TURA O ® O O O O O O !_u sand Oaks O O O p O O O O atura ': NECO COU:TY 1 O O O O O O rnnado r' SURVEY CONNUNITIES SAN BEa:;ARDIN0 COUNTY 1. P.delanto - Jim Tinard 2. Barstow - Clay Dillman 3. Chino - Gary Collins 4. Colton - Richard Pulley 5. Fontana - Steve Bealer 6. Loma Linda - Linda Lindverg 7. Montclair - Rosalie Staudaneyr S. Needles 9. Ontario - Otto Kroutil 10. Pomona - Ron Smothers 11. Redlands - Wilmar Schindler 12. Rialto - Don Montag 13. San Bernardino - Doug Cole 14. Upland - Pat Potts 15. Victorville - John Maddock ORA::GE CO,:iTY 16. Anaheim - Mike Thompson 17. Coronado - Laurie Moore 18. Carton Grove - Joe ;loon 19. Huntington Boach - Charles Clark 20. Irvine - Kathy Shimahar.a 2L. Iaguna 8rnch - Ntchnel RLckrr 22. Newport Beach - Kathy Crls. 21. Oran, ;, - J.Ick :IcGcc 24. San Clemente - Jean Schultzer i 1 /l. 0 • • Survey Communities (Page 2) 25. San Juan Capistrano - Tom Poulinson LOS ANGELES COUNTY 26. Clam at - Sill Wojtkowski 27. Ranchc Palos Verdes - Gary Weber 23. San Dimas - Heinz Lumpp SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 29. Santa Barbara - Mike Montoya VENTURA COUNTY 30. Thousand Oaks - Paul Metrovitsch 31. Ventura - Carol Aalbers lJ l J RESOLUTION NO. 79 -61 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING • COMMISSION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA Wfi EREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the establishment of a Design Review Ccmnittee; and wHEREAs, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted an Interim General Plan which stresses quality urban design standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission find the creation of a Design Review Committee to be a logical implementation and support of the General Plan. SECTION 1: PURPOSES A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that a design review process will support the implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, as it stresses quality urban design : standards. The City further finds that the quality of certain residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial uses has a substantial impact upon the visual appeal, environmental soundness, economic stability, and • property values of the City. This Resolution is not intended to restrict imagination, innovation or variety, but rather to focus on design principles which can result in creative and imaginative solutions for the project and a quality design for the City. It is, therefore, the purpose of this Resolution to: 1. Recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and provide a method by which the City _ may implement this interdependence to its benefit. 2. Encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City along with associated facilities, such as signs, landscaping, parking areas, and guests. ' 7. Naintoin the public health, safety and general welfare, and property throughout the City. 4. Ansist private, and public developments to be more cognizant Of public concerns for the aesthetics ' of drvrslonmenes. S. Reasonably unsure that new developments, including residential, institutional, commercial and industrial • develo::ment:;, do not have an advert' aesthetic, health, sofa; or architecturally- related impact upon existing adjoining properties, or the City in general, r< • ` 6. Implement those sections of the City's General Plan which specifically refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique . assets of this City and its harmonious development. SEC -1371 2: CREATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COA.MITTEE A. A Design Review Committee (DRC) is hereby created and and shall be responsible for the implementation and administration of this Resolution. 1. Composition The Design Review Committee shall consist of three (3) members. One shall be the Director of Community Development or his designee and two shall be members of the Planning Commission. 2. Appointment and Term of Office The Planning Commission shall elect two of its members to the DRC. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall be the Secretary of the DRC. Of the first two Commission members appointed, one shall have a term of six (6) months and the other shall have a term of twelve (12) months. Thereafter, all terms shall be twelve (12) months. 3. Removal from Office • Rev member of the Committee may be removed at any time by the Planning Commission. 4. Meetings The Design Review Comnit':ee shall meeu at least twice monthly, if needed. The time and place of such meeting shall be set by Resolution of the Planning Commission. The Design Review Committee may arrange additional meetings at any time in order to precess applications within required time periods. S. Rules A simple majority of members shall constitute a gaorum. The Committee shall review a project in accordance with the Resolution and file recommendations with the approving authority. Such recommendations shall be consolidated by the Planning Division of the Community Developmont Cr_nartmont as conditions for final approval. The DRC shall have the right to develop its own rules and l requlations for conducting its meetings in addition to dovelopinq and adopting design criteria and .tandards. • SECTION 3: JURISDICTION OF REVIEW A. The Design Review Committee shall have the authority to • review the architecture and site plan elements of all residential (resulting in 4 or more units and house relocations), commercial and industrial developments, additions, remodelings, relocations, issuance of a building Permit or which require a Conditional Use permit, Site ADDroval or Director Review. The review can consider the use of design elements such as, but not limited to, exterior design and materials, land- scaping, arch!= ecture, site plan relationships, grading, signs, wall or buffering techniques. SECTION 4: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. The DRC shall, in reviewing projects covered by this Resolution, consider such design aspects as the relation- ship of building to site; the relationship of building and site to surrounding area; landscape and site treat- ment; building design and materials; signs; and miscellaneous structures and street furniture. The recommendations of the DRC will be based upon the project conforming to the following criteria: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's • General Plan and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community Plan, boulevards, or planned developments. 2. 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. 3. 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 contemplateu by this Resolution and the General Plan of the City. 4. The design of the proposed development would provide a dusirablo environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain acsrhatically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. An applicant shall submit the appropriate anplication, ae • reyuir "d by the Zoning Ordinance, an application fee as set by the City Council, and required materials as Specified in the filing requirements set forth by the . -. ( Director of Community Development, to the Planning Division on or before the filing deadline. Once an application has been accepted, it will be scheduled • for the first available Design Review Committee meeting and the applicant will be notified of the time and place of such meeting. All plans and applicable materials will be distributed to all members and support staff of the DRC a week prior to the scheduled meeting. The Design Review Committee shall meet with the appli- cant to review and discuss the proposed project and its conformity with this Resolution. The DRC may formulate recommendations on the design of the project relative to the criteria listed in this Resolution or other design criteria or development standards as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such recommendations shall be filed in the project file to become final conditions of approval. In addition, the applicant shall receive written notice of such recommendations. C. If, after review by the DRC, the Committee feels that the project needs substantial revision, the project review may be continued by the DRC to enable the applicant to make appropriate changes and alterations. The applicant shall receive written notification of such decision and the date when the DRC will meet again to review the project. • SECTI N 6: APPEAL A. Where a project application has been acted upon by the DRC, the applicant or any interested persoc who is aggrieved by the action, may file an appeal to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall state wherein the actions of the DRC are not consistent or in conformance with the provisions of this Resolution. At a regularly scheduled meeting, the Planning Commission may affirm, modify or reverse the recommendations of the DRC. Decisions by the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council using the same procedures. is ENFORCEMENT A. No building permit, for the construction of any building or project described in this ordinance, may be issued until the Design Review Committee has revicwrd the project foz co:: fa riance with this Resolution, design oriteria, and development standards as adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. D. Further, Prior to final inanectwn or occupancy, the comnlf;tod pro7,,ct must be inspected by the planning Division for rompllance with the conditions of approval. :;o oecu :u•.r; pnrmit ::hall be issued unless all elements • are cera ;rlatad according to the approved Plans. If for any reason this; caDnot be acco ;lpli.;hod, a ea::h doposit shall be suit- ,fitted by the devolox,or to ensure compliance. C ( S`CT!C:I 8: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found, based on review of • the Initial Study, that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends the issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council. SECTION 9: OTHER LAWS, ORDERS AND ORDINANCES , t -in in this Resolution shall be deemed to affect, annul or abrogate any other laws or ordinances pertaining or applicable to the properties and areas affected by this Resolution, nor shall it be deemed to conflict with any State laws, orders or requirements affecting such properties or areas. In the event that a conflict does arise, the more restrictive ordinance shall apply. SECTION 10: SEVERABILITY The !oval idity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sentence, part or provisions of this Resolution shall not affect the validity of any other part of this Resolution which can be given affect without such invalid part or parts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby adopts Resolution No. 79 -61 recommending that the City Council approve • and adopt the Design Review Ordinance on the 26th day of September, 1979. 2. That a Certified copy of the Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. AP?R07E0 AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1979. PL:,1:JI ;;G CC ?CIISSIOH OF THE CITY 7 /OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I 'Herm.Sn Rcm�611 Chytrman� I cretary of the Plann lr�q—Commios ion I, L;01, 5.,r.retary of the ul.mninry Commis:; ion of the City of Rancho Cucamom7a, do h, rr_b7 curtify that the forog0ing Re <olution was duly and regularly introduced, pa::r:e•I, nr'.d adopted by the Planuiug Commissinn of tiro City of Rancho Cucamonga at i n r0n.11ar mu, tur,7 of the Plannin7 Commission hell on the 26th day of September, 1;79 uy the following vote to-,it: • AYCS: C0'!ATI 7T7!JEP.S: GARCIA, DAE, , JOTS, TOLSTOl•, R^1PEL NOES: CO';:I :SS L.;;i0:5; NOik ADS::N:: COSLIISSIONER.S: NOSE n 40 luj J j t"'- ' 5A. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CI�CAM( STAFF REPORT DATE: June 16, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Attached for Council review and discussion is the proposed ballot language for the County Benefit Assessment Program. The Zone 1 Advisory Committee is meeting the day following the Council meeting to seek comments on the proposal. No technical meetings have been scheduled to date to review the proposal and none of the concerns previously expressed by the Council are addressed with this document, except all regional funds have _b�a- -dear" &tea --tv -'t Cucamonga Channel —T 9:�iid question this distribution and suggest that a portion, - o�fFe 13 percent be assigned to the Day - Etiwanda -San Sevaine problems. Other issues not addre�,�l are: - The role of Cit ?s in administration. - Fee and Assessment District Credits. - Administration of funds. Guidance to Staff and Zone 1 Committee members would be appreciated. Respectfully sub tted, Attachements 7 �3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _ COUNT. or SAN lERNARaNO AND FLOOD CONTROL ",=~ ,? w ENVIRONMENTAL 825 Eat Third Street •San Bernardino, CA 92416 • 17141393• JOHN A. SHONE, oin June 3, 1982 „UN 0r =a.: File: 9(ADV) -1 1(FC) -49.05 C17; CF SALChO COCAt1.041-A Re: Zone 1 Advisory Committee Meeting on Ei19d1E5R!NG D ^fsvl Special Zone "W" Benefit Assessment Dear Zone Advisory Committee Member: As noted in our March 17, 1982 correspondence to the Zone 1 Advisory Committee Members, including the Mayors of the West End Cities, the respective City Councils were to meet and act upon or resolve the following issues: 1. That the Benefit Assessment Program be placed on the November 1982 ballot. 2. That the Cities adopt the Assessment Rates Schedule based upon $39.00 per dwelling unit. 3. That the program be adopted for ten (10) years. • 4. That the Cities agree to contribute a minimum of 13% towards the Backbone System. The Ciq; Councils have met and concurred that the above issues should be placed on the ::ovember 1982 ballot. We have prepared and are enclosing a draft ballot issue and computation of Benefit Assessment Units for your review prior to the next Zone 1 Advisory Committee meeting, The draft ballot issue and computation of Benefit Assessment units will be the main item of discussion at the next Zone 1 Advisory Committee meeting, which will be held at 9:00 a.m. Thursday, June 17, 1982 at the Chino City Mall Council Chambers, at 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, California. Please accept this letter as a formal request for your attendanca at the June 17, 1982 Zone 1 Advisory Committee meeting, and to discuss the enclosed informs cion. If you i,ave any questions on these matters, or cannot attend the June 17, i982 meeting, please contact Mr. Michael G. Walker, Assistant Director, Administration, Department of Tran,gpurtatia, lFlood Control, at (Area Code 714) 383 -1202. Very truly yours, Al-C, dORN R. SHON Deputy Administrator for Public Works • JRS:LS`::gbs Enclosures • BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL Pursuant to Chapter 10, Division 2, Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, shall the San Bernardino County Flood Control District be authorized to levy benefit assessments on real property in Special Zone "W" for a period of ten (10) years commencing in 1983 for the purpose of constructing and maintaining flood control and storm drain facilities based on the following annual rates: (1) $39.00 per unit for single or multiple family dwelling unit(s) plus $2.00 per acre in excess of one (1) acre per dwelling unit. (2) $312.00 per acre on land used for industrial or commercial purposes. (3) $2.00 per acre on vacant or agricultural land with a $10.00 • minimum per parcel up to five (5) acres. (4) $78,00 per dairy, church, school, library, or other similar use plus $2.00 per acre in excess of two (2) acres. (5) No charge on land used to control drainage. The funds collected are to be expended by the Flood Control District on Flood Control District facilities in each of the citie of Zone "W' and in [he un- incorporated area of Zone "W" in proportion to th funds raised by these assessments in each such city and area after 13$ of he fund are allocated to the construction and maintenance of West Cucamonga Channel. 5/19/82 Rev. 6/1/82 k"'^c u� tL-^if W' • lJ • 5/82 COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UNITS A Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) is defined as the proportionate runoff from a single family residential parcel with an area of 1/4 (0.25) acre. Other single residential pa re!5 and other land use categories will have multiples of the basic unit. Benefit Assessment Unit Area (acres) x Runoff Factor (single) One (1) Unit (0.25 acres) x 0.40 The number of assessment units for all parcels (except es noted) is determined by the following equation: Number of BAU's = (Area of Parcel in Acres) x Runoff Factor One Benefit Assessment Unit GROUP I Single and Multi - Family Residential, Condos, Apartments, and Mobile Home Parks A single family residence generally occupies 1/4 acre in the west valley. The runoff factor for this type of facility is RF = o.40. This means 40% of the rainfall will run off the property. Individual units of mul t i - fami ly res ldenti al, condos, apartments and mobile home parks will generally have similar runoff situation to that of a single family residence. The BAU's for multi - family residences can be found by multiplying the number of living units times one BAU (single family). Group I BAU's = (Number of living units) x (I BAU) NOTE: Uhen the land area on which single or multi - family livi ^.g unit exceeds one living unit per acre, additional BAU's will be added due to the excess vacant land, Page I of 3 c; „ Ir COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UNITS May, 1982 GROUP 2 Conurercial, Industrial The runoff factor for commercial and industrial development is 0.8 This means 80% of the rainfall will run off the property. Group 2 BAU's - Area of Parcel in Acres x Runoff Factor One Benefit Assessment Unit BAU's - I Acre x 0.8 g gAU /Acre 0.25 Acre x 0.4 NOTE: When vacant land which is not developed or partially developed, but zoned Commercial or Industrial, additional BAU's will be added due to the excess vacant land. GROUP J Dairies, Churches, Schools, Libraries E Special Cases 40 The structures associated with a dairy, church, school or library are • generally similar in size. These facilities will contribute runoff in amounts as two single family living units. Group 3 BAU's = 2 BAU NOTE: When the land area for these facilities exceeds two acres, additional BAU's will be added due to the excess vacant land. "Controlled Drainage Areas'' as de- fined by the State Water Quality Control Board and other areas primarily utilized to store runoff will not be counted. GROUP 4 Undeveloped (Vacant) Land The runoff factor for vacant land is 0.005, or 1/2% of the rainfall will run off the property. Group 4 BAU's = I acre x 0.005 ® 0.05 BAU /Acre 0.25 acre x 0,4 • Page 2 of 3 . COMPUTATION OF BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UNITS May, 1982 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT UNITS Runoff Group Land Use Factor BAU'S Single, Multiple Family $39 x [NO. living units x I BAD + (A)] 2 I Single, Multiple Family 0.4 No. living units x 1 BAU + (A) T Commercial, Industrial 0.8 8 BAU /Acre + (A) 3 Dairies, Churches, etc. 0.4 2 BAD + (A) 4 Undeveloped (Vacant) 0.005 0.05 BAU /Acre - (A) NOTE: When the total vacant land area exceeds the amount noted with each land use group, additional BAU's will be added utilizing the formula for Group 4, . Undeveloped (Vacant) Land. • BENEFIT ASSESSMENT RATES I Single, Multiple Family $39 x [NO. living units x I BAD + (A)] 2 Commercial, Industrial $39 x [8 BAU /Acre +(A)] 3 Dairies, Churches, etc. $39 x [2 BAU + (A)] 4 Undeveloped (Vacant) $39 x [0.05 BAU /Acre] _ (A) a. Minimum Assessment for Groups I and 2 shall be $39.00 per parcel. b. Minimum Assessment for Group 3 shall be $78.00 per parcel. C. Minimum Assessment for Group 4 shall be $10.00 per parcel, Page 3 of 3 ` Rev 6/1/82 �— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 17, 1982 TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program On Thursday, March 11, the Zone 1 Advisory Board met to review the latest BAP proposal developed by the Mayors and City Engineers. Attendance at the meeting was primarily the mayors with only three lay members of the board present. Those in attendance voted to return to each City Council the following elements of a proposed ballot issue: 1. The issue should appear on the November ballot. 2. The attached formula of assessment should be utilized. 3. The program should run for 10 years. 4. A minimum of 13% of the funds collected in each jurisdiction should go the regional facilities. It is recognized that this proposal is not detailed sufficiently to answer all questions on the program. It is, however, the fundamental elements of the program and it is appropriate to obtain a reaction to the proposal before we proceed to solve the more detailed questions. Also attached is an estimate of the funds generated by the formula for each agency for the 5,7,10 and 15 year periods. The 10 year program will generate $8,431,770 in Rancho Cucamonga and $50,077,570 zone wide. This is only a small fraction of the total needs but many times the money available now. The funds will allow us to deal with Hermosa Avenue problems and assist Hellman Avenue work. In addition, I would expect a portion of the funds would go to the Day- Etiwanda -San Sevaine problem. Questions still to be worked on are: • Credits for fees and assessments • Appeals process for special problem properties • Mechanism and timing of funds transfer L I `J City Council Sta%'leport Flood Control Bend .t Assessment Program March 17, 1982 Page 2 Specific ballot language Amount and prioritization of regional fund share. On the issue of regional projects, it has been recognized that backbone systems must precede the storm drain facilities and that the entire zone should share in those facilities. Montclair and Chino are the only cities in the zone with no regional facilites within their boundaries and therefore benefit little from the regional projects. In order to demonstrate con- cern for the regional program, Montclair proposed the 138 minimum contribution. It was implied that this would be the extent of these two cities contribution but that the cities more directly benefited should get together and agree on some higher level of participation and the priority of drain construction. This process would begin when the project fundamentals have been completed. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends that the Council approve the four fundamental elements of the Benefit Assessment Program as proposed and direct Staff to continue the process of developing the details of the full ballot issue. Respectfully subm'tted, LDH Attachments n is CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 1977 June 11, 1982 TO: City Manager Members of the City Council FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager RE: Omnitrans Request for Weekend Service Reductions for Fixed Route Service on Route 60/63 As most of the Council is already aware, the Omnitrans System is required to meet a 200 fare box ratio. In other words, fixed routes must .sustain 20a of the operation costs through fares collected from passengers. Routes within cities that fall below the 20d require- ment will be required to make up the difference through General Fund monies which in most cities is not an alternative because of obvious budget constraints. To improve the fare box return, fixed routes have been revised or eliminated and fares have been increased. Throughout most of the West Valley Cities, including Rancho Cucamonga, Saturday and Sunday service has provided very limited ridership. Based on current ridership, it has been proposed by Omnitrans that Saturday service be reduced from forty minute service to sixty minute service and that the early morning and late evening hours be reduced where ridership is almost non - existent. The current hours of operation for Route 60/63 is from 5:30 a.m. to 8:25 p.m. If the proposed re- duction is implemented, service would run on Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The mileage savings as proposed would be 16,676 miles per year at a total cost savings of $29,517. per year. The annual cost savings to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for reduction of the hours of operation on Saturday would be $12,398. The projected pas- senger displacement for the entire route 60/63 that runs from Montclair Plaza to Chaffey College is projected to be 0 -5 per day in the a.m. hours and 25 -30 per day in the p.m. hours that are projected to be reduced, 5� / Continued...... Omnitrans - Request for Weekend Reduction in Service June 11, 1982 Page Two . Based�o��n iimiC�e Sundav ridership _thr9ughaut the West Valley, including kiute._Gl( 34tr-mcho Cucamonga, it has been recommended by Ornnitrans- that service be- discontinued entirely: Most of the cities in the West End have expressed a desire to reduce the hours of operation on Saturday service but have not yet determined whether or not they will accept Omnitrans'recommendation to eliminate Sunday service entirely. Apparently there is some concern about those individuals who would utilize Sunday buses for church meetings and it has been suggested that possibly the Sunday service would operate on a limited use basis. How- ever running buses a half day does not correspondingly reduce cost by 50 because of the total cost of drivers' fringe benefits, etc. and the necessity of having dispatchers and other operation costs. A public hearing will be held July 7, 1982 at the next Omnitrans Board meeting in San Bernardino to discuss Saturday and Sunday fixed route service reductions in Rancho Cucamonga as well as the rest of the County. Staff will report back to the City Council if any objectionsare voiced by residents of Rancho Cucamonga regarding the proposed reductions in Saturday and Sunday service. However, because of the extremely limited ridership, staff does not anticipate that these reductions in service will provide a significant displacement of passengers and would recommend that Saturday hours of service be • reduced as recommended and that staff work with adjoining cities to determine the feasibility and impact of eliminating Sunday service entirely on Route 60/63. JHR /vz c' 1, SATURDAY SERVICE 0 ROUTE 60/63 FREOUENCY: PRESENT: 40 Minutes PROPOSED: 60 SERVICE HOURS PRESENT: 5:30 a.m. - 8:25 p.m. PROPOSED: 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. MILEAGE SAVINGS (AS PROPOSED) 16,676 MILES /YEAR COST SAVINGS (MARGINAL COST /MILE = $1.77) $29,517 /YEAR COST SAVINGS BY JURISDICTION: • MORTCLAIR: $9,445 UPLAND: 7,674 RANCHO CUCAMONGA: 12,398 • PASSENGER DISPLACEMENT*: A.M. 0 - 5 /OAY P.M. 25 - 30 'Estimate of net impact on passenger boardings due to reduction in service based upon October 1981 Service Review v WEST VALLEY SAVINGS SATURDAY SERVICE PROPOSAL COUNTY - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTE 64/65 $5,739 RANCHO CUCAMONGA - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTE 60/63 $12,398 UPLAND - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTES 60/63, 66, 67 $12,319 ONTARIO - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTES 66/67, 68/69 $37,424 • CHINO - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTES 64,65, 68/69 $15,329 • MONTCLAIR - REVISED SERVICE ON ROUTES 60/63, 64/65, 66/67, 68/69 $24,559 TOTAL SAVINGS WEST VALLEY $107,768 G'•.' I. SUNDAY SERVICE ROUTE 60/63 FREQUENCY: 60 MINUTE SERVICE HOURS: 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m, PROPOSAL: Discontinue Service MILEAGE SAVINGS: 12,355 /YEAR COST SAVINGS: 521,868 /YEAR COST SAVINGS BY JURISDICTION MONTCLAIR $6,998 UPLAND 5,686 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9,184 PASSENGER DISPLACEMENT *: . 135- 14511DAY *Estimate of Sunday ridership based on October 1981 Service Review • WEST VALLEY SAVINGS: PROPOSAL TO DISCONTINUE SUNDAY SERVICE COUNTY - ROUTE 64/65 $11,723 J RANCHO CUCAMONGA - ROUTE 60/63 9,184 UPLAND - ROUTES 60/63, 66/67 10,313 ONTARIO - ROUTES 66/67, 68/69 34,496 CHINO - ROUTES 61, 68/69 19,633 • MONTCLAIR - ROUTES 60/63, 64/65 66/57, 68/69 24,510 TOTAL SAVINGS, WEST VALLEY 5109,859 • A meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road on Wednesday, June 16, 1982. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels. Present were: City Council Members Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and hayor Jon D. Mikels. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Assistant City Manager, Jim Robinson; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Lloyd Hobbs; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; and Finance Director, Harry Empey. Approval of Minutes; Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Schlosser to approve the minutes of May 5, 1982 and June 2, 1982 as amended; and the minutes of May 10, 1982 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS. a. Sandy Oerly, Regional Commissioner of American Youth Soccer Organization, Region 65 A *C *E, presented the city with two goal posts for the Beryl Park. She also commented that they were requesting improvements to the Park; especially some lighted fields. b. Reques, by the Citrus Little League Board of Directors had been withdrawn. c. Representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, John Mannerino, presented former mayor, Phillip D. Schlosser, and former planning commissioner, Richard Dahl, proclamations for their service to the community. d. Councilman Frost presented a very bleak financial report from a League meeting which he had attended last week. C. Mayor Mikels stated that last Saturday 150 trees had been planted in North Town. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR. a. Approval of Warrants, Register No. 82 -6 -16, in the amount of $281,387.16. b. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Safeway Stores, Inc., Liquor Barn No. 2065, 6787 Carnelian Street for off -sale general. C. Forward Claim against the city by Eveleen Jones to the city attorney for handling. d. Authorization to Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, financial consultant, to seek proposals for the sale of bonds for Assessment District 82 -1. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND TO FINANCE IMPROVE- MENTS IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. te RESOLUTION NO. 82 -109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCFMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 7494 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 7494). g. Extension of subdivision improvement agreements for tracts 9435 and 9638 - Crismar Development Corp. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TN'i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT .,GREE- MENT FOR TRACT 9435 AND TRACT 9638. h. Acceptance of road improvements for Parcel Map 6125, southeast corner of Lemon and Archibald - R. Young. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 6125, AUTHORI- ZING THE FILTNr. OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO RELEASE LETTER OF CREDIT THIRTY -FIVE DAYS AFTER FILING OF SAID NOTICE. i. Release of existing performance bond and acceptance of reduced performance bond and agreement for Parcel Map 6544 - located at the northeast corner of Haven and 6th Street. Release Performance Bond $255,000 Accept Performance Bond 30,000 J. Set public hearing date of July 7, 1982 for Planned Development 82 -03 (TT 10826) - Lesney. k. Request city council authorization to transfer funds from the General Fund Active Account to the General Fund Reserve Account. 1. Request authorization to renew annual contracts for: Citywide Landscape and Irrigation Contract with SCLM Co., Inc. La Verne, California, with a 2 percent increase. Citywide Street Tree Service Contract with Homer's Tree Surgery, Upland, California, with a 10 percent increase. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 19 ing. _ - i _ be _ .. to July 21st meeting. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to continue item to July 21. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 4B. CONTINUATION OF THE VACTION OF UNNECESSARY STREETS WITHIN THE VICTORIA PROJECT. It was requested that the item be continued to July 7, 1982 when the tract maps will be submitted for final approval. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to continue item to July 7, 1982. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being none, the public hearing was closed, Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4C. REVENUE SHARING. This being the second public hearing, Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Frost to designate the $453,150 in revenue sharing toward the sheriff's contract. Mr. Buquet expressed that we should find other ways to finance the sheriff's contract since revenue sharing funds could not be could not be counted on in the future. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dahl, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels. NOES: Buquet. ABSENT: None. 5. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS. 5A. A RESOLUTION REGARDING RATES FOR STREET LIGHTING. Item had been continued from the June 2nd meeting in order to give the Edison Company time to review the resolution. Mr. Bond, general manager of Edison, would not be present. Council had received a "White Paper" statement from Edison. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. City Clerk t- 1— serman read the title of Resolution No. 82 -106. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE CALI- FORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, AMEND, AND ADOPT REGULATIONS GOVERNING AND RE- GULATING STREET LIGHTING. Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Buquet to waive further reading of the Resolution. Motion :a:ried unanimously 5 -0. 5B. ABLL u A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Staff report by Jack Lam Mr. Dahl commented that the Architectural Design Review Committee should be com- prised of professional people. He felt that some very important decisions had been made in the past by only two individuals. He also expressed t.h, the committee should be held in a public forum in order to avoid misquotes and to allow for more public input. Mr. Frost stated that the changes suggested were not minor, but were major policy decisions. Mayor Mikels suggested that a subcommittee be appointed to investigate this thoroughly and to report back to council rather than try to take a vote now. Mr. Frost stated that we were in a hiring freeze at the time. Perhaps this may be a good time to look at the entire system before making any changes. Mr. Wasserman stated that the staff was looking at the entire planning process to see how to streamline it. Perhaps this could be tied in with staff's study. Mayor Mikels recommended that Councilman Dahl and Councilman Frost work together as a subcommittee to investigate and do an analysis and report back to council. Council concurred with this recommendation. 5C. COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. Staff report by Lloyd Hubbs. After some discussion, Councilman Schlosser suggested the following language be added to the ballot language: "The funds collected are to be expended by the Flood Control District on Flood Control District facilities in each of the cities as prioritized by each city council of Zone "W" and in the unincorporated area of Zone "W" in proportion to the funds raised by these assessments in each such city and area after 13% of the funds are allocated to the construction and maintenance of West Cucamonga Channel." Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to take the language change to the Zone I Benefit Assessment meeting for consideration. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Mayor Mikels called a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. with all members of Council and staff present. 5D, OMNI'IkANS REQUEST FOR WEEKEND SERVICE REDUCTIONS FOR FIXED ROUTE SERVICE Staff report by Jim Robinson. Mr. Robinson pointed out that the recommendation before council would not affect the Monday through Friday service; only the Saturday and Sunday service. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public input. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to approve the staff's recommendation to eliminate the Sunday service and to reduce the Saturday service to start at 7:30 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 'Sharon Romero, 8242 Rosebud Court. Mr. Dougherty stated that the issue regardi a park within the proposed development was the Planning Commission. Therefore, if cot possibility, then the issue must return to tion. There being no further public: inpat, the M[ Mr. Holley presented a summary of the histc and Hermosa Park, and why these twi locatic purchase at the time. Councilman Dahl expressed that this would r park, but there was a possibility as a "pa,, what was a passive park to one, would not t like to see this referred back to the Park Committee to see what type of use this si_e Mr. Dougherty pointed out that the develop, any extension of time. Mr. Nastase stated that if it was the inter. the purpose as a park site, then he would cot Mr. Dougherty pointed out that the matter of not commit the council in advance to what the Motion: Moved by Dahl to continue to June Parks Acquisition Committee for a report ba lack of a second. Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Buquet by the following vote: AYES: Buquet, Schlo ABSENT: None. 4D. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESE LEDIG HOME AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK. City Clerk Wasserman read the title of Ordi ORDINANCE NO. 176 (sec AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COC RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA LEDIG HOME AS A SIGNIFICANT THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA NATTNG IT AS A CITY HISTORIC Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Frost t No. 176. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0, Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public public hearing was closed. `!oticn: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet carried by the following vote.: AYES: Dahl, NOES: None. ABSENT: `:one. Commission (a four year term). 4. Consideration of Peter Tolstoy's position. Mr. Dahl nominated David Barker. Mr. Frost nominated the following: Pitassi Trout Prasser Turner Prisco Tucciarons Moody Vallance Hill Chitiea Dixon Watkins Drachand Westlotorn Dunlap Scails Dutton Soper Stark Steuhrmacn Kerdikes Carrol Williams Dyan Flocker Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Schlosser to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. After taking a ballot, Mayor Mikels announced that David Barker was the new Planning Commissioner (four year term). Mayor Mikels directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions and plaques for those who served on the Planning Commission. 8. ADJOURNMENT. Motion: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Dahl to adjourn, to reconvene on June 28 for a budget meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the Lion's Park Community Center. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. RReespect/full submitted, Al[.tue l., �.,C4��.c� Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk -7 .. April 22, 1982 WHITE PAPER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S POSITION RELATIVE TO CAL -SLA'S UTILITY RESOLUTION The following information will be of use in replying to the six points contained in the resolution. Edison's rates must recover the costs of generation, the costs associated with the facilities required to deliver the energy to the customer, and other customer related operating expenses such as meter reading and billing, as well es a return on both borrowed and invested capital. At the present time, Edison's rates applicable to street lights do not recover all the Company's costs. In Decision No. 92549 which authorized the Company's present rates, the Public Utilities Commission authorized levels of rates that would yield an overall rate of return of 11.23% on rate base (capital inves-ment less depre- ciation). For the street light customer group, the rates authorized by the Commission would yield a rate of return of only 6.79% on rate base. This difference in rate of return is absorbed by other customer groups whose rates must reflect a higher rate of return if Edison is to realize the authorized 11.23% overall rate of return. All Edison street light rates, whether metered or unmetered, include energy usage in the rate design. Metered service obviously records the energy used by the service. For unmetered service, the kWh usage for each lamp size is estimated using astronomical data to determine the hours of service and lamp loads following specifications authorized by the Commission and indicated on the tariffs. For Edison -owned street light systems, the rates authorized recognize that Edison owns and maintains the individual street light installations. The authorized rates for Edison -owned street light systems were designed to include an energy charge and operating and maintenance costs, as well as the ongoing costs of owning the street light facilities. (Ownership costs include taxes, Insurance, depreciation and return.) The rates are based on the concept of a standard Installation where the Company provides bracket or mast arm construction attached to wood poles with service supplied from overhead Imes. Other types of Company -owned installations, including underground, may be Installed if the customer first pays a differential charge which Is the difference between the Installed L r Revision 9127/82 Page 2 cost of the Company's standard installation and the cost of the customer's selected (non - standard) Installation. The purpose of the differential charge is to eliminate the necessity for a separate higher rate for non - standard Installations that would vary with each type of non - standard installation. Thus, even though all non - standard facilities installed become and remain the property of the Company, the differential charges do not become a part of rate base, and therefore, are not included in the street light rates for Company -owned installations. However, the increased property taxes, insurance and other operating and maintenance costs associated with the ownership of such non - standard installations are included in the rates. In light of the above, it should be apparent that street light rates need to reflect more than just the charges for energy used. 2. Paragraph 2 of the proposed Resolution Is calling for pro- cedures to be set by the C.P.U.C. for acquiring street lighting systems. Such systems are properties that can be taken by procedures either under eminent domain proceedings or through procedures before the C.P.U.C. Such procedures are established by the legislature and both call for payment of just compensation for the systems to be acquired. To ask the C.P.U.C. to state in a clear and precise manner such procedures is requesting that the C.P.U.C. either establish a new procedure or restate the law as it now exists. 3. Current Edison practice allows leasing of pole space on wood poles, if available, to nonmembers of the Joint Pole Committee. There are about 150 lease agreements covering various approved attachments (power, communication, control circuits, obstruction lighting) to Edison poles by school districts, oil companies, counties, cities and individuals. All of the above adhere to the conditions listed below: a. Perform their own maintenance with qualified personnel except for obstruction lighting which is maintained by Edison at the customer's cost. b. Pay an annual license fee. C. Indemnify and save Edison harmless. d. Execute a contact rental agreement. e. Conform to state law construction standards, GO 95. I. Submit construction plans to Edison for approval. In addition, each entity would be affected by OSHA requirements as it applies to Its contractors. Reasons for establishing the above conditions: a. Edison personnel should not be burdened by maintaining others' facilities as cost of "extra" personnel and labor will ultimately be borne by the rate payers. L r Revision 4/27/82 Page 3 b. An annual fee is charged as a standard practice. If no fee was charged, the rate payer would again be subsidizing the licensee. C, Edison's interest must be protected from legal claims arising from the licensee's attachments. d. An agreement is executed to establish terms and conditions covering Edison's Interests. e. Most licensees are not subject to CPUC and therefore not bound by GO 95. It is imperative that GO 95 standards be met to It the safety of the workers. f. Edison must be ,aware of the circuits placed upon its poles so that: (1) All safety standards are met. (2) Space is not used which will prohibit Edison's use of that space for future facilities. 4. In determining the fair market value of property, such as street lighting systems, historical cost method (or actual costs as this method is referred to in the proposed Resolution), does not provide full just compensation to the Seller. The California Evidence Code specifically approves of the method- ology that Edison uses and which has been historically and informally accepted by cities and counties. This method is the cost of replacing or reproducing the existing improvements less depreciation or obsolescence. Since the language of the proposed Resolution is requesting the Commission to totally disregard this methodology and accept in its stead the historical or actual cost as a single basis for determining just compensation, we believe that it is inappropriate. 5. This paragraph In the proposed Resolution is based upon the erroneous assumption that street lighting systems are built entirely at the expense of developers or property owners and then turned over to the utilities. The aforementioned concept of the utilities' entitlement to just compensation applies also to the proposed objective stated in this paragraph. It would permit a public entity to acquire facilities at less than fair market value and is, therefore, inappropriate and objectionable. 2 6. In the Resolution proposed by the California City- County Street Light Association, Item Number 6 proposes the utilities be directed to utilize any and all forms of, energy - efficient street lighting including both low pressure and high pressure sodium vapor. In reviewing both sodium sources the Company chose the high pressure sodium (HPSV) for a number of reasons. Although the manufacturers data indicated the low pressure sodium (LPSV) was more efficient in lamp lumen er watt efficiency, we found that because of the low coefficient of 25ection 620 See Paragraph 1, Page 1, for explanation of differential cost, ownership and standard installations. Page 4 utilization (low efficiency) of the luminaires, the lights had to be spaced closer together, thus eliminating or reducing possible energy savings ove; other comparable sources. We found that by using the LPSV lamps and luminaires, the upward stray light would increase and that nearly 45% of the usable (downward) light fell outside of the curbs bounding the roadway. This would create additional light trespass problems which is a current concern of many of our cities. It was also found the LPSV would be more costly to install and maintain than other comparable systems for the same amount of illumination on the roadway surface. Other potential problems that surfaced were lamp disposal due to the metalic sodium, the wattage increase of the lamps throughout life affecting the overall efficiency and that when the general public was given a choice between the sodium sources based on color rendition, the high pressure was more acceptable. If the low pressure sodium, which in its original form and color in the 1930s had been the complete answer to outdoor lighting problems, there would have been no need to develop lamps such as the color corrected mercury vapor, metal halide or high pressure sodium vapor. The reasoning behind these developments was a desire for more efficiency with a more pleasant and natural color demanded by the public. Edison's present policy is directed to providing quality lighting which is the most efficient, acceptable and economical for our rate payers. With that primary consideration, Edison has determined that a utility - owned, installed and maintained LPSV system is not as economical or efficient for street lighting purposes as the high pressure system and, therefore, will not be provided under the Company -owned Schedule No. LS -1. Edison will continue to aid our governmental customers who wish to Install this source on their own lighting system by providing information on sources of the low pressure lamps and luminaires In order that bidding is competitive. We wish to emphasize that low pressure sodium vapor has always been available to the customer under provisions of Schedule No. LS -2. GWW Also attached is a copy of the Resolution for your Information. � I�Pw77J10_ —J`J� Office of City Manager P 1p neid aao 0 Bc, 391 IOA I^�' Sea::coc C-v Ca kmia 94064 811010ilft Te!ec ro ^e _ 309.6251 """/ 111111111111 � .; 4. June 10, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADMINISTRATION City Manager jUN 141982 City of Rancho Cucamonga AN -------- Fill City Hall 718191p1ll112111213 9161 Baseline Road 1518 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA CITY - COUNTY STREET LIGHT ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION REQUESTING RELIEF FROM UTILITY COMPANIES' ENERGY POLICIES P. W. File k 2355 Dear City /County Manager: During the latter part of March, the California City- County Street Light Association (CAL -SLA) began a statewide "Solicitation Of Relief From Pacific Gas S Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas S Electric, And Et Al Companies' Energy Policies" (Attachment M 1) outreach program, requesting local government support for the six primary concerns identified in the sample re- solution. Since that initial request, the CAL -SLA resolution has caused con- siderable consternation statewide among the major utility companies. In fact, Pa 'fi_!`y �_(z'as _&nd Electric (P. G. b E.1 has nntifioa itv may have be un same anreso lution efforts within its s v cev area Furthermore, the City o Long eac was approac e by a representative of S. C. E. Company who expressed rather verbally his :ompany's "dismay" over the Association's resolution campaign. This Edison representative, Mr. Robert Heck, was invited to lunch with the Executive Committee during Energy Workshop N 5 held last May 24 in San Diego, providing hie company the opportunity to express their concerns. During the luncheon it was agreed, that if at all possible, the CAL -SLA Executive Committee and representatives from the four major utility companies in the state should have an day negotiation session to discuss, and possibly resolve, some of the major issues that have been identified by local agencies who attended the past five workshops held statewide this past year. City / Ccunty Manager -2- June 10, 1982 The Executive Committee is encouraged by the current state of events. Of course, such preliminary events would not have been possible without the participation of the approximately 80 local governmental entities who have already adopted the CAL -SLA resolution and made the requested distribution. The Association is gratified and appreciative of the "swelling of local government support statewide" that is developing for this endeavor that affects us all. However, in order to prepare for the possible negotiation session with the four major utility companies in the state, our local base of support must continue to increase statewide for maximum effect. Our records indicate that your jurisdiction was mailed the "Solici- tation Of Relief" communication with attached CAL -SLA sample re- solution the latter part of March, but your acencv has yet to indicate its concern on the statewide issues before us. On behalf of the California City- County Street Light Association, I request that your agency reconsider its position, and support clari- fication and resolvement of the six major issues identified in the sample resolution. Your agency's reconsideration and adnn+:— aF To assist you in your re- evaluation, I am including with this com- munication the CAL -SLA resource documents entitled: "Row Much Is Too Much ", "Comments On P. G. S E. Response To The Draft Resolution On . Street Lighting ", and "P. G. 6 E.'s Response To California City - County Street Light Association Resolution" submitted to the cities of Capitola and Belmont (Attachments 2, 3 and 4 respectively). This follow -up resolution effort will continue through the months of June, July and August. Energy Workshop 8 6 has been tentatively scheduled for late August, with the possible "negotiation session" to be held the day before the Workshop both to be held in Santa Barbara. Exact dates have yet to be determined. Should you have any questions concerning the CAL -SLA request for your local support, call anyone of the members listed in the original "Solicitation Of Relief" communication (Attachment N 1, Page 3). As a united interest, the potential savings to our local taxpayers is in the thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars. But as individual entities, that potential savings in tax dollars can only be a distant objective primarily dependent on the benevolence of the public utility companies. :AP City /County Manager -3- June 10, 1962 Your agency's positive response to the Association's request for passage of the CAL -SLA resolution, with noted distributicn, will contin a local governments' disengagement from participating in and a anc ing ublic utility interests over our own. Sin rely„ I S M SMITH ity Manager Attachments cc: CAL -SLA Executive Committee CALIFORNIA CITY- COUNTY STREET LIGHT ASSUCTATtON Nay, 1982 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON P. G. A E. RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON STREET LIGHTING P. W. File a 2355 This is in regards to P. G. A E.'s letter of May 14, 1982, which responded to the draft resolution on street lighting, which is presently being circulated statewide. It should be noted that review of this letter indicated that it is an exact duplicate, except for the titles, of one which was sent to the City of Belmont. This draft resolution was prepared after meetings of the California Street Lighting Association were held statewide and attended by nearly 100 city and county agencies. The seven concerns identified in the resolution summarized the concerns of these agencies' representatives. These concerns are issues of statewide significance and does not deal solely with P. G. 6 E. but rather with all electric utilities. These issues have been discussed with the California Public Utilities Commission staff and it was found that no guidelines, as such, have been established. In short, the alternative remaining was to develop a resolution for presentation to the CPUC and Legislature to obtain relief. It is felt that the solution to many of the issues will probably lie with the the Legislature, as the CPUC is reluctant to ant without any mandate. This leaves the various utility companies statewide to est,')lish often conflicting statements, advice and procedures. This often discourages and confuses the governmental agencies as to which course to pursue to reduce energy costs, which have increased since 1978 43% to 119% on the LS -2 rate, and 24% to 75% on the LS -1. Within the past year alone, energy rates have increased 58% for street lights in the P. G. 6 E. service area. Following is a capsulated review of the comments made in rebuttal to P. G. 8 E.'s comments on the draft resolution: Statement 1 - Rates For Street Lighting Do Not Reflect The Actual Energy Used. P. G. 6 E. agrees that the street lighting rates are based on estimates of energy usage. However, this estimate is based primarily on an 11 1/2 hour day throughout the year, and does not take into consideration whether or not individual photocells are installed atop the luminaires. > ?ge ? May, 1982 _.a_ement 1 ?Continued) a has been observed in the City of Redwood City where individual photocells are mounted on each luminaire that the street lights energizing can vary between fixtures from one to two hours. In addition, the lump sum rates do not include periods when the fixture bulb is broken and no energy is being used. This outage normally occurs on one to two percent of the City's street light system at any given time. The rates also do not reflect non -peak hour usage. These hours are identified un�er the A21 to A23 metered rates established for these users. These hours are 10:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Monday to Saturday, and all day on Sundays and holidays. if, as the utility states, energy usage for street lights can be determined with a high degree of accuracy, and if the city or 'coal agency is, in essence, an industry, metering of the individual streets lights is not necessary and the non -peak hour rates should apply. The flat rate tariffs (LS -1 and LS -2) are established by tests done by the utility company and supposedly reviewed by the CPUC for reasonableness. The City of San Diego recently submitted data showing that the low pressure street light system used three to four kilowatt hours less per month then those published by the utility. This was substantiated with further tests by the manufacturer, using an independent outside consulting firm. This entire matter was brought before the CPUC, but because of its complexity, the CPUC did not make any decision on the matter. The CPUC does not have sufficient staff to adequately review whether or not the rates are reasonable and reflective of the energy used by the fixture. In summary, it is felt that Statement Number One is correct w it stands, and it is true that we cannot install meters at each light due to the cost of each installation. This is why we ask that the rates be more reflective of the actual energy wed and if there is a difference in specifications by the manufacturer and the utility company on the energy used by fixtures, and unless the utility company is willing to challenge the manufacturer's data, then the lower rate of energy used should be used in the calculation of flat rates. Statement 2 - Procedures For Acquisition Of Lighting Systems Are Vague And Cumbersome Acquisition of street light systems currently require two to three years of actual negotiations with the utility company. No guidelines are set forth as to the actual procedures on how this acquisition can be made. True, a physical inventory of the facilities is required, however, this inventory system should be up to date, otherwise the billings the cities are receiving are incorrect. If th13,i3 true, this does not speak well for the system of identification that the utility companies currently are using. Redwood City's inventory showed that over 150 lights are being billed incorrectly. Seventy of these lights are still subject to question. 'age : Nay, 1982 Statement 2 - (Continued) No written procedures are currently set up to advise agencies that acquisition is possible and what steps must be followed. The recommendation is that these procedures be identified and the steps placed in writing and adopted by the CPUC to allow any agency wanting to acquire the utility street light system to be aware of the procedures. In addition, other alternatives to the acquisition open to the agencies should also be sent so that the individual agencies can determine what options they have. In summary, the California Public Utilities Commission should set the acquisition procedures in writing and adopt the procedures so that all agencies will ;snow their rights and what to expect. This will result in less confusion and some cities being discouraged from acquisition by area managers of the utility companies making statements discouraging the local agencies from acquiring their system. Statement 3 - Joint Tenancy of Utility Poles Has Been Discouraged Or Conditioned In Such A Manner As to Be Unfeasible. The fact is that the City of Norwalk has tried to place LPS lighting on their joint utility pole system and a letter was received by the City of Norwalk discouraging the use of these fixtures on their poles. It is true that pole contract agreements are currently existing with cable TV and various local agencies as wall as the telephone company in the State. In fact, the City of Redwood City currently has a contract agreement for a fire alarm system, which the City is proposing to abandon on the utility pole system. Although Pacific Gas A Electric Company has agreed to allow LPS lighting on utility poles on a joint tenancy agreement, other utility companies in the State have not. In addition, the question comes to mind as to who will stipulate that the person in qualified to meet the State's safety requirements and costs, if any, a -e to be shared. The City of Redwood City currently has a fire alarm system, as noted earlier, on the utility poles. Currently no coat is incurred by the City of Redwood City for this alarm system, as the City of Redwood City installed its own masts and wires. we feel the City should receive tie same treatment which is no coat for joint tenancy of the utility system for street lights, which is just as important for the health, welfare and safety of the public as the fire alarm systems now allowed. Precedent has also been established in the City of Berkeley where the City has installed street lights on utilty -owned poles at no coat by agreement with P.C. A E. However, again, this is not a statewide policy among Utility companies. 'age - May, 1982 Statement No. 0 - Rates Are Set By The CPUC P. G. 8 E. has indicated that this is true; however, the rates are set utilizing primarily data supplied by the utility company. Again, reference is made to Statement Number One, in which it is felt that the rates are not reflective of the actual energy used. This is based on the shortage of staff with the CPUC and the tremendous undertaking in manpower required to review utility rate increases. Normally the street light rate increases are distributed throughout the whole submittal, and it is very difficult to determine exactly what the proposed rate increases are for street lighting. It should be remembered that street lighting energy usage constitutes only one percent of the total energy used throughout the State of California. However, the utility companies earn over 2.7 percent profit from this form of energy usage. The time spent by the CPUC in reviewing the street light energy coats is minimal compared to other rates proposed for increases at the sae time. In addition, lobbyists for the consumers and industrial users are watch dogs over rates which affect their usages. The local agencies do not have the support, and as such, are at the mercy of the utility companies increasing the rates at greater levels than the industrial and commercial as well as the residential users. Statement No. 5 - Utilities Method cf Evaluating Facilities Does Not Reflect The Saleable North of These Facilities. The utility companies currently use a method called "Reproduction New, Less Depreciation." This means that a pole that was installed 25 to 30 years ago at a coat of $700 or less is valued at today's prices of installing a new pole and fixture. This d ^es not reflect the actual worth of the pole, which is 25 years old and was placed at a minimal cost. It is felt that the actual cost of the installation of the pole should be used and depreciated from that point. The utility company also requires that we buy out their old street light fixtures, which we worthless as they cannot be used elsewhere. These fixtures have been amortized over their life and should not be a factor in the evaluation of acquisition. ?age 5 may, 1382 '::is _s in regards to Street sighting facil. ties and /or underground ocrui s whi were installed as a condition of the development. The ievelopers in such cases installed the street light poles, underground conduits, wires and pull boxes, the cost of which was added onto the house or the :and which was sold. This facility was then dedicated by the developer to the utility company at no cost for maintenance. The utility company is now stating that the local agency should again pay for the system by requiring the property owners to pay for the street light system again. It is felt that this is wrong and it is a form of double taxation and since no cost was incurred by the utility eompary in acquiring the system, the utility company should return these systems back to the local agencies upon request. This would result in a change over from the LS -1 rate to the LS -2 rate for this system, resulting in a reduction of approximately $10 ir. costs per pole per month that we now have to pay to the utility companies. Contact with the CPUC on this matter indicates that the only alternative we have is new legislation to resolve this issue. Statement No. 7 - Utility Companies Do Not Allow Energy Conserving Means Of Efficient Illumination Except For High Pressure Sodium. The utility response to this statement is that low pressure sodium is not widely accepted in the United States because of its poor color rendition and light control characteristime. It should be noted that the reason for the poor acceptance is because of the utility companies' nationwide discouraging the use of this fixture. If this ware not allowed to happen, it is felt that the use of LPS 113nting throughout the country would increase. Energy efficiency and coats per Loan in this day of funding problems are paramount to the proeieme of LPSY lighting. The choice in that if costs continue to escalate ar in the past, the only options we will have in the future will be the removal of street lights. Color rendition when no street lights are existing will be nill to non - existent. As for traffic contro4 devices, those that are enforced at night are usually reflectorized and iolor rendition returns when the incandescent source of lighting frog 'i2adllght3 reflect off these devices. The City of Redwood City has not had any problems with these traffic control devices at night, and in fact, in the case of E1 Camino Real, night time accidents along this major arterial have been reduced approximately 30 percent. P. G. A E. also stated that cities interested in low pressure system can install Such system on a metered basis or on a flat rate basis under Schedule LS-2. P. G. A E. has also indicated to the County of Son Mateo that LPS lighting can be installed under the LS -2 rate on their utility poles. 'age 5 May, 1982 However ;.his is not true for other utility companies throughout the State. .Again, this is a contention, that although one utility company toes allow installation of LPS lighting on P. G. 6 E. poles, others do not. Again, this concern is a matter for the CPUC, but a mandate is required for a written and adopted Statewide policy. I£ not, Legislative action will be required. Cities and counties should be able to reserve the right to self- deter- mination. Manufacturers of lighting fixtures and utility companies should not be mandating the type of fixtures that agencies must use; the interests of the manufacturers and utility companies are subject to question, and as such, should not be involved in decisions which affect the financial stability of the agency. The seven issues noted above are issues developed after nine months of study and meetings with cities and counties throughout the State. The City of Redwood City did not develop this issue solely on its own, but rather on the basis of input from these other agencies. These other agencies have felt that the seven issues are valid most and should be spoken to, either by the CPUC or the State Legislature, in setting forth guidelines and rules and regulations which will govern the issues noted above. Although some agencies are parochial in the aspect that many issues do not concern them from the agency's standpoint, it is felt that in order to obtain my substantial changes in the future, all issues must be spoken to in order to solve a significant problem atatewide. It must be remembered that utility companies are monopolies in their areas of service. There are no competitors which will allow consumers a choice. As a result, the CPUC was established to control these utilities to assure reasonable but not excessive profits, to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public and to maws that these vital services are maintained. The above seven statements are made in this regard. The last question to the utility companies is that if the utility companies say they are responsive to the local agencies' concerns, then the passage of this resolution would not hurt them. However, the opposite is the case since they are opposing these issues. Currently the utility companies have no guidelines to fall back upon, and as such, they tend to change from day to day, and with whom they speak to. It is recommended that the resolution, from the standpoint of significant statewide _i_nt�eresstttss, be approved. V "0'�a• ADAM P. GEE Lighting Standards Subcommittee City of Redwood City APG /rk /wp cc: CAL -SLA Executive Committee PACK:C CA8 AND ELECTrZiC COMPANY `n1 u1 9a 002 :<: S, 592.9200 "ay 14, 1982 . ;. .:are: '!. Smith Xanazer ice of . ed;:aod City 101_7 yidaletield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Dear Mr, Smith: O V This letter is in response to the draft resolution on street lighting which the Council plans to consider on Monday, May, 17, 1982. I appreciate the opportunity to review it and provide comments in advance of that meeting. it is my understanding that this resolution had its genesis in .Redwood City and that it is being circulated throughout California. apparently — stems from the perception of some that there are inequities in our current street lighting rates and policies. Frankly, I believe they are mistaken. The proposed resolution begins with a set of statements, moat of which are not factual. Let me first address those: STATEMENT - Bates for street lighting do not reflect the actual energy used. Comment: It is true that street lighting rates are based on estimates of energy uses. This is because it is not practical or economical to install metering at each light. The usage can be estimated with a very high degree of accuracy. Flat race tariffs (Schedules LS-1 and LS -2) do reflect energy usage. In addition, depending on the degree of ownership and maintenance requested, the tariffs include other costs not related to energy use such as maintenance and recovery of capital. The energy portion is based on test dhca, characteristics of lamp energy usage over raced life and an annual burning scf.edule of 4100 hours. This dcta has been reviewed by the CPUC for reasonableness and at its request is now listed on the tariffs. attached are copies of the applicable tariffs. ay '4, :932 -- t' n of lighting sys tems are vague and cumbersome. Comment : When someone wishes to purchase our street lighting each --es (or other facilities for that matter) a complete inventory of the facilities is required. If he system co be accuired is large this does :ake considerable time to prepare. A physical count is required. a addition, the age of the system (which usually varies From light to lig`it) just be considered to properly establish a fair value. Subsequent to this, an agreement of sale most be negotiated by the parties. ST:�: EiIE:;T 3 - 'nt t a y f till[ 02l e5, has been discouraged or conditioned in such a manner as to be unfeasible. Comment: This doesn't square with the facts. We have joint- occupancy agreements with telephone companies, cable TV companies, and various cities. In addition, we have numerous pole contact agreements with all sorts of companies, individuals, and government agencies. We commonly work out joint - trench arrangements every day which is another form of joint-tenancy. Our primary concern is that State safety requirements are met and that costs are equitably shared so that all parties benefit. STAT:ItcaT d - Races are sec by :he C°UC. Comment: True. SIA:E::E'.;T "[''ties' me clod of valuing facilities does not reflect the sa ieable worth of these facilities. Utilities require to al nublic agencies to purchase street a'na ng facilities wh'c' r previously installed by develoners and then dedicated ac no cost to tie utilities. Comment: Depending on the tariff selected for use by a local agency, some of the facility costs are contributed. These concri- bucions are considered in establishing the monthly Fate under that particular tariff. Under consideration here is the purchase of company -owned facilities to qualify (the customer) for a different tariff. We believe that we are entitled to fair market value for facilities we own and consider for sale. .Ample precedent exists co support this in the courts; and as you know, that is where this sort of an issue would be resolved - -nor the CPUC. r. _aces i.. S. :.t ti: -3- !:ay , 1992 SIA= .=:f? i - Utilities do not allow enerzv- consercine means of efficient Lamination extent for high pressure sodium. ...,rracnn ',,hat apparently is being espoused is low- pressure sodium systems. Low- pressure sodium has not been widely accepted in the J.S. because of its poor color rendition and light control characteristics. As a result, we have not opted to rake this available for PGand---owned systems because it _3 not practical to stock equipment which would only be used in a few instances. Cities interested in low- pressure systems can install such systems on a metered baais or on a f.at -rate basis under Schedule LS -2. Xv „arer.ts are lengthy, but I hope they are responsive to your concerns and those of the City. In my view the resolution which is being proposed is nor sound and I urge that is not be acted on. Sincerely, l ' U <I f ' T David Aicschez cc: :It. crank Addiego Director of Public Works City Council Members P- SaC2F2C GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Ga, a.. -....... April 23, L982 a - .v„ .i CAL F R :.,... ,s: 5) 59 T92a0 II E1NiiINEER APR 231982 Janes P. De Chaine City Manager City of Belmont] 1365 - 5th Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Dear Mr. De Chaine: Thank you for allowing my staff to meet and discuss with you th draft resolution on street lighting prepared by the California City-County Street Light Association, which the Council plans to consider in the near future. It is my understanding that this resolution had its genesis in Redwood City and that it is being circulated throughout California Apparently it stems from the perception of some that there are in- equities in our current street lighting rates and policies. Frankly, I believe they are mistaken. The proposed resolution begins with a set of statements, most of which are not factual. Let me first address those: STATEMENT 1 - Rates for street lighting do not reflect the actual energy used. Comment: It is true that street lighting rates are'based on estimates of energy used. This is because it is not practical or economical to install metering at each light. The usage can be estimated with a very high degree of accuracy. Flat rate tariffs (Schedules LS -1 and -LS -2) do reflect energy usage. In addition, depending on the degree of ownership and maintenance requested, the tariffs include other costs not related to energy use such as maintenance end recovery of capital. The energy portion is based on test data, characteristics of lamp energy usage over rated life and an annual burning schedule of 4100 hours. v� RECEIVED [JAY 51982 DEPT. P.W. Dec". aine ?.p ri1 J, 1982 This data has been reviewed by the CPUC for reason- ableness and at its request is now listed on the tariffs. Attached are copies of the applicable tariffs. STATEMENT 2 - Procedures for acquisition of lighting systems are • vague and cumbersome. Comment: When someone wishes to purchase our street lighting facilities (or other facilities for that matter) a complete inventory of the facilities is required. If the system to be acquired is large this does take considerable time to prepare. A physical count is required. In addition, the age of the system (which usually varies from light to light) must be considered to properly establish a fair value. Subsequent to this, an agreement of sale must be negotiated by the parties. STATEMENT 1 - joint- tenancy of utility poles has been discouraged or conditioned in such a manner as to be unfeasible. Comment: This doesn't square with the facts. We have joint - occupancy agreements with telephone companies, cable TV companies, and various cities. In addition, we have numerous pole contact agreements with all sorts of companies, individuals and government agencies. We commonly work out joint trench arrangements every day which is another form of joint - tenancy. Our primary concern is that State safety requirements are met and that costs are equitable shared so that all parties benefit. STATEMENT 4 - Rates are set by the CPUC. Comments: True ' STATEMENTS 5 S 6 - Utilities' method of valuing facilities does not reflect 'the saleable worth of tliese facilities. Utilities re �uire local publ4c agencies to purchase street li gh tong foci litics which were previously installed by developers and then dedicated at no cost to the utilities. ..toes P. De Cho ine April 23, '982 Pace 1 Comment: Depending on the tariff selected for use by a local agency, some of the facility casts are contributed. These contributions are considered in establishing the monthly rate under that particular tariff. Under consideration here is the purchase of company owned facilities to qualify (the customer) for a different tariff. We believe that we are entitled to fair market value for facilities we own and con- sider for sale. Ample precedent exists to support this in the courts and as you know that is where this sort of an issue would be resolved -- not the CPUC. STATEMENT 7 - Utilities do not allow energy - conserving means of ' efficient lumination except for high pressure sodium. Comment: What apparently is being espoused is low pressure sodium systems. Low pressure sodium has not been widely accepted in the U.S. because of its poor color rendition and light control characteristics. As a result we have not opted to make this avail- able for PCandE owned systems because it is not practical to stock equipment which would only be used in a few instances. Cities interested in law pressure systems can install such systems on a metered basis or on a flat rate basis under Schedule LS -2. My comments are lengthy, but I hope they are responsible to your concerns and those of the City. In my view, the resolution which is being proposed is not sound and I urge that it not be acted on. If you have further questions or concerns, please call me. Sincerely, i i u TRIP Tc- a . GF ';, P:-JLA :.o rk5 yj 7 _ ?zdwcoa City, CA 94064 i SUBJECT 1 RE: STREET LiGHT REGULATIONS DATE 4/29/82 MESSAGE "ear Mr. 4gcilar: :n rqs Posse to jour telephone request, 1 an herewith nclosina a copy of -no - o r and bac'R -.,p 'nfor�mati on subni tted to the �i ty Council of Capito'a frp ?sci`i- -as & Electric Company. i an also enclosing a copy of the reso L a'cn adopted by the Council regarding this :natter. f4ayor Graves apstainec is :Tatter as he is an employee of PG &E. if you have any questions regarding this natter, please feel free to call me. f SIGNED pam�e�ta eenr, nger, Deputy City Clerks, REPLY SIGNED SRND PARTS I AND S WIT" CARRON INTACT - REOiFOPM i 4S471 TART S WILL RE RETURNED WITN IMPLY. - 1RE7gP RECEIVEC MAY 5 1982 DEPT. P.W. DATE / / POLY PAK (SO SETS) 4P 471 � 'Rri`K 3i+1 9 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY April 15, 1982 Capitola City Council 420 Capitols Avenue i Capitola, CA 95010 Subject: Response to California City - County Street Light Association Resolution Bear City Council Members: Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to respond to this resolution that was before you for action on April 8. We offer the following comments for your use and consideration. 1. Street Light Energy Usage The flat rate tariffs (Schedule No. LS -1 and 2) do reflect energy usage and (depending on the degree of ownership and maintenance by -he company) other fixed costs not related to energy use. The energy portion is based on test data, characteristics of letup energy usage over rated life and an annual burning schedule of 4100 hours. These average values have been reviewed by the CPUC for reasonableness and at its request are now listed on the tariffs. To our knowledge, this subject is basically an opinion of others that out established tariff for low pressure sodium lamps utilizes too high a kwh value. if subsequent data should justify increasing or decreasing these values, it would only be done with CBUC approval. Other agencies may perceive this section to mean that tariffs do not correlate between various types of lamps and the energy consumed by each. An example: LS -1A 2 -18 -82 Kwh L00 watt, NPS $11.861 41 100 watt, MV 9.514 42 Difference $ 2.347 Capitoia CLty Council 5, 1962 Page 2 1. Street Light Energy Usage Cont. The difference is composed of these items: A. Investment - most of the MV fixtures were purchased in the :aid -to -late 60's and the embedded costs in the rates relect that period. The HPS, of course, are being in- stalled now at today's cost. 3. The HPS conversion program considered the early retire- ment of the MV fixture. To compensate for this, a 750 monthly charge was added to the HPS tariff for Schedules No. LS -lA, LS -1C and OL -1. This charge should be deleted in 1985. 2. Sale of Facilities The company, in the past, has not been interested in selling its street light facilities. However, the impact of Prop. No. 13 on local governments and the inflationary and energy cost pressure on tariffs has caused increased interest. Sale of facilities is not a utility service for which company has obligated itself. Therefore, we believe it would not be proper for the CFUC to interject itself between a buyer and a seller. .. Joint Use Joint use is not a particular problem as long as we are assured the joint user is competent (uses qualified people trained to perform work in proximity to energized lines). Limiting of the company's liability because of the joint use is required. It is proposed that a contact fee would be charged for this use, similar to that charged to cable TV. 4. Depreciation and Contributed Facilities The company, when selling facilities which are still to be used (in place), believes it should receive fair market value. This value has historically been determined by present day replacement cost less depreciation based on the age of the equipment. coi to la Council April 15, y1982 Pa ;e 3 4. Depreciation and Contributed Facilities_ Cont. The street light tariffs have in the past and still require contributions (i.e. cost of other than wood pole) and some believe this portion should transfer to them at no cost. The company's position is, regardless of how acquired, that it owns the facility and believes it has a fair market value. Again, the sale of facilities and the value are not "utility service" subject to the CPUC. 5. Lamp Type This portion of the resolution is of interest to a few customers and is supported by the low pressure sodium advocates. In offering a street light source on Schedule No. LS -1 the company is indicating: A. It is a source the company believes will do the lighting task. S. It is a source the company is willing to own and maintain and obligates 1!gelf to do so in accordance with the tariff conditions. The company does not believe low pressure sodium meets the above criteria, so it is not included on the LS -1 tariff. The resolution proposes the company own, maintain and stock parts for a variety of energy efficient lamps which may be requested by a public agency. The company, of course, would prefer to limit the number offered to simplify ordering, stocking and etc. To require the company to stand ready to provide any type of light requested by an agency is not practical. Actually, this section has little bearing on the rest of the res- olution. Company owned lighting is served under Schedule No. LS -1. The majority of the resolution is aimed at customer ownership (Schedule No. LS -2) and most agencies interested want to do the maintenance work. Thid would place tbam on Schedule No. LS -21 which offers a wider variety of lamps, since the company has no maintenance obligation. If a customer wished service under Schedule No. LS -2B or 2C for a lamp not normally maintained by the company, we could do so under Special Condition 7.c. Caoitola Citv Council April 15, 1582 Page Again, thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond. inceteLy, District Marketing Supervisor cc: Steve Burrell City Manager City of Capitols, 420 Capitols Ave. Capitols, CA 95010 f _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: June 14. 1982 To: City Council and City Manager From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Sery ces Subject: Agenda Item "2a" re: A.Y.S.O. I was somewhat perplexed, as I'm sure you were, as to what A.Y.S.O. was looking for in the above referenced letter to the City. It "appears" to be nothing more than a housekeeping function on the part of A.Y.S.O. The group donated the labor and material several years ago to install two sets of permanent goal posts at Alta Loma Park. At the time, it was the group's intention to go before the Council and "formally" donate the improvements to the City. They never got to it. Anyway, several A.Y.S.O. administrzt.ions have transpired since the donation, and in going over their records they found the formal presentation had not been pursued. (The motivation behind their going over the records, incidentally, was that A.Y.S.O., in another area, is being sued by the parents of a child who was looking left and running right and met an immovable A.Y.S.O. goal post. Donation to the City of the improvements would remove that potential liability exposure from our local group. This is correct and exposes the City to no additional risk beyond what currently exists). The second item in the letter, the "Council . . . formulated . . resolution" on field priority, was an item that was created over the years and in the tellings from an outgoing A.Y.S.O. administration to an incoming A.Y.S.O. administration of what was to take place. That practice has not existed in the past and is not recommended at this time. continued... I discussed with Sandie oerly, originator of the letter in your agenda packet, that "perhaps something had been lost in the several transitions." She understood that routine field scheduling should be handled at the staff level and no longer needs a Council resolution in that matter. She further indicates that A.Y.S.o. has no problem with the present field allocation system employed by Community Services in association with the Youth Sports Council. So, back to business as usual. Hope this clears up any questions you may have. , MEMORA 4DUM V June 11, 1982 TO: City Council, City Manager FROM: Finance Director SUBJECT: May Financial Report o i U!` J 1917 Revenues in the General Fund hay.: finally grown larger than expenditures and encumbrances. ($29,809), small amount yes, but at least the trend is in the right direction. Overall though revenues are lagging behind expenditures and encumbrances, by $519,192, and by effectively using reserves for timely Park site purchases, the effects of the excessive expenditures have been somewhat mitigated. A lot of speculation about the economy and what it will or won't do has subsided and has been replaced by resolve to the situation and finally facing the fact that yes we are in deed in a very deep recession. Gone are the speculators who said the economy would get better in the spring because the flowers grow and the sun shines. The city has based its 82 -83 Prnpossed Budget on the problems of a depressed economy and will be prepared to meet the continuing financial constraints placed on it by said economic conditions. As the year draws to a close and so many revenues are below expectations, I think it is worthy to note to point out the faw revenues that have withstood the onslaught of the poor economy and shown a distinct pattern of growth. Business Licenses - an aggressive field program has already shown the fruits of its labor and a very distinct percentage increase has resulted. 24.04% over estimated budget as of 5- 31 -82. Interest Earnings - this increase of 101% over budget as of May 31, 1982, is met with mixed emotions. Of course its always nice to know that the investment program is providing revenue, however it is a direct result from the continued high interest rates, for investments as well as loans, that has caused such a large return. Engineering Fees - a ray of hope is the continued interest by developers in Rancho Cucamonga and the filings of th,ne projects which produced such up front fees to cause a 60% over budget estimates. page 2 Recreation Fees - an increase 704% has indicated that the people of this community are very receptive to programs being offered by the City. In general, total revenues are running - 9% below budget estimates for this time of year, however we still have one month to go. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS AS OF MAY 31, 1982 ESTIM,ITED EXPENDITURES ENCOAD3 RANGES ESTIt{ATED BALANCE REVENUE AS OF AS OF BALANCE FUND 7 -1 -91 THRU 5111781 TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT Slit /89 5111199 General $1,322,185 $5,518,364 $1,206,884 $ 959,248 $4,975,847 $ 512,708 $1,599,630 Reserves 2,087,940 -0- 861,431 -0- -0- 1,226,509 Traffic Safety 15,816 99,568 115,384 -0- -0- -0- Gas Tax 168,641 410,466 103,373 27,169 22,549 426,016 Article 8 S.B. 325 531,004 476,323 1,941 609,315 39,335 356,736 Recreation 37,154 89,669 95,102 2,719 29,002 Benefits Contingent 42,343 -0- 55,803 -0- -0- 98,146 Capital Replacement 169,758 -0- 70,474 14,661 -0- 225,551 Revenue Sharing 207,256 226,852 434,108 -0- -0- -0- Insurance 58,918 -0- 238,458 225,423 -0- 71,953 Capital Reserves 429,763 -0- 571,060 761,261 167,912 71,650 Park Development 218,698 193,176 606,000 611,819 121,018 285,037 Beautification 117,761 55,142 11,657 122,164 24,291 14,791 Systems Development 439,223 207,901 258,228 33,795 -0- 355,101 Storm Drain 236,989 219,411 17,953 136,182 77,256 -0- 260,915 F A U -0- (6,686) 2,515 -0- (9,201) Grants (19,927) 170,437 138,259 135,792 (123,541) Central Service 167,458 -0- 153,244 14,214 -0- -0- City Facilities 201,836 -0- 201,836 -0- -0- -0- Special Assess. District 17,924 25,251 355,500 5,500 428,717 17,506 (53,048) Redevelopment Agency -0- 478 120,000 68,007 -O- 52,471 TOTAL $6,450,740 $7,686,352 $3,242,132 $3,242,132 $8,205,544 $1,043,830 $4,887,718 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REVENUE STATEMENT FOR MONTH ENDED 5/31/82 VARIANCE AUTHORIZED ACTUAL FAVORABLE S OF A BUDGET REVENUE BUDGET THRU 5/31/82 (UN FAVORABLE) RECEIVED Taxes Property Tax $ 804,110 $ 635,960 $ (168,150) 79.09 Sales 5 Use Tax 1,589,596 1,555,559 (34,037) 97.86 Property Transfer 107,000 61,985 (45,015) 57.93 Franchises 527,544 532,884 5,340 101.01 Special Assessments r16j4 non 19.751 44,6 74q 99 91 Total Taxes $3,094,250 $2,806,139 $ (288,111) 90.69 Licenses 6 Permits Business Licenses $ 190,000 $ 229,978 $ 39,978 121.04 Dog *Licenses 16,500 16,368 (132) 99.20 Bicycle Licenses 400 339 (61) 84.75 Building Permits 484,000 186,649 (297,351) 38.56 Other Lic. 6 Permits 1,000 520 _ (480) 52.00 Total License 6 Permits $ 691,900 $ 433,854 $ (258,046) 62.70 Fines S Forfeits Court Fines $ 13,500 $ 6,560 $ (6,940) 48.59 Traffic Fines 96,500 99.568 _o6R -06R Inn to Total Fines 6 Forfeits $ 110,000 $ 106,128 $ (3,872) 96.48 Use of Money S Property Rents S Leases $ 3,564 $ 5,235 $ 1,671 146.89 Interest Earnings 340.360 684.697 34A 117 9m cs Total Use of Money 4 $ 343,924 $ 689,932 $ 346,008 200.61 Property Inter Cove rnmental Cigarette Tax $142,729 $ 134,121 $ (8,608) 93.97 Homeowners Exemption 19,000 36,414 17,414 191.65 Business Inventory Exemp. 4,000 46,323 42,323 1,158.08 Traitor Coach Fees 6,500 12,204 5,704 187.75 Motor Vehicle in Lieu 961,620 791,056 (170,564) 187.75 Off Highway Carrier Fee 682 795 113 116.57 Gas Tax 2106 210,383 201,861 (8,522) 95.95 Gas Tax 2107 206,310 201,106 (5,204) 97.48 Cus Tax 2107.5 7,500 7,500 100.00 S.B.325 (Article 8) 612,413 476,323 (136,090) 77.78 F.A.U. 340,000 6,686 (333,314) 1,97 Revenue Sharing 396,274 226,852 (169,422) 57,25 Grants - State 275,777 50,981 (224,796) 18.49 Grants - Federal 163.965 119.455 (44.51nl 79 as Total Inter $3,347,153 $ 2,311,6;7 $(1,035,476) 69.06 Governmental piee 2 REVENUE STATEMENT FOR MONTH ENDED 5/31/82 VARIANCE AUTHORIZED ACTUAL FAVORABLE Z OF A BUDGET BUDGET THRU 5/31/82 (UN FAVORABLE) RECEIVED REVENUE Charges for Services Park Development $ 120,000 $ 191,451 $ 71,451 159.54 Drainage Facilities 430,000 219,411 (210,589) 51.03 Systems Development 420,000 207,901 (212,099) 49.50 Beautification 105,000 55,142 (49,858) 52.52 Plan Check Fees 200,348 126,207 (74,141) 62.99 Engineering Fees 225:000 358,861 133,861 159.49 Planning Fees 230,000 91,313 (138,657) 39.70 Recreation Fees 52,635 89,669 37,034 170.36 Sale of Printed Material 99 4d9 9.574 _(12 871.1 69.66 Total Charges For $1,805,428 $1,349,529 $ (455,899) 74.75 Services Other Miscellaneous $ 1,500 $ 2,471 $ 971 164.73 Total Other $ 1,500 $ 2,471 $ 971 164.73 TOTAL REVENUES $9,394,155 $7,699,730 $(1,694,425) 82.16 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR MONTH ENDED 5/31 /82 AUTHORIZED ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES S of BUDGET EXPENDITURE BUDGET THRU S /31.'A2 THRU 5/31/R2 EXPENDBD General Government $ $ $ City Council 24,289 16,843 86 69.59 Administration 226,503 184,648 5,129 83.79 Administrative Services 231,472 185,912 489 80.53 Fringe Benefit Costs 531,787 380,609 200 71.61 General City Overhead 270,272 189,894 -0- 70.26 City Facilities 148,757 179,029 1,096 121.09 Intra Government Svc. -0- -0- -0- On Total General Gov't. $1,433,080 $1,136,935 $ 7,000 79.82 Community Development C.D. Administration $ 77,896 $ 64,992 $ 4 83.44 Planning 348,728 260,224 2,828 75.43 Building 6 Safety 251,179 209,102 3,056 84.46 Engineering 514,819 436,528 3,401 85.45 Public Works 1,129,361 759,957 104,495 76.54 Gas Tax 424,193 130,542 22,549 36.09 F.A.U. 340,000 2,569 -0- .76 S.B. 325 612,413 611,315 282,779 145.55 Storm Drains 430,000 113,438 -0- 26.38 Beautification 105,000 133,821 24,291 150.58 Systens 420,GOG 42,023 -0- 10.01 Grants 439,742 138,259 135,792 62,32 Spec. Assmt.District 66,000 434,217 17,506 648.43 Total Community Dev. $5,159,33! $3,336,987 $596,701 76.24 Public Safety Police Dept. $22,604,237 $2,161.501 $305,773 94.74 Total Public Safety $2,604,237 $2,161.501 $305,773 94.74 Community Services C.S. Administration $ 129,544 $ 112,381 $ -0- 87.19 Recreation 105,074 72,883 653 69.94 Contract Recreation 52,635 95,102 2,719 185.85 Park Development 120,000 611.819 -0- 509.85 Total Community Svcs. $ 407,253 $ 892,185 $ 2,719 219.74 Total Expenditures For the Month of - _ _ $9,603,363 $7,527,608 5912,193 87.88 Locations of Investment All State Savings Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of America Bank of Beverly Hills California Federal California Federal California Federal Central Federal Chino Valley Far West Fidelity Federal First Interstate First Interstate Foothill Independent Foothill Independent Glendale Federal Glendale Federal Great Wastern Great Weatern Imperial Savings Long Beach Savings Monterey Park Nat.* Pacific Federal Pacific Federal Progressive Federal Sierra Savings Southwest Savings Vineyard National Bank CITY OF RkXM CUCAMODM INVESTMENT SCHED= May 31, 1982 C.D. 39- 04236 -1 Savings C.D. 564 -00098 C.D. 563 -0409 C.D. 569 -661 C.D. 567 -350 C.D. 569 -00539 C.D. 564 -277 C.D. 561 -00523 C.D. 561 -660 C.D. 561 -675 C.D. 564 -00546 C.D. 567 -658 C.D. 6313 C.D. 080 -0- 008307 C.D. 80 -0 -8487 C.D. 80 -8417 C.D. 67 C.D. 239P00282 C.D. 16- 04682 -3 C.D. .0 -38- 6000 -466 C.D. 928121 C.D. 928135 C.D. P00006 C.D, P00007 C.D. 28- 023770 -4 Def. Comp. C.D. 52- 6152 -6 -5 C.D. 52- 614243 -4 C.D. 042- 1107376 C.D. 51- 02159 -0 C.D. 95- 3213002 C.D. 16- 03514 -9 C.D. 16- 07203 -5 C.D. 5311688 -5 C.D. 1004- 296010 -2 C.D. 13 -13 -90274 C.D. 1 TOTAL AMOUNT INVESTED AVERAGE C.D. RATE /INVESTMENT PER $100,000 k Floats at 1.3752 below prime. Atmmt 100,000 1,399,236 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,030 100,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 700,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,003 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $ 6,199,236 Parcentaae rate 14.75 5.5 14.00 14.75 13.250 13.250 14,000 13.250 14.00 13.250 13.375 14.00 13.125 15.25 14.625 14.875 15.125 15.75 13.875 15.625 15.:'5 13.90 13.80 13.375 12.875 14.50 15.51 14.50 14.625 14.750 16.125 15.125 15.00 15.25 15.625 15.25 34.750 14.625 14.304: CITY COL4HCIL ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF May 31, 1982 COMMENTS: Year Account Amount to Date Current P.O'S S of Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -10 -01 Salaries $ 14,400 $ 10,661 $ $ 3,765 73.85 01 -10 -23 Printing 150 459 86 (395) 363.33 01 -10 -24 Office Supplies 350 866 (516) 247.43 01 -10 -25 Travel /Meetings 9,389 4,857 4,532 51.73 TOTAL $ 24,289 $ 16,843 $ 86 $ 7,386 69.59 COMMENTS: CO3DIENTS: ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31/82 Year Account Amount to Date Current P.0's x of Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -11 -01 Salaries $147,570 $ 129,781 $ $ 17,789 87.95 01 -11 -02 Overtime 538 -0- 538 .00 01 -11 -20 Legal Adv. 7,000 2,660 4,340 38.00 01 -11 -23 Printing 5,800 5,464 336 94.21 01 -11 -24 Office Supplies 950 928 22 97.68 01 -11 -25 Travel /Meetings 10,200 9,171 1,029 89.91 01 -11 -28 Contract Serv. 48,500 32,555 4,710 11,235 76.84 01 -11 -30 Fuel -0- 1,947 419 (2,366) .00 01 -11 -31 Vehicle 6 3,000 878 2,122 29.27 Equip.Maint. 01 -11 -33 Office Equip. 450 193 257 42.89 Maint. 01 -11 -56 Dues 1,045 318 727 30.43 01 -11 -44 Capital Outlay 1,450 753 697 51.93 TOTAL $226,503 $184,648 $ 5,129 $ 36,726 83.79 CO3DIENTS: Account No. 01 -12 -01 01 -12 -02 01 -12 -20 01 -12 -23 01 -12 -24 01 -12 -25 01 -12 -28 01 -12 -33 01 -12 -56 01 -12 -44 COMMENTS: FINANCE ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5131/82 Year Account Amount to Date Current P.O's E of Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used Salaries $152,074 $ 118,646 $ $ 33,428 78.02 Overtime 538 1,567 (1,029) 291.26 Legal Adv. 1,650 194 1,456 11.76 Printing 6 6,300 6,438 145 (283) 104.49 Publications Office Supplies 3,770 3,166 604 83.98 Travel /Meetings 10,934 4,595 6,339 42.02 Contracts 45,070 45,172 (102) 100.23 Office Equip. 1,191 105 1,086 8.82 Maint. Dues 485 585 (100) 120.62 Vehicle 6 9,460 5,444 344 3,672 61.18 Equipment $ 231,472 $ 185,912 $ 489 $ 45,071 80.53 Account No. 01 -17 -21 01 -17 -23 01 -17 -24 01 -17 -26 01 -17 -34 01 -17 -44 COMME'XTS ; CITY FACILITIES ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31/82 Year Account Amount to Date Current P.O's Z of Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used Utilities $38,300 $ 45,443 $ $ (7,143) 110.82 Postage 6 16,101 13,590 36 2,475 84.63 Printing Office Supplies 12,400 11,215 165 1,020 91.77 Contract Svc. 66,456 89,452 (22,996) 134.60 B1dg.Maint. 14,500 15,614 895 (2,009) 112.87 Equip.Outlay 1,000 3,715 (2,715) 261.21 $148,757 4 179,029 T-1,096 $(31,368) 121.09 NON - DEPARTMENTAL ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31182 GENERAL 01 -19 -28 01 -19 -56 01 -19 -66 01 -19 -67 01 -19 -68 20 -11 -11 30 -19 -61 CITY OVERHEAD Contract Svc Dues Empl. Adv Pre Emp Phy City Audit Res. for Cap.Replmt. Liab. Ins. COMMENTS: $46,800 8,500 4.000 3,000 6,000 70,022 131,950 TOTAL $270,272 $ 63,669 $ $(16,869) 136.04 Y.T.D. 1,488 82.49 1,321 2,679 Accounr Amount Transfers 6 Current P.O's 13,822 S of Account No. Title Budgeted Expenses Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -19 -14 Coffee Fund $ 300 $ 218 $ $ 82 72.67 01 -19 -15 Def. Comp. 35,359 29,390 5,969 83.12 01 -19 -75 Tuit.Reimb, 3,366 1,267 2,099 37.64 01 -19 -76 Ngmt. Dev. 3,366 2,302 1,064 68.39 01 -15 -28 P.E.R.S. 288,094 212,158 75,930 73.83 30 -19 -17 Dental 14,441 13,621 820 94.32 30 -19 -62 Unempl Ins. 9,691 2,121 7,570 21.89 30 -19 -63 Workers Comp. 63,791 23,413 40,378 36.70 30 -19 -64 Health Ins. 85,877 77,949 7,928 90.77 30 -19 -65 Long Term Dis 23,912 16,507 7,405 69.03 30 -19 -66 Life Ins. 3,590 1,663 200 1,727 51.89 TOTAL $531,787 $ 380,609 $ 200 $150,978 71.61 GENERAL 01 -19 -28 01 -19 -56 01 -19 -66 01 -19 -67 01 -19 -68 20 -11 -11 30 -19 -61 CITY OVERHEAD Contract Svc Dues Empl. Adv Pre Emp Phy City Audit Res. for Cap.Replmt. Liab. Ins. COMMENTS: $46,800 8,500 4.000 3,000 6,000 70,022 131,950 TOTAL $270,272 $ 63,669 $ $(16,869) 136.04 7,012 1,488 82.49 1,321 2,679 33.03 738 2,262 24.60 13,822 (7,822) 230.37 14,681 55,341 20.97 88,651 43,299 67.34 $ 189,894 S $ 80,378 70.26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/3:/82 CO,IVESTS: Account Amount Y.T.D. Current P.O's S of Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -20 -01 Salaries $ 65,298 $ 57,269 $ $ 8,029 87.70 01 -20 -02 Overtime 538 -0- 538 .00 ' 01 -20 -23 Printing 6 300 485 (185) 161.67 Publications 01 -20 -24 Office Supp. 300 594 (294) 198.00 01 -20 -25 Travel /Meetings 8,940 5,960 2,980 66.67 01 -20 -30 Gasoline 128 5 4 119 7.03 01 -20 -33 Office Equip. 100 -0- 100 .00 - 6 Maint. 01 -20 -56 Dues 1,062 564 498 53.11 01 -20 -44 Equipment 1,230 115 1,115 9.35 Outlay TOTAL $77,896 $64,992 $ 4 $ 12,900 83.44 CO,IVESTS: PLANNING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31LU„- COMMENTS: Account Amount Y.T.D. Current P.0's S of Budget -Used Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance 01 -21 -01 Salaries $271,411 $208,745 $ $ 62,666 76.91 01 -21 -02 Overtime -0- 116 (116) .00 01 -21 -03 Part -time 15,947 11,482 4,465 72.00 01 -21 -20 Legal Adv. 5,000 2,490 2,510 49.80 01 -21 -23 Printing b 27,600 16,595 10,700 61.23 Publications 01 -21 -24 Office Supp. 8,000 4,475 20 3,505 56.19 01 -21 -25 Travel /Meetings 10,755 5,836 4,919 54.26 01 -21 -28 Contract Svs. 5,000 1,999 2,291 710 85.80 01 -21 -30 Gasoline 300 921 212 (833) 377.67 01 -21 -31 Vehicle b 200 2,784 (2,584) 1,392.00 Equip.Maint. 01 -21 -33 Office Equip. 200 763 (563) 381.50 Maint. 01 -21 -56 Dues 315 10 305 3.17 01 -21 -44 Equip.0utlay 4,000 4,008 (8) 100.20 $348,728 $260,224 $ 2,828 $ 85,676 75.43 COMMENTS: BUILDING AND SAFETY ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31/82 0=4ENTS Current P.O'S Account Amount Y.T.D. Account No. Tiile Budgeted Expense 87.82 01 -22 -01 Salaries $214,805 $188,643 01 -22 -02 Overtime 538 -0- 01-22-23 Printing & 2,000 504 Publications .00 01 -22 -24 Office Supp. 800 296 01 -22 -25 Travel /Meetings 3,191 2,705 01 -22 -28 Contracts 6,200 -0- 01-22-29 Plan Checks 16,000 10,304 01 -22 -30 Gasoline 4,000 3,688 01 -22 -31 Vehicle & 2,500 2,368 Equip.Maint. 01 -22 -33 Off Equip,Maint 300 44 01 -22 -34 B1dg,Maint Supp. -0- -0- 01-22-56 Dues 295 289 01 -22 -44 Equip. Outlay 550 270 TOTAL $251,179 $20 1,102 0=4ENTS Current P.O'S S of Outstanding Balance Budget -Used $ $ 26,162 87.82 538 .00 2,209 (713) 135.65 504 37.00 486 84.77 6,200 .00 5,696 64.40 847 (535) 113.38 132 94.72 256 14.67 -0- .00 15 94.92 280 49.09 $ 3,056 $ 39,021 84.46 ENGINEERING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31/82 COMMENTS: Account Amount Y.T.D. Current P.O's S of Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -23 -01 Salaries $363,260 $300,945 $ $ 62,315 82.85 01 -23 -02 Overtime -0- 2,220 (2,220) .00 01 -23 -03 Part -time 19,350 7,231 12,119 37.37 01 -23 -20 Legal Adv. 1,000 168 832 16.80 01 -23 -23 Printing 6 5,000 3.747 53 1,200 76.00 Publications 01 -23 -24 Office Supp. 47500 1,687 32 2,781 38.20 01 -23 -25 Travel /Meetings 5,259 2,165 3,094 41.17 01 -23 -28 Contract Svs. 96,750 101,601 2,258 (7,109) 107.35 01 -23 -30 Gasoline 6,000 4,628 1,058 314 94.77 01-23 -31 Vehicle Maint. 3,400 4,412 (1,012) 129.76 6 Equipment 01 -23 -33 Office Equip. 500 432 68 86.40 Maint. 01 -23 -56 Dues 700 260 440 37.14 01 -23 -44 Equip.Outlay 9,100 3,332 1,168 74.04 01 -23 -45 Vehicles 4.600 3.700 900 80.43 TOTAL $514,819 $436,528 $ 3,401 $ 74,890 85.45 COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31/82 COMENTS: Account Amount Y.T.D. Current P.O's S of Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance Budget -Used 01 -24 -01 Salaries $182,786 $ 143,526 $ $ 39,260 78.52 01 -24.02 Overtime 5,375 3,442 1,933 64.04 01 -24 -03 Part -time -0- 11,137 (11,137) .00 01 -24 -21 Utilities 54,500 42,113 12,387 77.27 01 -24 -24 Office Supp. -0- 01 -24 -28 Contract Svcs. 414,000 317,525 94,705 1,770 99.57 01 -24 -30 Fuel 26,000 9,378 35 16,607 36.13 01 -24 -31 Vehicle S 88,000 60,626 9,775 17,599 80.00 Equip.Maint. 01 -24 -34 Facili:_es -0- 340 (340) .00 Maint. 01 -24 -35 Uniforms 500 1,805 (1,305) 361.00 01 -24 -40 Street Lites 350,000 162,812 187,188 46.52 _ 01 -24 -44 Equip.0utlay 7,500 7,173 327 95.64 01 -24 -56 Dues 700 80 620 11.43 TOTAL $ 1,129,361 $ 759,957 $ 104,495 $ 264,909 96.54 COMENTS: COMMENTS: S of Budeet -Used 97.22 112.50 8.80 61.93 21..93 40.13 95.14 115.19 .00 141.60 133.33 63.05 56.45 657.38 87.19 COMMUNITY SERVICES ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OE 5/31/82 Account Amount Y.T.D. Current P.Ws Account No. Title Budgeted Expense Outstanding Balance 01 -50 -01 Salaries $ 52,838 $ 51,368 $ $ 1,470 01 -50 -03 Part -time 5,646 6,352 (706) 01 -50 -20 Lcgal Adv. 500 44 456 01 -50 -21 utilities 24,000 17,864 6,136 01 -50 -23 Printing & 4,000 877 3,123 - Publications - 01 -50 -24 Office Supp. 1,500 602 898 . 01 -50 -25 Travel /Meetings 5,820 5,537 283 01 -50 -28 Contract Svc. 10,000 11,519 (1,5191 01 -50 -30 Gasoline 3,000 -0- 3,002 01 -50 -31 Vehicle & Soo 570 138 (2(JB) Equip.Maint ' 01 -50 -33 Office Equip. 150 200 (50) Maint. 01 -50 -34 Bldg. Maint. 20,245 12,332 432 7,481 01 -50 -56 Dues 620 350 270 01 -50 -44 Equip.Outlay 725 4,766 (4,041) TOTAL $129,544 $112,381 $ 570 $ 16,593 COMMENTS: S of Budeet -Used 97.22 112.50 8.80 61.93 21..93 40.13 95.14 115.19 .00 141.60 133.33 63.05 56.45 657.38 87.19 Account :Account No. Title 01 -51 -01 Salaries 01 -51 -03 Part -time 01 -51 -25 Travel /Meet. 01 -51 -35 Uniforms - 01 -51 -38 Spec.Dept. Supplies 01 -51 -44 Equip.Outlay COMMENTS: C/S RECREATION ACTIVITY SCHEDULE AS OF 5/31182 Amount Y.T,D. Budgeted Expense $ 35,849 $ 28,531 59,125 39,663 1,100 130 1,000 -0- 5,000 3,068 3,000 1,441 Current P.0's Outstanding Balance $ $ 7,318 19,462 970 1,000 653 1,279 1,559 $105,07' $ 72,833 $ 653 $ 31,588 % of Budget -Used 79.59 67.08 11,82 ,00 74.42 48.03 69.94 FINANCIAL REPORT RESERVE STATUS AS OF 5 -31 -82 Reserve Total as of 7 -1 -82 Reserves securred by Council Action Park Land Acquisition /Developmenc Loans to Redevelopment Agency Transferred to General Fund for Reduction in Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees Repairs to Neighborhood Facility TOTAL DESIGNATED Reserves set aside for Specific Purpose City Facilities Acquisition Changes in Economic Conditions (Loss of State Subventions) TOTAL SET ASIDE Unappropriated Reserves $606,000 120,000 128,809 6,622 $500,000 726,509 $2,087,940 $ 861,431 $1,226,509 -0- RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPEMNT AGENCY FUND BALNACF REPORT PERIOD ENDED 5 -31 -82 ASSETS Cash LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE Liabilities Loan Payable Compensation Payable (4/21 - 5/5 - 5/19) TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE Beginning Balance Revenue Expenditutes & Encumbrances MONTH END FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Report Respectfully Submitted by: Harry Empey, Treasurer Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency $ 52,470.92 $ 120,000.00 360.00 $ 120,360.00 $ .00 120,477.50 (188,366_58) $( 67,889.08) $ 52,470.92 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SOURCES AND USES STATEMENT PERIOD ENDED 5 -31 -82 SOURCES Loan from the City of Rancho Cucamonga $120,000.00 Revenue form Investments 477.50 USES TOTAL SOURCES $120,477.50 Contract Expenses (M.S.I.) $ 40,000.00 Legal Services (Best, Best 6 Krieger) 22,911.22 Compensation (Board Members 711/8/ - 4/7/82) 1,440.00 Miscellaneous 3,655.36 TOTAL USES $ 68,006.58 Cash Balance as of 5 -31 -82 $ 52,470.92 TOTAL RESOURCES $ 52.470.92 Report Respectfully Submitted by: Harry Empey, Treasurer Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WARRANT REGISTER PERIOD ENDED 5 -31 -82 May Chk.No. Vendor 1033 Best, Best S Krieger Reprot Respectfully Submitted by: Harry Empey, Treasurer Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Purpose Legal Services TOTAL MAY EXPENSES Date Amount 4 -14 -82 $ 1,853.38 EXPENSES THRU 4 -30 -82 TOTAL EXPENSES THRU 5 -31 -82 $ 1,853.38 66,153.20 $ 68,006.58 April 22, 1982 WHITE PAPER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S POSITION RELATIVE TO CAL -SLA'S UTILITY RESOLUTION The following information will be of use in replying to the six points contained in the resolution. Edison's rates must recover the costs of generation, the costs associated with the facilities required to deliver the energy to the customer, and other customer related operating expenses such as meter reading and billing, as well as a return on both borrowed and invested capital. At the present time, Edison's rates applicable to strcct lights do not recover all the Company's costs. In Decision No. 92599 which authorized the Company's resent rates, the Public Utilities Commission authorized levels of rates that would yield an overall rate of return of 11.23% on rate base (capital investment less depre- ciation). For the street light customer group, the rates authorized by the Commission would yield a rate of return of only 6.74 on rate Dase. This difference In rate of return is absarbed by other customer groups whose rates must reflect a higher rate of return if Edison is to realize the authorized 11.23% overall rate of return. All Edison street light rates, whether metered or unmetered, include energy usage in the rate design. Metered service obviously records the energy used by the service. For unmetered service, the kWh usage for each lamp size is estimated using astronomical data to determine the hours of service and lamp loads following specifications authorized by the Commission and indicated on the tariffs. For Edison -owned street light systems, the rates authorized recognize that Edison owns and maintains the individual street light installations. The authorized rates for Edison -owned street light systems were designed to include an energy charge and operating and maintenance costs, as well as the ongoing costs of owning the street light facilities. (Ownership costs include taxes, Insurance, depreciation and return.) The rates are based on the concept of a standard installation where the Company provides bracket or mast arm construction attached to wood poles with service supplied from overhead lines. Other types of Company -owned installations, including underground, may be installed if the customer first pays a differential charge which is the difference between the installed Revision 4/27/82 Page 2 cost of the Company's standard installation and the cost of the customer's selected (non - standard) installation. The purpose of the differential charge is to eliminate the necessity for a separate higher rate for non - standard installations that would vary with each type of non - standard installation. Thus, even though all non - standard facilities Installed become and remain the property of the Company, the differential charges do not become a part of rate base, and therefore, are not included in the street light rates for Company -owned Installations. However, the increased property taxes, insurance and other operating and maintenance costs associated with the ownership of such non - standard installations are included in the rates. In light of the above, it should be apparent that street light rates need to reflect more than just the charges for energy used. Paragraph 2 of the proposed Resolution is calling for pro- cedures to be set by the C.P.U.C. for acquiring street lighting systems. Such systems are properties that can be taken by procedures either under eminent domain proceedings or through procedures before the C.P.U.C. Such procedures are established by the legislature and both call for payment of just compensation for the systems to be acquired. To ask the C.P.U.C. to state in a clear and precise manner such procedures is requesting that the C.P.U.C. either establish a new procedure or restate law as it now exists. Current Edison practice al',ows leasing of pole space on wood poles, if available, to nonmembers of the joint Pole Committee. There are about 250 leas' agreements covering various approved attachments (power, eomra.,nication, control circuits, obstruction lighting) to Edison poles by school districts, oil companies, counties, cities and individuals. All of the above adhere to the conditions listed below: a. Perform their own maintenance with qualified personnel except for obstruction lighting which is maintained by Edison at the customer's cost. b. Pay an annual license fee. c. Indemnify and save Edison harmless. d. Execute a contact rental agreement. e. Conform to state law construction standards, GO 95. f. Submit construction plans to Edison for approval. In addition, each entity would be affected by OSHA requirements as it applies to Its contractors. Reasons for establishing the above conditiona: a. Edison personnel should not be burdened by maintaining others' facilities as cost of "extra" personnel and labor will ultimately be borne by the rate payers. N > PAPER Revision 4/27/82 Page 3 b. An annual fee is charged as a standard practice. If no fee was charged, the rate payer would again be subsidizing the licensee. C. Edison's interest must be protected from legal claims arising from the licen.,ee's attachments. d. An agreement is executed to establish terms and conditions covering Edison's interests. e. Most licensees are not subject to CPUC and therefore not bound by GO 95. It is imperative that Go 95 standards be met to protect the safety of the workers. I. Edison must be aware of the circuits placed upon its poles so that: (1) All safety standards are met. (2) Space is not used which will prohibit Edison's use of that space for future facilities. In determining the fair market value of property, such as street lighting systems, historical cost method (or actual costs as this method is referred to in the proposed Resolution), does not provide full jusi compensation to the Seller. The California Evidence Code specifically approves of the method- ology that Edison uses and which has been historically and informally accepted by cities and counties. This method is the cost of replacing or reproducing the existing improvements less depreciation or obsolescence. Since the language of the proposed Resolution is requesting the Commission to totally disregard this methodology and accept in its stead the historical or actual cost as a single basis for determining just compensation, we believe that it is inappropriate. 5. This paragraph in the proposed Resolution is based upon the erroneous assumption that street lighting systems are built entirely at the expense of developers or property owners and then turned over to the utilities. The aforementioned concept of the utilities' entitlement to just compensation applies also to the proposed objective stated in this paragraph. It would permit a public entity to acquire facilities at less than fair market value and is, therefore, Inappropriate and objectionable. 2 6. In the Resolution proposed by the California City - County Street Light Association, Item Number 6 proposes the utilities be directed to utilize any and all forms of energy - efficient street lighting including both low pressure and high pressure sodium vapor. In reviewing both sodium sources the Company chose the high pressure sodium (HPSV) for a number of reasons. Although the manufacturers data indicated the low pressure sodium (LPSV) was more efficient in lamp lumen per watt efficiency, we found that because of the low coefficient of 2section 820 See Paragraph 1, Page 1, for explanation of differential cost, ownershlp and standard installations. WHITE PAPER Revision 9/27/82 Page 9 utilization (low efficiency) of the luminaires, the lights had to be spaced closer together, thus eliminating or reducing possible energy savings over other comparable sources. We found that by using the LPSV lamps and luminaires, the upward stray light would increase and that nearly 95% of the usable (downward) light fell outside of the curbs bounding the roadway. This would create additional light trespass problems which is a current concern of many of our cities. It was also found the LPSV would be more costly to install and maintain than other comparable systems for the same amount of illumination on the roadway surface. Other potential problems that surfaced were lamp disposal due to the metalic sodium, the wattage increase of the lamps throughout life affecting the overall efficiency and that when the general public was given a choice between the sodium sources based on color rendition, the high pressure was more acceptable. If the low pressure sodium, which in its original form and color in the 1930s had been the complete answer to outdoor lighting problems, there would have been no need to develop lamps such as the color corrected mercury vapor, metal halide or high pressure sodium vapor. The reasoning behind these developments was a desire for more efficiency with a more pleasant and natural color demanded by the public. Edison's present policy is directed to providing quality lighting which is the most efficient, acceptable and economical for our rate payers. With that primary consideration, Edison has determined that a utility- owned, installed and maintained LPSV system is not as economical or efficient for street lighting purposes as the high pressure system and, therefore, will not be provided under the Company -owned Schedule No. LS -1. Edison will continue to aid our governmental customers who wish to install this source on their own lighting system by providing information on sources of the low pressure lamps and luminaires in order that bidding is competitive. We wish to emphasize that low pressure sodium vapor has always been available to the customer under provisions of Schedule No, LS -2. Also attached is a copy of the Resolution for your information. •Hm 'Z _Xk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLVED, by the , that (City Council/Board o upervtsors WHEREAS, the rates for street lighting charged by utilities governed by the California Public Utilities Commission do not reflect the actual energy used by the street lights; and WHEREAS, Local agencies are discouraged from acquiring the components of the utility -owned street light system because procedures for acquisition of the components are vague and unnecessarily cumbersome; and WHEREAS, joint - tenancy of utility poles have been discouraged or conditioned in such a manner as to be unfeasiLle; and WHEREAS, utilities' rate structure adjusted and approved by the Commission from time to time included provisions for the amorti:arion of utilities' installation and replacement costs of street lighting facilities; and WHEREAS, utilities' method of evaluating its street lighting facilities (Reproduction Cost New Less Depreciation) does not reflect the actual saleable worth of these facilities; and WHEREAS utilities require local public agencies to purchase street lighting facilities which were previously installed by property owners and developers and then dedicated at no cost to the utilities; and WHEREAS, utilities do not allow energy - conserving means of efficient lumination except for high pressure sodium vapor street lights in their system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ii RESOLVED, that the California Public Utilities Commission 1s requested to consider, amend and adopt regulations governing and regulating street lighting which would provide that; 1. Rates charged for street lighting reflect the actual energy wad by the lights; and 1 1982. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF (ADD PUBLIC ENTITY, COUNCIL OR SUPERVISOR' SIGNATURE PAGE) 2 2. Procedures for acquiring components of the utilities' street lighting system be stated in a clear and precise manner; and 3. Utilities be required, if requested by a local Public Agency to allow joint use of their utility pole system, without charge, to install street light fixtures owned and maintained by the local public agency; and 4. The method utilized by utilities for valuating street r lighting facilities to be purchased by public entities be based _ on actual coat of the facilities when installed less depreciation and any other amounts recovered through utility rate charges, not.to exceed salvage value; and 5. Utilities be required, if requested by a local public agency, to transfer to the agency, without charge, any street lighting facility which utilities acquired from property owners and developers at no cost to the utility; and 6. Utilities be directed to utilize any, and all forms of energy - efficient, economical street lighting including but not limited to both high and low pressure sodium vapor street lights, ywhen requested to do so by a public entity. 1982. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF (ADD PUBLIC ENTITY, COUNCIL OR SUPERVISOR' SIGNATURE PAGE) 2 ,1 1'. edmad pa�a� caltlornll March 22, 1982 on INN"IW L. SUBJECT: SOLICITATION OF RELIEF FROM PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC, AND ET AL COMPANIES' ENERGY POLICIES P. W. File # 2355 Dear City /County Manager: In June of 1981, various local governmental units from Northern, Central and Southern California came together to form the California City- County Street Light Association (CAL -SLA). The primary reason for the formation of the CAL -SLA is to coordinate the efforts and resources of its statewide membership to question and contest utility company street light rate structures, acquisition policies and High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) fixture stipulations for utilty owned lighting systems before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Since June of last year, the Association has held four Energy Workshops, during which an Executive Committee was established, goals and objectives developed and approved, and subcommittees created to pursue the organization's goals and objectives. In addition, the Workshops have evolved into a forum where attending officials can share their agency's technical knowledge and ex- pe:iences with other units of local gcvernment with similar ci,cumstances, expanding the CAL -SAL's professional contact network statewide. In the past several months Executive Committee members have had the opportunity to express the CAL -SLA'S principal concerns to the League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California and the California Public Utilities Commission. From these discussions, our Association has concluded that only through a swelling of local government support statewide can we expect traditional organizations to respond to our membership's concerns. At stake for local governmental units is potential savings of thousands, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of taxpayer dollars in the years to come. Cit:, /County Manager -2- March 22, 1982 Cities and Counties must have the flexibility to implement energy efficient street light programs as their financial situations dictate, and not be ordained to do otherwise by the energy selling utility companies and fixture manufacturers. The California City- County Street Light Association solicits your support in this endeavor by requesting that your agency consider the attached sample resolution, and if you share our concerns, have your local elective body adopt the resolution and have copies mailed to the following individuals and organizations: 1) CPOC Commissioners Attn: Bill Ahern California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister San Francisco, CA. 94102 2) Mr. Don Benninghoven Executive Director League of California Cities 1400 R Street Sacramento, CA. 95814 3) Mr. Larry Naake Executive Director County Supervisors Association of California 11th s L Building Sacramento, CA. 95814 4) Local State Senator Ftate Capitol Sacramento, CA. 95814 5) Local Assemblyman State Capitol Sacramento, CA. 95814 6) Frank J. Adoiego Director of Public Works 1017 Middlefield Road P. 0. Box 391 Redwood City, CA. 94064 The CAL -SLA sample resolution clearly states the primary concerns of our membership and other public agencies in the state. It is requested your Clerk's office be instructed to make the noted distribution. City /County Manager -3- March 22, 1982 Should you have questions concerning the purpose of the resolution, or of the activities of the California City- County Street Light Association, you may call any one of the following members: 1) Broy Riha Director of Public Works Russ Hamm Deputy Director City of Santa Rosa (707) 576 -5141 / 576 -5358 2) Jerry Green Associate Civil Engineer County of San Mateo (415) 363 -4100, Ext. 1436 3) Frank J. Addiego Director of Public Works Adam Gee Traffic Engineer Ramon Aguilar Management Analyst City of Redwood City (415) 369 -6251 4) Ricardo Gonzales Division Engineer City of Long Beach (213) 590 -6147 5) Dave Wood Deputy Director City of San Diego (714) 236 -5505 Your agency's participation in adoption and distribution of the sawple resolution will be effective if it reaches the California Public Utilities Commission not later than May 31, 1982. I look forward to your confirmation of support in this joint en- deavor equalize the interests between the public utility compan a and ou local governmental jurisdictions. Sinc 'I J S M. SMITH ty Manager Attachment 1unC1..i _oarcl or bupervlsors) WHEREAS, the rates for street lighting charged by utilities governed by the California Public Utilities Commission do not reflect the actual energy used by the street lights; and WHEREAS, local agencies are discouraged from acquiring the components of the utility -owned street light system because procedures for acquisition of the components are vague and unnecessarily cumbersome; and WHEREAS, joint- tenancy of utility poles have been discouraged or conditioned in such a manner as to be unfeasible; and WHEREAS, utilities' rate structure adjusted and approved by the Commission from time to time included provisions for the amortization of utilities' installation and replacement costs of street lighting facilities; and WHEREAS, utilities' method of evaluating its street lighting facilities (Reproduction Cost New Less Depreciation) does not reflect the actual saleable worth of these facilities; and WHEREAS, utilities require local public agencies to purchase street Lighting facilities which were previously installed by property owners and developers and then dedicated at no cost to the utilities; and WHEREAS, utilities do not allow energy - conserving means of efficient lamination except for high pressure sodium vapor street lights in their system; :IOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Public Utilities Commission is requested to consider, amend and adopt regulations governing and regulating street lighting which would provide that; 1. Rates charged for street lighting reflect the actual energy used by the lights; and 1 2. Procedures for acquiring components of the utilities' street lighting system be stated in a clear and precise manner; and 3. Utilities be required, if requested by a local Public Agency to allow joint use of their utility pole system, without charge, to install street light fixtures owned and maintained by the local public agency; and 4. The method utilized by utilities for valuating street lighting facilities to be purchased by public entities be based on actual cost of the facilities when installed less depreciation and any other amounts recovered through utility rate charges, not.to exceed salvage 'value; and 5. Utilities be required, if requested by a local public agency, to transfer to the agency, without charge, any street lighting facility which utilities acquired from property owners and developers at no cost to the utility; and 6. Utilities be directed to utilize any and all forms of energy - efficient, economical street lighting including but not limited to both high and low pressure sodium vapor street lights, when requested to do so by a public entity. 1982. REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF (ADD PUBLIC ENTITY, COUNCIL OR SUPERVISOR' SIGNATURE PAGE; SOW MUCH IS T00 MUCH Adam Gee, Traffic Engineer City of Redwood City A survey recently published by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission showed that in the 1980 -81 fiscal year, $29,000,000 per year was being spend on the street light systems illumininating the roadways in the nine Bay Area Counties. Statewide, the California Street Light Association sent surveys to selected cities and counties. Nine counties and 76 cities completed the survey. The results of the survey showed that nearly $83,000,000 per year were currently being paid to the utility companies under the LS1 and LS2 lump sum rates. An additional $6,200,000 was spent by the local agencies for maintenance of the agency -owned street light systems. Note that this survey includes only nine counties and 76 cities; totaling 492,806 street lights on 41,547 miles of roadways. There are 58 counties and over 1,120 cities and towns in the State of California. The latest rate increase allowed by the California Public Utilities Commission increased the rates for street lighting within the Pacific Gas and Electric service areas up to 63% for fixtures under the LS1 rate (utility owned and maintained) and 45% for LS2 (local agency owned and maintained). This increase in the nine Bay Area Counties amounts to a $13,500,000 per year increase. The history of the utility rate increases since 1978 to present has been from 43% to 119% on the LS2 rate and 24% to 75% on the LS1 rate. The fact that Proposition 13 has limited the pass -over of the increases to property tax payers and made passage of any special assessment. district unlikely, plus the fact that State Bailout and Federal Revenue Sharing Funds are decreasing, with gas tax revenues not even meeting the needs of street mairtenace, the availability of funds for street lighting is in serious jeopardy. Some cities have removed, and /or no longer install mid -block lights hoping to minimize utility cost. This created significant political problems. What is the solution to this dilemma? How can we make the most out of our scarce tax dollar? After eight years of searching for answers, the City of Redwood City has embarked on the following measures: 1. Know your street light system. 2. Reduce the illumination levels below the I.H.S. Standards 3. Convert t= sodium source of lighting, which many agencies are now doing. 4. Acquisition of utility -owned street lights. S. Meter street light systems. 6. Cogeneration. -2- Rnow Your Street Licht Svstem Find out where your street lights are located and whether they are City or utility owned, and types and wattages. Our inventory in the City of Redwood City found that 109 of the 3,400 street lights were either not existing or were being billed incorrectly. We found one intersection being billed for eight lights and there were only two existing lights. In another instance, we found the same electric meter with two account numbers being read by two different meter readers, and the City was receiving two bills monthly. Even during our conversions to low pressure sodium, we found that the lower rates were not being reflected in the billings the City received after a period of six months. The utility mapping of your street light system may not be accurate nor are their computer printouts of your system infallible. The only way to determine the accuracy of your billings is 'n make an inventory of your system and keep it up to date. Illumination Level Over - illumination is very costly. The greater the lighting level, the greater the energy cost. Again, refer to Table A for lumens/ watt and cost /lumen. Caution should be utilized when using these numbers as other factors, such as the coefficient of utilization, uniformity desired, fixture distribut:.on, pole height and locations are also important considerations. Think about key -hole to key -hole type lighting, especially in residential areas where building setbacks are 15 feet or more. Think about the illumination level. Do you want to most I.E.S.. Standards? Do you want to meet standards established primarily by fixture manufacturers and utility representatives who stand to gain on over - lighting requiring more energy, poles and street light fixtures. How much is too much light? Redwood City has found for example that an average 1.0 foot candle with an average to minimum of 3:1 is more than sufficient on downtown laterals. In residential areas 0.4 to 0.5 with a uniformity of 5:1 has proven to be sufficient. I.E.S. standards call for 2.:0 with an ave /min ratio of 3:1 on major arterial streets and 0.4 to 0.6 and 3:1 on residential streets. A section of the Lamp Lighters Association in Southern California have recommended even higher levels. The CAL -SLA subcommittee is currently reviewing lighting levels to determine the most economical lighting levels feasible, and if these standards can be established, it will be recommended for adoption by the Executive Committee. Item of note, of the cities and counties surveyed, 309 of the respondents indicated that their agency conformed to, or a modified version of the I.E.S. lighting level standards. Review of the surveys indicate that no city or county currently conforms to this standard. -3- To say so creates a liability for that jurisdiction. Consider the neighborhood. Is it a depressed area, or an area occupied by senior citizens? Lighting levels and uniformity are long -term cost factors. Inierviewing citizens in Redwood City, the lighting levels are secondary to the uniformity of lighting. Dark spots between lights are undesired, lower lighting levels they can accept. Conversion To Sodium Vapor Conversion of the street light system from mercury vapor to HPSV could save approximately 258 in energy costs on the utility -owned system. On the agency -owned system by 468 if it's HPSV and 58% if LPSV is used. Acquisition of Utilitv -Owned Street Lights The City of Redwood City currently pays an average of $13.26 per month for each utility -owned light. It is estimated that if the City were to acquire these lights and place them into the I.S2 rate and convert them to LPSV fixtures with equal or more lumens of the previous mercury vapor street light, the City's cost would drop to $3.28 per month per street light. This amounts to a savings of $9.98 per month per street light. This is a significant savings and future streets lights, as a standard, should be City owned. Metered Street Eight Systems Metering of the agency -owned street light systems is another alternative. This creates flexibility as to the choice of utility rates to use. This rate can be changed once a year without charge. Most street light systems are currently on the LS -1 or L.1-2 rates. These are lump sum rates and once on these rates, no other choice is possible. A meter creates alternatives. Some of these in the P.G.sE. service are LS -3, A -1, TC -1, A -12, A -21, A -22, and A -23. The A -21 to A -23 rates are of particular note. These are industrial rates, and the rates are adjustable to on -peak, partial peak and off -peak hours which is not possible under the lump sum rates or any of the other meter rates noted. However, to benefit from the industrial rates, loads of 500, 1,000 or 4,000 KW /maximum demand must he met. A summary of the applicable rate schedules is attached, as are the rate schedules themselves. Note, however, that a metered system can be changed to a Lump sum LS -2 rate easily. However, unmetered rates are not easily converted to metered rates without significant cost. In short, design your street light system for flexibility which will allow you to switch to any applicable rate which is cost effective for your lighting system. The City of Redwood City now meters over 600 street lights under the LS -3 rate. A request has been sent to P.G.iE. to change some of the systems to LS -2 and A -1, and review is underway to determine whether the A -21 rate is feasible. The abandonment of the LS -3 metered rate resulted from the utility company modifying the rate, making it more costly. A reduction of nearly two - thirds was once allowed for energy used above the first 150 kwhr /kw of billing demand. As of January, 1982, this is no longer allowed. -4- Cogeneration Review of the CAL -SLA's survey showed that in the 1980 -81 fiscal year, street light cost per pole varied from $34.71 to $342.88 per pole including maintenance. The cost varied by the number of street lights owned and maintained by the utility and the City, the illumination levels, whether power was purchased from WAPA or other federal agency, and whether the local agencies generated and sold their energy. The average cost per pole on the LS -1 rate is $140 per year; the highest cost at $255.17 and the lowest at $97.46 per pole per year. Cities that either bought power from WAPA or other agencies or generated their own power for their street light system averaged about $35.00 per pole per year. In summary, in order to maintain and install new street light systems in the future ,facing diminishing funds, it is necessary that we develop innovation, flexibility and cost effective management as tools of the trade. We don't have the luxury of fulfilling every demand for street lights, nor can we afford to over -light and over - illuminate our streets. It's time that each of us must ask "How much is too much?" and act accordingly. APG /rk /wp Attachments T 6 3:.' a zz.� i'aARY ?aC C u; S S WCR:C ?A'1T_ :N car-:,-Zs Initial ? d L E� S a s I Change; h1t1II1 -as-,, 1 : _x ._re _asp 31st. .: R -omen .� cf =rom Linens/ Zpce :vans Wars :4crth 0uio t I hcr. 79 Sar.. 321 1978 N Lumen xarcescsnt 189 65 1 21500 3.334 j 1.005 110% i3 0.1332 295 101 1 4,000 5.127 iO.931 113% ! 14 0.1283 405 139 6,000 6.952 15.026 1164 ! 15 0.2505 6220 212 X10,000 10.452 22.939 119% 16 0.2294 35 1 68 7,300 3.853 6.500 691 36 .0513 250 42 97 ,11,000 5.282 0.309 76% 38 I .0846 400 60 154 121,000 7.357 14.793 88% 46 i .0704 700 80 262 137,000 12.929 a9h 2ressare; 70 25 29 5,800 1.984 j 2.993 51% 1 61 1 0.0516 Sodium ! 100 44 41 9,500 2.716 4.342 601 i 66 0.0457 150 52 60 16,000 3.794 6.187 63% j 79 0.0387 200 54 90 22,000 N.A. i ( 7.947 N. A. 87 0.0361 250 65 110 25,500 I 5.847 9.707 66% ! 81 0.0381 400 85 167 46,000 8.216 I 14,720 791 95 0.0320 w Pressure j 55 25 31 8,000 . 1.901 2.770 43% 100 0.0341 Sodium 1 90 3S 51 13,500 2.849 4.485 571 108 0.0333 135 43 70 21,500 3.842 6.190 61% , 123 0.0288 ' 180 40 87 33,000 4.674 7.686 64% 150 0.0233 LSLA j I :candescent ! 189 65 2,500 6.347 295 101 4,000 I 8.250 405 I 139 j 6,000 i 10.240 � 620 I 212 10,000 14.452 m m 3rcury Vgr. 175 33 68 7,500 6.752 1 U. 75% M M 250 40 97 11,000 8.460 14.733 744 y 0 400 60 154 21,000 11.637 20.783 79% c O I 1 700 84 262 37,000 18.737 33.828 80% 19h Preer4tei 70 25 29 51800 6.812 10.457 271 Sodium 100 44 41 91500 9.651 11.934 24% 150 I 52 60 10,000 10.694 13.658 28% � 200 70 22,000 N. A. 16.549 N.A. : 250 47 110 25,500 15.545 18.590 20% j 400 167 46,000 16.243 24.175 331 IABLE B SUMMARY OF PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC RATS SC°.0.'D=5 Energy CPezye Teigij Metered P - Cost RWBR Adjustments Comments Costs LS -i [amp Sum .05408 includes Maintenance/ IIlcl. Amortization /etc. LS -2 Lump Sum See .05408 Incandescent SC.109 /RWAR /Mo. Comments Incl. Mercury Vapor 0.0965 /MIER/ Mo., HPSV, LPSV, Metal Halide .0.0 8 8 /104103 /MO. LS -3 $3.00 .04235 .05408 Changed on Jan, 1982 .09643 A -1 $1.75 .04317 .05408 .09725 A -12 Incl. .03108 .05408 1st 40 1W at max. demand 591 /mo.,next 250 160 $1.99, next 300 1W $1.82 A -21 0.3255 Period A 500 watts or greater 0.04116 to Period A 6 B Charge $65.00 0.08159 Demand Charge Period AiB - $1.0 Period e 0.04875 to Time periods A a 8, same as A -2 0.06772 A -22 Incl. .02934 Period A .05167 to 1,000 kilowatts or greater 06162 Period A, a $5.50 peak hour period. Period A $2.50/164 Period B max. demand. Period 8,0.75, .05220 tc partial Peak (A) 0.30, (B) 0.25 .06001 Off -Peak - no charge Off -Peak designated as between 10:30 p.m. -8:30 a.m. and all day Sunday and holidays Partial Peak Period A -8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., 6x30 p.m. to 10:30 P.M. 8:30 a.m, to 10:30 p.m. Sat. except holidays Partial Peak Period B -8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m., 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Sat. except holidays. A -23 0.2934 Period A 4,000 Kilowatts or Greater 0.04898 to Period A s B Charge $550 0.05955 Peak Hour Period A $2.50/1W If max. demand Period B Peak Sour Period B $0.75/064 0.05046 to of max. demand 0.05801 plus Partial Peak /164 of max. demand (A) 0.30, B (0.25) Plus Off- Peak/164 of max.demand- No Charge. Time Periods A G e same as A -22 TC -1 $1.75 .04317 .05408 Signals with lighting at . 09725 intersections. 14 12 0,11i� ( LUMEN OUTPUT) ('UTILIZED" LUMENS) 55 WATT L.P.S. 10 15 20 BULB LIFE X 1000 HRS. CHART A 10 0 0 0 X 55 8 Z W J 6 0,11i� ( LUMEN OUTPUT) ('UTILIZED" LUMENS) 55 WATT L.P.S. 10 15 20 BULB LIFE X 1000 HRS. CHART A u- 0 In 2000 J W m tr Q m 1000 PRESENT LIGHTS (CITY OWNED) 30858 BBL. OF OIL PER YEAR HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 1,285 BBL. OF OIL PER YEAR (COMPARISONS USE 'UTILIZEW LUMENS) LOW PRESSURE SODIUM 1.110 BBL.OFOILPER YEAR ENERGY USE IN BARRELS OF OIL CHART 9 r C� 56.d.le No. IS-1 STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING __ Sue=• Sp. __ APPf3CJ.81LTTY Thta schedule a applicable to rtlllty4waed and Ilihtiog uaa a atmng which IRuminab streets. SlghwaP, and other publlcdedlczted outdoor wars and places and which 9enen117 utlllze the Utility's dlsm1butlon acdltles. Rates at Mass A through Class F service will be applleahie m determined Rpenul Caudltion 4. TERRXTORY 7 %n ..tire terT+mn served. RATES All Yi6he Ram Pe I p Per Month H.H.M. Class A a C D E F Ad ju.m.nt N, - Local, Rang A,.,. lamp Kwhr our lessial Wan Mpah Lea Lmpra 59. a 600 5 556.1 - - - - - 5.098 92 31 L000 6.5 97 - - - - 152 189 4a 3,500 10.943 i 9.392 - - - - .313 M 101 4,000 14.449 13.995 - - - - An 405 139 6,000 18.147 16.591 - - - - .M. 620 312 10.000 25.912 14.301 - - - - 1.026 Maewm V.,or t 'O 100 42 3.500 9 9.514 9 8.392 1 Toll $14.769 314.039 $11.545 1.181 175 6S T.S00 II.-.n4 10.622 9.607 16.421 18.289 13.'31 2DO 260 97 11.000 14.561 13.440 12.439 20.9]6 19.241 1T.SS4 R6 400 154 21.000 20.508 19.12A 17.896 - 25.490 23.149 .686 700 262 37,000 33.359 30.430 30.636 - 3.975 37.396 1.122 1.000 372 57.000 43.900 40.7.98 41.188 - 48.994 47.989 1.591 Sodhr va sr tops 70 29 5.800 110.405 $ 9.269 1 7.995 114.739 114.358 111.925 5.114 100 41 9.500 115S1 10.'14 9.'83 15.814 15.503 13.37.4 160 1.50 50 16.000 I3.SSn 12.411 10.661 17.427 15.504 15.ifln .236 200 70 =000 14.41n 15.268 13.520 - 20.516 19.930 354 250 110 25.500 19.390 17.251 15.51.9 - 12.574 21.988 .432 100 AT 16.000 23:09 22.569 20.823 - TT.816 7!.:31 654 Man was ee. Eaht a. • PJa4 Wbm mom tan me light Is armed on a polo. YI IIOU other drop we Mt will be billed on we Class C Me. Nat applicable to insts"Usne Mde print m September 11, 1975. Adlmtaaaus The above rates Include dluatmmm. u epeel5ed In Istria B. 0 and E of the Prellml=n State mmt, a fail..: por kwb mare cos Mlvammt _.__.._ ........._...._. . ...... ..................._ 3 OSxT Ruler FlnaocmR Adlaatmant._.._.._._._..-._ .. ... ........._......_........... ., .. ..,. AOOn2 Mme c Revenue Ad3uatment .- .............._.... ...... ........_.......... ... .. ..... .. .............. ,00000 Tara) .. _._...-... _._ .... ............. ......._... 1 05229 Pe Chmet For Class A and B pole Inatallatlpu aamg other tau wood 0olw tat were matsiled entmely a 11t111ty u9mae. scgsOmer will W a mnnlhly pole cage of Sg151 or 9160 ten mamllatlo0a made Prior in smmber 21. 375 (closed m new ttWL[t&U 0 ). For C, A ad B =N Irtaadatu vamg other then woad pole, when the dpaomer Carlo to per a Monjohin hle atno ®t put W the atlmalgd dNtlona coat at IOatsUatlm over that of bum installation, we cna m w1U DOF a m=thly pale chap of "ll: of 30.00 sot Ivtallatlme Made prior to 3m0mbe, S1. 1976. (Closed in 1Hw mmlLat=a) •Clad m new maulladtm u Of 3=e 1. 1971t aagma whsee UIBib a0d aulamer 91011 apr mef=T senor lamp lr/ a t t&Ued nods, Claga A no C m Murlde ompatlbWty with e9f,tho Hot moor (as9mled) Adcrw Lrrtr- : <n Imed by USte Piled Ndb. 16 1y54 Drrninn N.,, •202 . 0' �; W. H. GAII&V611 Effective ate• i 77= Vice- President -Rates end Valuation Remltlfion YO. ....n._.. �� _.. �_ m0ar,v 3ev; >• *.' ... ,::: Sgiledule No. LS -2 STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING APPVCatetlm This schedule 13 applicable to serrtce to lighting imsWUdopa wb!ch Muminato streets. b ghways. and ocher publlcUdedlcated outdoor ways and places where the cvato n, u0a11y owes the L'ghring scam--. poles and :nteraamecUng tirenita no ppatnmers facilities mue[ be of goad court ^sUpn acceptable M Ube Ct'.11t1 and In satisfactory condition to qualify for Clan B or C ntea TERRITORY The eutlre teMto" aened. RATES Rar. per limo par Maerh 4s.................. _ A B C CulltyeupDlies energy Ctility 3vppl:es the em Lttllty s pplles :he en- and.eaching•eerrlce eM, fwltchiug'. and era,•. swltching' sad only. maintenance eerice pialnrepance eerr ce !or for I.P. and pleer tattle 1711em Including wan. 'lamps and glassware ABeedC Hdf.He.r A;r Ydt AB.Yehe AB -Ygl a Ad {oso as V.mind Camp RadWt Average L., RwMVw T." w4m Mawh ta000 e lmndaasea Lamp 92 31 1.00 1 3.335 s x.399 f 5.03 9 153 199 85 9.500 8.889 9.181 9.194 .313 "95 101 4.000^• 10.'50 12.119 13.121 '9 105 139 8,000•'' 14.= 18.145 11 .148 271 520 211 10.000^ 22.559 24.111 35.115 1.020 Sa0 294 15.000^ 31.2'98 MOM - Mn C. Mowery Vpee Sap 1M 42 3,500 9 3.978 9 4.108 3 5.T31 1 4n 1;5 as T.SOO am '.108 9.111 390 290 17 11.000 9.134 mom 11.005 410 400 154 51.000 14.518 15.447 18.450 ,Ann 700 283 37.000 24.885 28.432 27.411 : 122 2000 372 57.000 38.041 35.90 37AAS U93 Hilt Prime Sodium V wer Low at 20 Vaiw to 29 5.9M f 2.07 9 3.394 1 097 t 1la ion 41 9.500 1.$38 4433 =1433 An 150 80 18,00 i.172 4.089 P. n72 .238 240 Veld 70 34 SAM 1 2.932 3 3.921 s 4.934 1 130 !on 49 9.500 4254 5.151 4,135 .193 150 70 15,011 4.084 4.981 7.981 275 2n0 9n 22.00 '787 4.730 9.734 3S4 250 110 25.500 9.510 10 452 11 454 432 ,in 134 37.000 11.540 1" 400 187 48.000 14421 ;5.385 1a; .14R 08 Caw Prsn Sedivm V.pee tap 35 n MDA 3 ".010 f 093 55 11 9,OOn 2.473 - - 1222 90 51 13.500 4.314 - - ,roes 135 Sn n.5m 41084 - - .Des ISO 17 33.000 7.530 - - .348 Mod H.BL Lope Ono 180 some 113,941 - - f 829 1.000 385 90,000 33.043 - - 1.502 •Bwlteeing S.M. to cloud to nn huta0ativna • tAtart pubaaeed htformatipa should M cvnan l Wl on beet ara0able It>mm •"9entew for taamdsseaat Iww oR 1500 I ®err w1O be dowel to none mouRs m after Sept ®Oer u, 1m cnlremaa3 .l�lvlar Lrrt,r S, 9pg.E I3med by Date Filedw.a;2_ 17- iQg7 Dnni.wn � � c ^_02093 W, M. Gallawen Effect," h I A ogi Tee.Plegident -Eateg Said Dalnatien Iteaolaldon 0-0. G iy I a fa a.c. ra asst _, �.r �i _ � /t.Car ,`�c•. nG ... n... i. 311[0,411 SZ•- :• <a /.'] -. ..... _! N0. .vl.L S[Ltd.le No. L5.3 i STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING ELECTROLIER METER RATE APP1-ICA1lJL TY Applicable to seMce to electmi!er lighting •vsE" , excluding !ne udeseent luminaires, whtch II'uminate etrwta. high "aye. and other pub!Ic!y ded!cated mddoor rv.It and p13[eI where the customer ,.tally ., D the Ilghtag dxturee, poles and :pterc ... act!.& clrl elm and the Ltlup fum!ahee energy at one or more unreal points TRVRrMRY The entire twntom eenad. RiATM P. Mm Pee Moorh Saran Charge .....___— .______...._.___... -- ..__.......___....,.....__.___ $3.00 Evar,r Chsrp fin addtt!00 to the Iefr!ee char") Alliwhr. Der Rnhr .. ............. .........._...........,,,........... ............................... ... .. 1133$ Sundries, 4lafgaa :•er soon drevlt s.ltebw_. 333 - w tghaf Sayadn Is closed to wee twalladoda Ail' I Adjos mevrn Y ••,tided In Pans B. 0 and R of the Prs11min,7 Statement will be adld to each bill for craw edculaed at Me above rat .., Including bill, for minimum charges as full...: par lead, E!noW Cwt AdluntmenL...__ - -_— 2 .05404 Solt/ 22nan[ing . ........ _._.._... 00002 Mactrin Rn... Adlwemene ._._._— ............. __ -------- — ___............_........... 00000 Soul 05409 speawl. COr2Omof S 1. Trw d gar.ivt nis achdols is •nnlfew. to vi lured lighting gar*t.s to which the Ctitlt) will dellvw enreent at arOnds" mitav and to pries strwl 111bNnr .Treel fnr wbleh the Vtllity "I fare ebtredratut enuredtaeslste tread.rntare.inera a,11 v 00,a1v0rel,il..b .11wst wills. ones'. elnfl4nhw. CDIYa a"n Is, a aired, earlre ntyeat .111 M dNlvev" st R A city -h , 41h f, trio of wrelc* harm cti edit within 111 Is, available In sainln area. nl t`a nntlnn of the taIlia abed rhea pea Of wnlea lr trrecthl. hem the below a engineering d"itd. atandpolnt. All cprtenfa.vd ruling staid herein vs baminal, aeatreat l ghts ill Lama p to not YO s it t will n0rt.a11f et nD011d Y msltlae .ntst.a Settee t ,wren t0 Mine sleds wltl ig on" Made one bea It Is penetttll frOID the CtflltYa sapvwrlvr rtandwlnt to nnpb teed tree axataf wades arst ®a •l. omega localities 40 "it the Ctlllt) atdpBw arrvlw harm IMROg coif. wysc.vvrt". Iwlryhu* IInY In Dew 021!0 nit nrylta L pains of Odiverrt IMlll sill M mad* feem the Ctnlge smiting eleoper Ito" wfthnvt extension !bereoe to edMot.w's sham at a mint or poled mutually •need upon morel Y pmefd" In Si ltl Condlllo. S. The Clllltr stn prvndo at Its eyw.r• so overhead on ntes dreg te • evarnmroand late, rodnactd exwn of lame head., • [en.wtd ln.d of not low tens 3 Ira Fn,` • [v*rnmerowdd IDs, wdnwtd men vet tome hsyld. A m.nerrd lead of •ws than 2 kw fl\ the Ctillte will •option a• naremer. lyerewd wrrif* des to the CtIIItYs nvrbeed Ile" sl 'he Istomer. omen.- rr (2) at the eoarnmve, aotimt. [he MlIft, w11 le mgYll, ewe and m timide rh. mnh..d eenln rp a tdad ro• rdrt.mr wave the Initial cwt of Me lervlre plus 1$ nrmnth of Itch Initial cast. When 440 nit tarylce Is dovind M the matnmer. •n*ra) will M s.nnlW front oenhwd fsMtlttse at 440 eelta gM91a-9haw for an Intaf- ewnsctd ,anon of even "redid" the total enwrtd lend of the taa2ennaYtd arvnn Of Isom t0 has in woeel 1s ant law than A It". 4't. a enYOt.r m Intwevaa*et" mint. M eY than 4 ker hat net Im thsa 2 Itw. eea*rff alld be annealing Y IM/240 wall dhins, the eastomr pm the A"Uonal odat at • ass volt npPq. lwattad"1 Advice Letter No. APO-E ia•n d h, 11Atn Filed n �••i =Inn• \'na '2'{pPi ?B..O ,k ? ?col W A r:. +llnnn FRrrtive Jan. 1. IQA2 C r..p••aidaaf —RAre9 revs Cnln•fi.n Re.nhitinn Vo. C ?gaup Gas and Zlecfda C.mpady San — nnascp. Cauiornim Ra''ed cal. B*_eet sd. i57 -.- Canceiing i'wvtacd Cai. Sheet So. A020 -E -E Schedule Yo. LS -3 STREET AND HIGHWAY LIGHTING ELECTROLIER METER fL1Tc (Continuo) -- 3. tiodweround Sarin Coea.crion ."Ile C[111tT Mll provide Its eSyPba ;rah .,the, Ire arerRM or •ibodel;caUnd Intro[ to codaec.d else:: olbn prortdM (1) me cnuomar has arnd ;ad ti of gold. at delireg. (:) Made are vat la chain 10 uactrollen Mail 1 1 'caused" Wed. T. oarrthe contention will got -sea bad of Me Ctmtrs pole In in overhead line nor exceed 40 fast of ferrite V arailaale in an aWdiround sm.= The Ut'Llitr will the free Iw;tn as [Ile ovicamers rpted In aeeordapee w1U' Spat When Me emtamer rapuem an oaden:oand I.M. to a el of ronteued IoW Me caught, shall Monail sad own the erne... bdtloa amam when sarrtn. rstat)y a'sua ul. and a�JR pal me batlon arrested. a Grdt Eoeh pelat d delivery to nt es¢.oiity circuit aopeealeq. The (ales run. be located d a faa.ne location. The at to deetro6m or 11 1 m Me Mill-W, d.al- rtatheGWlrysm . The eomeusd'wed dipole wdnp the e a stages "Ill p cased 1,111 be the 1,m of Mt r m at all Iedpe tbl" coal be dismissed ego one® pint ohs 1,suYl Ivan far the ....... counted W the helms onstele- )rwr. all latan and bdinta 1,W be eo u t1. =,a. or want riedat - r (w W ecWVels s, in ow Kral. by d retiup dstermmsd by e1,. f. Swlghiew SrAtahlut service will vat M prorid" W -e Ctlflty for Tteeas contacted after Sept—Iles, 11. am _ L SE - -- Th- MLweale deal IId eont=glY oulmta wlthln the mass so ahowe above. H,miwar, et the rgoeR of -e audo -a. the Utility 1,W review le-p ntd deafer tdt eonrinp, pilesLL led do other normal eralo- Indianian, ao a time and --'-rill opt beds provlded the npitr M"dud mdntaulese gWvm W ptwpdsr be used. and T. wt4' oche o eta mat materta harmonicas Ideal for watch W oteeee free I"M of 1 -e Is allowed ucdu to be data to dausmlpileS ma additional manly cbage will .smatter he rieduc mauve lenpb of aseeet trot tnotap allowance for the new load. :t our, &t comps orisai extension. ff an advance hot been made at provided &bore. and :f Undl oxcne free footap Liownnco mdmm after seta now loud is installed, all or parr nfu We wtthdur mcar.t in -e customer. ThM1 fdilnd& wilt he co -dated by of the saw... to an &mount her foot and multiplying the *yens free toa.xe by I cathode.:( our, Mll he made folfowln( me connNtion of -,am new Intact. If Tuft seMae of exnnelop. on any at which an advance 13 till nVMdoh.. refund/ due mtdo In mot v provided in Rule Yo. 13. No Present will be intae In excess of t maned. hl M ad• Advice Letter No. 5225 -E Issued b! Date illet9eht. 5 1 ? ?R Decision No. 49316 W. If, Ga x an Elective Set P , t 279 Vice• ?resident— [Rated „did Valuation Resolution No C r P. G. aed III.tvie Camnam Revieed Cal. P.C.C. Sheet No. 7583.E 9an Francisco, California Canceling Rseed Cal. P.L.C. Sheet NO. Sd,.dnle Na AA GRNMLAL SERVICE APPLICABILITY This schedule is applicable to single -phase or polyphase alternating car vat service, or to a combination thereef, netpt that this schedule is not applicable to service for which Schedule No. A,21.4-22 or A -23 :s applicable, nor to singlcphsse service for which a Lifeline Allowance is available. TERRITORY The entire territory served. GATES _ Po Meter Sog6ple.ea so k., Po Moot% .. Ctmeeose Chaga $1.75 Sena Chug. fin addition to the Custrmer Charge) : AR kwhr, per kwhr .03317 ATmimum Charge: , $1.75 per month, but not des than $130 per mouth per kva of connected welder load. Palyphan Senior The cingle-phase rate plus $1M per meter per month. Mienmene Chaser $3.00 per mauth, but not less than $1.50 per month per Ices of connected welder load and per hompower of polyphase connected load. Adjtu®oet Adjustments. as specified in Pans B. D and E of the Prelimdnary Statement. will be added to each bill for wrvia calculated at the above rates. including bills for minimum charges. as follows: per h6r Energy Cost Adjuatmest $ .05408 Solar Financng Adjustment M2 Electric Revenue Adjustment .... __..__._.__- _..._.... .00000 Total _ $ .05409 SPECIAL CONDMON For eustomen who an service for only part of the year, ibis eahednle is applicable only se annual contrseL Advice Letter No. 880.E Isened by Date Filed n,.o . ii . t QA Decisions Noe. 938897°3°3890 &93891 W. M. G"Tan Effective Ise. 1. LoA2 Vice.Presideat —Rata and Celualioo Revolution No. Pa iL c Gas end Electric Company �! San Francisco, California ReN ^md CaL P.L.C. Sheet No. 75c3 -E Canceling Reused Cal. P.II.C. Sheet No. 'h20 -E -c. S eslr le No. A.22 GENERAL SERN ICE— DEMAND MEMM APPLICADII. TY Thie sehWUls in applluLSit W li igle-phae Or NI"hasi elternating current arric.. or t0 it com- btueiloo thereof. extent W at thb schedule le not spplicabb to seen" fer which Schedule No. 1-21, A-22 or A -23 a applicable. TEARRORY The nrlre terrrftorY. saved. Adtice Lettcr No 490 -E Lgaed 67 Date Filed.rr +ogr D"I'l... So.. ?351T 91590 &.91F91 W. 11. Gallawan EBective law 1 . 109, Pce•Pteddent —Rats and Veldatldn Resolution so. lE RATES Per Men D...hd clients, Per Moeeth `•c: Z Flnt 10 ¢7r of maximum demand or lea._..___..._______ —.. __..... 19LOO _ —Nen 260 kw of maximum d�mad; .er uc ems Wr .w.: Lu cwt. E. Cb� Kw fr All kwhr. Der twbr ,0]10] •' +1.. +e M�v Adiewemi The ster. baw rasa an asblem m possible sdtuetIDwt for voltage aad /a Dower factor. In Wdltlon. bills for eertce will include adjustments, a ."atop" in Parts 8, D and E of the Preilminar l/ C, Statement a follows: S.rk.he P.nerp Cost eats_ 7 .06402 Solar lie ng nuA"U" Adjustment .00002 Eiasvlc der.vue edlatmept "" TOW —_�. t .OsWS SPECIAL Cara)MONS 1. Meows, Deed, The maamnm demand W e) mouth wed be the ms>amam avaraae power taken dorm] .V 16mmate Interest m the month, bet not lea then the We.n[nsd r.efasvee welder IoW ..Put" in .eardana with RWe N. L Howes. whims the rewW W maathly maximum demand has aeaE.d 100 kw for thew eosrentlre mantha sad th.ewlt.r oath It bas fallen below $00 kw for U mee.cnur. months, a 30,minaa inters! wW he easel. Its seems when We sae of ener0 Is Intermittent or so blect to violent ductuatloee, a S•mlon4 or a Mcalaote Internal their he misd. A thermal type of classed meter whlN ders ma resist attar a d.dWtei time Immigii mar be hoed. Z. OC•Pak DemaMl: AMY customer whoa billing demand use exceeded loo env for 3 coasecntire mantas and thertena ontll It ben fallen below 100 kw for 12 tnheentlw moetha mar, upon rie asst. for billing Durposaa and Meuse .,.Mtraet for saris for it Dated of S tars, bare demand. 1]eorW wbieh Oeoor basis... 10:30 P.N. and 6:30 AY. of %. fell. -O., der and on Sonde" and the following holies": New pears D.T. Washington's Dletbda2L Memorial Dar. Indented.. D y. lubOr Dq, Veterans' D.Y. Thaaheprl0g D.1 clad C3rlmma Dq, a Wd dew are epmsleW Its PvbileLw 90.2 {i IIIS.C./. Seetloe 210] 1. ( --Mod) Adtice Lettcr No 490 -E Lgaed 67 Date Filed.rr +ogr D"I'l... So.. ?351T 91590 &.91F91 W. 11. Gallawan EBective law 1 . 109, Pce•Pteddent —Rats and Veldatldn Resolution so. lE C Paedle Goes and Electric Company Sort Prameiam, California Rea:sed Cai. P: -.l' Sheet So. 1583 -E Canceurq Re,sed Cai. P...C. Sheet No, da06-E Schedule `70. A -12 GENERAL SERVICE — DEMAND METERED (r wd) ). Voltage Dlecounr. Ii When delivery at- ounder :s Made at :he lame yalmge v that of the :me from which, the surTlee is supplied, or 131 when aatIctent uProntr to not .•Wahl. In distribution faell- tieo erastin" In the au W supply th,• caWmera r.amnmenL..a6 Ne utility bas.lacted to supply arHce from . [ran ®lsdm au fm its opmtlaa Moroni". by msapo of Ctaltyow,ad trwi.em. on m. eomm�a proparl. a dlaaand a k% when such ddlrsq L mad. at u tit or show. Mud 3% when wN delrery, L mod, U f IT W 10 it,. Inetmra vela W Wawsd an th* alwv. ehaba or:,emg the mlNmum ^darn Provldod. hoerwTer, the Utility 1. not rsaalr*d :o supply service of .nos- staadar6 •Opals. Who. serTice is eaODad dlretly wtNmt erouaformatlon Iron a traaamfasion line of 60 k• or higher, a dire abere Of 5% wW ho slowed. The Utility retaiea the right W change Ito llas TOLL"* u any time, after reasonable olTence notice to ony Customer reWring a dl.rnmt henvm*r ad adeeLd by auN Namgs, and such monomer then bass the option to cdeags hL seem on u to recetTs NrTics at the now line entails or W rapt esnice ( wlNOat TalLgs Cl.ceam) through traafoemen W h* supplied by C[W rye a. Paws Fence: When the billing demand has exceeded 100 l for three c- oa,bt;,, months and IhenoR.r need It au Callon below 100 ki-w for [wall* ova 111- moatha bills vela bs edlaaedi for wsl" Ceei m.plhly srorap pass foanor a LOU..: The teal churl. (aeopt tae minimum charge) for any mamh Y eomOubw an the shore rota will a doersesed or falser, raprdir.b. by Oa% ten Ord 1% that the a,Tras power factor of cuotomee's loud N the month, era psaLr er 1. Nan 96%. earh .Wrap power factor to he computed (to the noel, whole per cant) from Nil ratio of lagging kilovolt tmp*ro boon to Wowat hours consumed la Ns month, Pounded. hawe•a, later m power factor carr.etlao will be mad. far soy month. when enseamer6IDaamvm demand era 1. them 10% of No Mahon[ such domed N the paeoding eier*v mmths. e, faae.cae: For curomen mho lee eernce for only part of the yen :pia rthed.lo a apilicable only on erindol [antrlet Adnce Letter \o. 98f1 -E Isved b9 Date Filed na,. ; ,,p1 Derlelona .. \OS. ?1Agi. ?90 S 3IQ91 W. H. Gallavan Effective : '�n Preridenc -Bata and Valuation Resolution Yo, tog�- Puc:dc Gas acd Electric Company Son Francisco. California APPLICABIIITY li6vued i'at, P.C.l. flu," So. 7613.E Canceling Rert.,ed Cal. P U.C. Sheet $o. ;L2 -E Schedule No. A -21 GENEPAL SERVICE —TINE METERED Thu rpbedol. is oRtii oat for polyphase general eenice costumers xith a peak demand below 500 kilowatts* and mapdamry for polyphase alternating currant service for all existing emtomers nerved under a noornmilentlei schdule whore monthly demand. In any time period was 500 klfowatts or greaser for three consecudve monhy, and to new eustoner3 on and after the effeetive due of this c iedule ,hose monthly mazlmum demand b expected to be 500 kllowatu or Beater. New customers may, at their option. elect to be starved under any other applicable schedule until their monthly manmum demand in any toms period la 500 Wowatu or Rester for three coosecu ve months. Any customer served •order this schdWe whose aggrepu dbentaed monlL.y manmum demand to any time period has fallen below 400 itlowatu for any 12 consecutive months may, at his option, therealter elect to con. :Inue to receive ee"tce under this schedule or under any other applicable schedule. This schedule b act applicable to service for which Schedule, Yoa A-.2 and A -23 are applicable. TERR3TORY The entire territory served. RATES Per 51sen Per Manes Posted A Pend it Games f3ae9r :_.__._.__......_.._.__.._ ..— .. 785.00 785.00 Demand Cheep. Per t lowat[ of usucmum isemsui 71.00 71.00 Beegy Dupe AB kwbr. per kwt r _ .... . 1 .03255 7 ,03255 Adj�mmmmmsxt The above bad nine an Aublect to "this tWoa ®at for aWtaee and /or power factor. In addition. bills for "nice wen Ioclde adjustments, as speemd m Puu B. D and E of the Preliminary Statement, as foll0 -a: t Per [orb 0. Partial Off PeriedA Peak Peak Peat: Enaray Cost Adjustment ___ .._. 7 .08157 7,04829 7 .04114 Solar Plummeting Adjusmnt .00002 .000(12 .00003 U.tyle Revenue AdlaAtmen[.. .00Dd .00000 .00000 Tow ... _ ..... __ -- -_-- - -- ' —'---. i Dl159 7 .04231 1 .04116 Pabd a Energy Cost Aym[ment...._._.._.__. __..._.... 7 967;0 s,05145 7.04873 Soul 59nanctng Adjustment ____ ,00002 .00002 .00002 Electric Revenue Adlust went._._ ....... — .004o) 000W 00000 Tutu _.__... ._. ------- _._— __.____......._.. t 08772 7 0614- i .04875 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. rose P Pained A la allDncablo to maw fOadInP fresh May 7 m Se9t ®per 30, mclOSbe, for the following hours: On Peak 12:30 pA. m 8:30 Vm Mondny through Friday. except holidays. PanLl Peak 8:30 am in 12:30 "a Monday through Friday, except holidays. 8:30 rim- to 10:10 p.m. 8:30 am. m 10:30 posh. Satmdy. except holldan. 02 Peak to: 30 I.M. in 8:30 am Monday through Saisrdar. =*M holidays. All day Sunday and hodaya Paid B Is SPNIC1114 to meter readhlga from OcteMr I m Apra 30, inclusive, for the fo0awnig holm: On Peak 4:30 pan to 8:30 Pun. Monday thrspp Friday, except he days, Partial Peak 8:30 am m 4:30 pm Monday through Friday, M"t ho= 8:30 pm to 10:30 Vm 8:30 am to 10:30 M Saturday, euept holiaya. Off Peak 10:34 P.m, te 8:30 am Menday through 8613131157, M"t houaya All day Sunday and beBdaw When billing Includes amp In both Period A and Pwlod R no pnntlos of chartea between Period A lid PMd B Will be made -Ilan meth r"dtsp Are takan within ow work ay fManday through PlYay theluslye but aNa(tleg hebdaye) of tllhW May 1 w October 1 of say year. in such oasen the billing , i rsdumtnaht number of aT m tho MWeenrt"bl R Peeled A w Period & wktc0eyw cpptajsa -After lady 1. 1981 (Cautioned) A(LVI. C Leger T0. "1.14 Imed by Date Filed EsA. it 10A7 U,Mrvion Yo. 3202098 W. X. (iWayan EHective�9g� Vice- President —Ratn and Valuation Rmintioa.Yo. Paeifle (far and Electrie Company San Franci3m, California Revised Cal. P, C.C. Sheet No. 7590.E Canceiiag fte:aed Cal. P.C.C. Sheet No- 7525•E Sr3.drd, No- A.22 GENERAL SERVICF—TIME METERED Tate eenad We Is Appneab 4 W Minbaae alternating current ervice far W exlstlna tear under a nonresidential adbedme "base mombll dereaad. In avY tires Period was :000 for haae m..W, maalmOm demand Ia ameeted W be 1.000 k l nlatb or roster. Ni mar. at mall aPum glee[ m Ve a . VW14 am VWY emend is any time "fled 1s 1.000 kilowatts or (rester for [tree eedaepntive month. "Y =90112: caned under tbla wtodme wbose aggopo dlveralfled me,Wy maximum demand m Puy time Parted tea fawn oelow 200 kIIewatts for any 12 faasemitive moetba mar• a hla OP"Ou. thereafter elect to e - tmde to receive »trice under th a aenedule or under soy otter IVVUubbe erbedule. Thla reh"Ids la we applicable to seMos for whleb Schedule No, A -23 O sPPRCaole. TERRITORY The Wil. terrltn" easel RATES Per Mare Par %tooth Pr A Pw.da Cum 2550.00 030.00 SOU Pe kilowatt of Yezlmum Deuunl....__.___— _._.....— 12.50 t0. In Plus Partial ?OIL w kilowatt at Yailmare Derean -- 0.30 0.25 gs�Pllus Off-?"k. we kilowat at Naalmnm D emend _._..._... ..... _ ............... No Charge No Chop yt per kwhe_ —_, a .05184 i .on" A/ n. and es» nos ep mbfeee m vowSYe sdldetment for valnp and /or 90wv hetm. Is addition. bills fee service wtR Include adJusimeam u epeeleM m Paav R. D and E of the PollminwT SWMML " foBOwe: P A En.rp Corr Adiwtmwt Solar Finaecing AdSdrtment . Vactrie Reranw A43prtmant Total.. Period B Enemy Cat Adjustment —_ Solar Finweing Adjwtmeat Etptrlc Rpeao.Adjwtmanl TOW,- :'Gov" 2 05455 2,05215 .00002 00002 .0000! noon ,DOW moon i ,jWI 2 05460 S AS220 9BCAL OONDITWNS t. Tor Pat . Pend A la 001146111e to meter resdmp from X" 2 to Seplamba 20, IWPSIM for eta feBOwing hoar: On Pak U! 20 Rm to 6:30 pm Mooday thraorh "der. omens hobdaya P Jml Peek 9:30 am m 12:20 ore Mornay lbrough Pro"T. except holidays. 1:2o pm to 10:30 Pm 1:30 am to 10:20 Pm Saturday. taxonat helld cm sea Peak 10:20 D to a:30 em, Mond" tkroogh Saimaa]. aMt handtya All dq Ssnday end bolidaym Paid S la aplinsWla m maw rewlnp from October 1 to Am 20, Indoxive, for the following hours: On Peak 4:300 to 8:20 P.m Moodar though FYIda1. axeept holld.ya PatW Peek 2:30 am to 4:20 ore Monday throsah y\1M1. except holldILM 9:20 P.m m 30:30 Pm 9:20 am to to: so pm s.tarday. app[ hands OS Peak 0 3 W 8: uboBdgr. Yondaythroo,0 Satae"T accW ho iday AB w Wbm billing IWdda asap m both ?Mod A and Period B. no Ord imaot of otarRSa betwwn Period A ad PMd B will M retie when meter radian an fates eflthla acs wdrk dq (Yaadq thrgrll bjMg Ice U M b but o made r, and l tr elmee 343 1 Pr riod A l Pf !fly 3, w ic rank Vass m file pr wla b• %saw b Ws relic cad ebarra of elNer Period ♦ or Period 8, whmhper contalta w prdomla.at number of dm m the bwma pMOa. (fbWOaedl Adnee Letter N0. 8,90- E Inued by Date Filecin.,. at_ tons Decisions Noe 91a rA90 W. U. Ganayan Wood a yew r e 1091 Vice- President —Rate. sad Valuation Rewintion No. a Pal [why O. Purdy OS pdr Peak Peak 2 .0!150 2 .05452 a .00" .00002 ,00002 ,00002 ,00000 .00000 .00000 2.06152 6.05484 2.0506] :'Gov" 2 05455 2,05215 .00002 00002 .0000! noon ,DOW moon i ,jWI 2 05460 S AS220 9BCAL OONDITWNS t. Tor Pat . Pend A la 001146111e to meter resdmp from X" 2 to Seplamba 20, IWPSIM for eta feBOwing hoar: On Pak U! 20 Rm to 6:30 pm Mooday thraorh "der. omens hobdaya P Jml Peek 9:30 am m 12:20 ore Mornay lbrough Pro"T. except holidays. 1:2o pm to 10:30 Pm 1:30 am to 10:20 Pm Saturday. taxonat helld cm sea Peak 10:20 D to a:30 em, Mond" tkroogh Saimaa]. aMt handtya All dq Ssnday end bolidaym Paid S la aplinsWla m maw rewlnp from October 1 to Am 20, Indoxive, for the following hours: On Peak 4:300 to 8:20 P.m Moodar though FYIda1. axeept holld.ya PatW Peek 2:30 am to 4:20 ore Monday throsah y\1M1. except holldILM 9:20 P.m m 30:30 Pm 9:20 am to to: so pm s.tarday. app[ hands OS Peak 0 3 W 8: uboBdgr. Yondaythroo,0 Satae"T accW ho iday AB w Wbm billing IWdda asap m both ?Mod A and Period B. no Ord imaot of otarRSa betwwn Period A ad PMd B will M retie when meter radian an fates eflthla acs wdrk dq (Yaadq thrgrll bjMg Ice U M b but o made r, and l tr elmee 343 1 Pr riod A l Pf !fly 3, w ic rank Vass m file pr wla b• %saw b Ws relic cad ebarra of elNer Period ♦ or Period 8, whmhper contalta w prdomla.at number of dm m the bwma pMOa. (fbWOaedl Adnee Letter N0. 8,90- E Inued by Date Filecin.,. at_ tons Decisions Noe 91a rA90 W. U. Ganayan Wood a yew r e 1091 Vice- President —Rate. sad Valuation Rewintion No. .°acnic Gas and E:ectr:c Company Sea Francisco, Caii_`ornta Rer'sud Cal. ? GC. Sheet So. - C5'_' -E Sheet No. 7134-E Schedule Na. A-22 GENERAL SERVICE —TIME METERED (Continued) 2 Hobson; T he halldaye apac!ded M his &IvOtle include; YewYear I Day. Waehtngmn's Birthday. 1lemor:W Jay, ladepevdence Day.:.abor Dav .eteram Dav, via ; :rmg Day. and Cbnstmh Day, as said days are specified to Public Law 90363 'C. S.Cd Section 51031. 3. Naumum Cemand: Tie ma.:mum iemavd in any month Gr sac= :.me pcl 'v il; be be mca:muvt average power take. farces any -6 -luale :.tonal in the month, Svt not :em Ian its diverarded resistance welder load computed in accordance rich Rule Se, a; ,^rc\::led. :tat :a loan .Sere :be a.e of -oev -d :I :nterauteot ar sn'mert W "Ohms it amnctlans. xitber :.. mt..a :e a :5.m:nu[e :ctcr :al may eG geed. a. Voltage Adlmtmehr. Th- halt :ar3es - 'a :. :G s thou::. _ _ _ 'nitane ar 'leli9ery:a made at :G]Y:h..d•GwOare bl '\'aeC .:a:: \'a :;';I n.adv ;r ::aaa`: - rmera a[ : djs1rtbu1!.. rainier .thee :ball a i[and]:l i :n.a.., : : :[��' i :9 '..::':'lt::. ":.i ! ilea 'G wade at a raaage -bat r ,--d. more :hag .tae s:a;e of :; a;.- ;e Na . �. s mace a :be sendard p: m ::e'::SC::v:. T. : ] __• ea � :a tale e a;te Na from e:be Ut:lltya dia[r:bulmn :me. �sr where :: U Jtc :•ay.a - :ecru^ cc,'piy' n - ".rs az a smadard Dr!mnN diatr:buthn'- itaci!ram a :rams: -line :_c. L,r :IS c;c :a : :u� 'ea :xncc.: :tam v.nwned ^arsfaraers a. the caiinden Ira, -Ity, eG a:.Sm charges far —y me nCs �\)ii' a reluaed by it . -at kw of amat"m o.'ptak demand :a :he main- p..,e.n ldi. \'erV is mode !tom on x(:9:1':4 a\':.'.1cu— is lalmle :.n live 60 kv and above) :" Ithent :'::litym•v aid !rnnsfcraa[;on. ;he c.,ov,. charges for arty moo Cn will be toduced by :5e per 'sw of mavdmum on•peak demand in the mm - Where additional amlluel are InsWled. at cnromer s request or co.n'l -o", such facrntes mat no insisted parspa -t to Section 1 at Mecufc RWe Yo. 2 t. Pour Pacts: The total char" for any mouth as computed an the above rates will be decreased or interval nsoaotiveli. by 0.1 ry for each 1^, that he avenge Power mamt t cm ::mgr a lard :a the month was greater or Ina than SFc, such avera;i power tartar ;o be aom -v[ed ,o the nearest "Poore per m cent) no the ratio of 1"039 lul.rnit ampere boon to IC:owoct Coon co.adwed ;r the mouth. it Vdmp: service ah lue schMnle will be a -ppiln It the roltant as d earthed 'a M ettto RWe t C reovev .g — em: ,.o. {ha[ my co a Undert where the ntlmated n[ata]l fe "lar anw1c. la :a ea... revenue eacludn (a) Nat p the net -honey, cost adinter ,barge of Iva percent of such eecen nstaUatlon cost to u Installation cost When the facilities due. not nare N( eusmmer shall pay the C[IIII ,bat :f eleetnc s<MCe from s I lye months. the eustnmer'9 :. erceae .( the tot 12 ono C tlllty's net installation and of use. Any customer advent Wwa,d the new inelall.d.. which are In addition to, or above than for revular seer \sw� stonier shall pay any non :efnndable cha.-ees erl a, tor. any ohlirevons I Utility', applicable [in. eatenmon of nrvse r Ibolr :;on trues. In audit! --. I cost at only those aew and additional facl,JL'ea it mvary in provide the, base amuel.tevenue to M tattled under his sebedule beast abi l Rlon of the revenue Meal to the protuct at the luhowatt hour uea ;e itmm nt and rb) any appilcame state and !Mal teats). an additional monthly ,ices lietW anon cast will he made. if Ne cnitomer elect- to .:d ^once +uch t Utility, the additional monthly charge ^II he 1 permut at Inch excess Itllltyb ea,ni Installed coot of the new and adr'.ttl ... I treater service base aonuai ravenne, upon dh.canunuance of 'he ',at of weir rr:IL:e, the on demand. its net installation and removal coat tar ouch teaditrea except ch (.,:lines hew been Ito la a bang fide, mr.v.^.er ter a period of 36 c -nsim d ncton will be retlucr at ch. veto of :$ pe:'cevt for 'all month of aervtce the. The customer ehail pay t. a CUl:ty. or. team). : :at portion of the :moral coat to ekes, of the the anmm: r,, oi,ta regard o dcr c!aa for eaceea insmllatian costs of such (aail:ues shall he applied as a credit ad removal costa. Further. where the customer rernteas spe,.ml (oa:lit!es o substitution for, or otherwise cause the Utility ti Incur add!ttona: costs e tac titles which the Utility would normally Inc -ran. and the r:li:[y deter. Ile Inch speol facilities, such faculties 'rill be provided in at- ordance 9. Comeno : Electric service sapplied under this schedule shall be in accordince with a -..tract aothorizM by the Public Ctllltles Commiaston of the State If CallforWa Such : antrnat will Ye required for a period of three yeah when service is tot rendered hereunder and ;ar eubaequent periods of one year each Nereatter, continuing 'until canceled dy either party by written notice one year in advance of 'Le initial term or any su6stmuent term. Customers of record on October 10. 1319. served under noting contracts will continue to be servo under such contracts except that tolumne the espiril of the .Mal term Inch contracts will continue In effect for Iu n ii,...t terms or one year each erotic canceled by either Duty by written notice one year in advance of the Initial term at any subanuent o.eyev term. If the applicant la umvnilug or unable to shin a contract for an mlta threeyear term, service will be ntabllahed under the fievislons of RWe Yo. 13. Temporary Serrl .e. p. Vla(ral Dipole, 14mrsng: Upon written regent by [he curt. her. the Utility will, within 180 days. provide and metall ritual display egWpment over tbs prevent me or location in operate In parallel with the nihilistic tape recorder used for billing purpnea. The custom rt shall provide W required space and associated wlrlal for such Installation in accordance with Rule ':o. SR Ady!ce Letter'No. -48E Issued by Date Filed ?ebraarr 5, 539': Decision No. W. A. Gailaran Effective uar.w ;o_gI Plce- President —Rates and "valuation Resolution Su, C 2ac3c Gas and E . C>mT a San Francisco, Caiiioroia $.seer, i' : n r',i', jhe =• So. 7fi"c.E I d:ICN iCII :lh�:5t'll �''i, l�.'. -.i J�I +Pt \o. �J�1•E Schedule No. A•23 GENERAL SERAICE —TIME METERED APPUC,kJI XrY This schedule is appucaala to pclnhae alternating current games for all existing cuetomere Stewed ender a nonresidential schedule whose wont tl) maximum demand. in any 'lase period was 4.000 IdW watts or greater for three cyaemtive months, and to new cwshimen on and after the effective date of tens schedule chose monthly maximum demand is expected to he 4.000 kilowatts or grater. Yew cot tomes ry may, at their option, elect to he seed ender one _suer appllcahle schedule until their monthly maximum demand in say time period is 1.000 kilowntia or greater for three consecutlwe months. day :uetomer served inner this schedule whose aggregate diversified monthly maylmum demand in ahy time period has :alien below MOO kllowetts for =7 12 consetcall. months may, rt his option, thereafter .lest to continue to receive service under this schedule or radar any other subldeble aehsdnls. TERRITORY The entire territory as,". RATES Per Maas Per Moth Period AA Periid SH away Choose:— SS50,00 35501" Oao!O I .. Onsear per kilowatt I Maximum ax imud�— —_ $2.50 30.'5 Pie, OCIP Pear per YROwatt o[ Yammnm Demand.. Charge 0.25 Ply OQ.PpIt per tllawatt at M.am® Demand_ NO Charge No Charge Bow, suer et All kwy. per kwbr ._ ....... ._ ..... .,_.— .. .._— _..._..._.._......_...._... S .07731 S .07734 Adlabrs The above base rates saw subject to possible adjustment for voltage and/or power factor. In additiem. bills for seretee will Include ad2astmenta u specified m Parts H, D and R of the Preliminary Statement as tellewa: Peaisd A awra Con latostment Sour naenellag 1dlnnmonl .. Meetrlc Reasons Adjustment Totgl.............._._..._�..�_ Peeiad a RneW Ca Adjustment ........ solar Fines g 1dlnstment . Martin Rwape Adjustment Toted . ._.___ 3 06;99 8 Osr9 S .050" 0007 0W07 .0002 .000" 0000 000" 9 05801 5 J52AI 9 .060" SPgQAL CONDrr=NS 1. liner Perieeao Period A Is appoleabN to mater militia team May, 1 W Soul ulaw 30. Incluna. for the following home: On Peak 13: s0 p be 7:30 Dm Mada7 through Friday. except ho0daye. Partial Peak 3:30 am to 13;30 law Monday tbnagb Friday, except halldays. 8:30 la . W 10:301im 6:30 s.m, to 10:30 pm Saturday, except ho0dafa. or Peat 110130 atlato S13+00d�hendaya Monday through Saturday, accept holidays. Period H Is •lpnnble W merw loadings from OOmNr 1 to 1/N 30. Intensive, fee ilia following haws: On Pak 4:30 p.m- be 1:30 p m. Monday t1R'aa► Friday, ascept S.11da)a. Par" Perk 9:31 am, m 6:30 pm Monday '4rado l War. aIDept hendsm 8:30 fl • to 10:30 pm I:SO es to 10:36 iim Snmie7. except hollds". Olt Pak 11H day�to3:30 si 11011417L Monda7tnswgsilaturday. ansa0l ImUdays. finally When billing incladea wage, Ik With Paled A and Paled H, no mantim, of charges beeww0 Paned ♦ inn Perlad B was be, made when molar naNgp se, tabee +cltf W see work daT fYanN7 thev6gR P"day IvalOSlvs bell MUUding Will")hooff{Other May I be Oboba 1 of My year. in aWb ew Me, the pndow4=M amate, of days m the 0111ft yalod: Pwbd 1 w Paled H, wyohmr cenrame (Csgmnsdl .ldvise Letter No. 498 -E Inued by Dse Piled Feb. 17, 1982 Decision No. +20269:/ W. 3i. G&Uawm Edeebwe �Ta — Vice- President. -Rues and Valuation Resolution No. �� f Pee [why 0e Pvdrl 00 Peak �9953 peak Peak 8 O 05e304 048e6 4 WN2 .0003 ('40,14 _ .00000 .00000 . "000 88 05366266 5 053M S 04SIS 3 06;99 8 Osr9 S .050" 0007 0W07 .0002 .000" 0000 000" 9 05801 5 J52AI 9 .060" SPgQAL CONDrr=NS 1. liner Perieeao Period A Is appoleabN to mater militia team May, 1 W Soul ulaw 30. Incluna. for the following home: On Peak 13: s0 p be 7:30 Dm Mada7 through Friday. except ho0daye. Partial Peak 3:30 am to 13;30 law Monday tbnagb Friday, except halldays. 8:30 la . W 10:301im 6:30 s.m, to 10:30 pm Saturday, except ho0dafa. or Peat 110130 atlato S13+00d�hendaya Monday through Saturday, accept holidays. Period H Is •lpnnble W merw loadings from OOmNr 1 to 1/N 30. Intensive, fee ilia following haws: On Pak 4:30 p.m- be 1:30 p m. Monday t1R'aa► Friday, ascept S.11da)a. Par" Perk 9:31 am, m 6:30 pm Monday '4rado l War. aIDept hendsm 8:30 fl • to 10:30 pm I:SO es to 10:36 iim Snmie7. except hollds". Olt Pak 11H day�to3:30 si 11011417L Monda7tnswgsilaturday. ansa0l ImUdays. finally When billing incladea wage, Ik With Paled A and Paled H, no mantim, of charges beeww0 Paned ♦ inn Perlad B was be, made when molar naNgp se, tabee +cltf W see work daT fYanN7 thev6gR P"day IvalOSlvs bell MUUding Will")hooff{Other May I be Oboba 1 of My year. in aWb ew Me, the pndow4=M amate, of days m the 0111ft yalod: Pwbd 1 w Paled H, wyohmr cenrame (Csgmnsdl .ldvise Letter No. 498 -E Inued by Dse Piled Feb. 17, 1982 Decision No. +20269:/ W. 3i. G&Uawm Edeebwe �Ta — Vice- President. -Rues and Valuation Resolution No. �� Ci r nac:nc �3u and ...Inc '7Omran< S. - ^anr:aCe ?cai::ornig N, c ., �... ... . o.. -..... i, .. i` L:. act SJ. m'., - -y Sc6dule No. TC-I TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE ApmlI llnzry ADVllcahla to matered aereea for traffic dlraaslomd sign ar IM.1 lighting srateme owned by toed- matal agann'es and located On strae4 hicheaT and attar pvbllcV -0edlea[ed outdoor ware and place TERRITORY The enterot territory soared. RATES Ps Motes 0.e Moen S.r ow muss: Fm each Sarah C.anntd.o .. ..... . .. ... ....... ...... . ..... _...._......._.._ II'6 Remy t ores (I. a4di"wo to the Serrles Charm I All Icwhr. per 'rnhr..._._..,... __.,_.___ - -_ '4311 W. mere: 1175 per month. miuesor Adntstmenta. as rnmined 'n Porto H. D and E of the Prelimmarw Statement, will be added to each hill for serrfce calmWted at the shave rates. 'acluding hills for mlmmnm charges. as follows: W Ia.M Room Cost Adlvtmont__._ __._. a 1504 Soler Finenrfna Ad' us tment_.__...._....__ ..... . .. ........... ........... _.. .......... _._..__.— ......_ .00002 Electric Revenue Adjustment ....................... ........................ ............................... 00000 Tom] ____.._._......._.___...__—._.___ ........ .____ ............................ __ ... — _ ........ _ )5408 1. TM of So rs.r stomas win nlnmally he sntml/M et I2n124n rolt rinelo-nInew aervira !120nn1 volt. a or 1. iereom loralRl +l .ntvrs the Imamerr nary III. Mdnbm.l InICn root M h 410 snit emmlr. Reservoir. sin n1n hem 110 volt snorers tom andvermnnd .rnem. will •o made o"IIIIIie nnir fm osw asrlea eomemfeas at the ovum or the 17t311t1 eras thin tray of volts Is twertlnal from 1Rfllt" anR1- oosnng stgndpolal L Pofes d cle, .., nottemre wn Igo m.m. loom rlrnrrra faeem ♦.1M 1 lmrs .r . I,mnr wersem sersad .errs, with., artser" thereof In rfutnmer. 1enem ..chars ar i mrlAU: In 9tleeln 1,toll oe a a. S.rrite Cnlnlatrlan: The rtintr wilt nmride It Its +anon.+ en arntead dron to the .oname, awned ayoenm- hoofteer when. the rnetomer roomere an noderreound !mice the rnetamer ordl Install and nor, the ertensfon from his sretem In the UUTTWr ne ow%t 'mrot!" box or to the home of the role when relere b resdlIT seenaMe and will her ,he met at toaineetinet In the UUIIWs distribution system, eoludi.g any nenaesq condult or mast maternal- e. vswene, Fieb twist or ardoorr will he moored said hlnea aegrstalT. The motor wip b a a astable I~M slrsehls to the mum. f. S 0 Al red Moieresous, Switching and walntem." will he ayrtarinod for the nnRamor d. Lino, Errrwslower, Whn...hn the date We nrrrrrslen If drys elrwltly. In. Llrnlh ertmd. Ir. ~yin 'Tors lorowhvd air nndaarnnnAI In ono, nemm.ra rreesm. as mddlllnnsl mnothle celtoo of to,{ o, nt Ito tllRlrvo.'"restM'thrilled nay of aM vrr.nenn, "'Mown of mere• amle. eonnwelom and "no. fnrmn If rwlnlrwm, bmlehM end, Sl .l root Altlnn. 1. 2 .nA 1 will or m.d. it mrh ertrtolme v. "Railed mean Io the let. thin nI 1 .1.11..1yerilse •h..AdltOm.l mnnfhn Marc will l m IQ a, eIf mrh von. it nemmev sloes ,o .Ayers rtlror•s ..tlmuM Inea11M rnoI of mrh on.n den ,h..AMtlnnel monthly rh.m will be Iwo at mch lost The rulln or walre the fonamg omelefons whin the enen. Nay Is atlmnM to he M nmmlest yews sod where nor mew. the. .In, tmle old one man of 1". 1. raralrM It e.eh amen. ay sm rvntlon thereof Is nr111aed In . , new aensr i rare" M oiemsmnr lord for which .n enema foe lannh M lln. Is allnseem nndn Role oar. is. mrh von In ho need In deirnfnln, the sold114m.1 1,IMM, rhorre .In thrr eaftn Io rMneerl In .rrmnrtloo to she nlatlr. Bonn of .w.I. hors tomes allrrwenw fen tea no lmld. If ar, as Hared 10 'be lonnh of the orinn.l vnenmfon Tf so adroo— he. 'wen wed... newalAM !here. and If Tmmor moth Role of . 11 on !yl h Innteo. an owa es rfm.lm: A" rid Are, leed to I.otfiRld. sot or ten of the stheories win he r. 0 oed with.., Interest to ,be reverser Tnese rolnede will M rem.ated he M.reaehlg the ..Met of III. edranly rot on inown, -se foot and rnnitmlwinit In. foresee free fmtnsw it IM nnir her foe. III rsAnm.. If any, win he memo, fellrrw. Ins the menaeeln. M neb nww lead. If sash aahWi 1. feat of ...rev of Minnnnn. me all M .111111 on Inh stre It nln refendaMS. m'.hmdt dno frmn ..w lain win he msde I. torn v nrelrldod In Rule Yo. 15 Re oermet will t• mod. to stases at t>tianrlw mmm odveseseL i...... C.. c;O.F T9.n.d hr n"o Frled DCt:• 31. :081 nom �nre \s 01a�7 �9 alp inncnt W Sf ':dlldvnn Fpnr•iv. la_n. 1, i�cn 4�re- Prvdd.nr —Rain and CaIIIArine Rn.nlr2lon \1